An observational cohort study to determine the impact of research capacity building strategies implemented in an Australian metropolitan hospital occupational therapy department

Kristie J Harper; Susan L Taylor; Madelynn Jepiuh; Pamela Mino; Alice Huynh Tran; Wai Yin Tam; Courtenay Harris

doi:10.1111/1440-1630.12782

An observational cohort study to determine the impact of research capacity building strategies implemented in an Australian metropolitan hospital occupational therapy department

Aust Occup Ther J. 2022 Apr;69(2):190-204. doi: 10.1111/1440-1630.12782. Epub 2021 Dec 23.

Authors

Kristie J Harper^{1

2}, Susan L Taylor³, Madelynn Jepiuh², Pamela Mino², Alice Huynh Tran², Wai Yin Tam², Courtenay Harris²

Affiliations

¹ Occupational Therapy Department, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia.
² School of Allied Health, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
³ Occupational Therapy, Perth Children's Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.

PMID: 34951032
DOI: 10.1111/1440-1630.12782

Abstract

Introduction: Research capacity building enhances the abilities of individuals and is critical within health systems for quality patient care and promotes a culture of excellence within the occupational therapy profession. A research capacity building toolkit was proposed identifying strategies to support allied health professionals to undertake research. This study evaluated participant-reported outcomes of research capacity building toolkit implementation in an occupational therapy department.

Methods: An observational pre-post-cohort study at a tertiary hospital with volunteer occupational therapists using the standardised Research Capacity in Context Tool (RCCT) and an author-designed quality improvement (QI) survey was employed. The RCCT measures research capacity and culture at organisation, team and individual levels. Semi-structured interviews were used to elicit reflections regarding participant experience.

Results: All levels of the toolkit were implemented successfully. The response rate was 59% (n = 36) at baseline and 49.1% (n = 26) at follow-up. Eighty-five percent of participants held direct clinical roles. Nine clinicians participated in the interviews. There were significant improvements in the estimate mean for the organisation (6.51 [2019] compared with 8.13 [2020], p = <0.001) and the team (5.52 [2019] compared with 7.15 [2020], p = 0.001). The individual level did not significantly change with an estimate mean of 4.20 in 2019 increasing slightly to 4.84 in 2020 (p = 0.128). This was supported by the QI survey where improvements were noted in the department but not at an individual level. The qualitative findings verified the components of the toolkit including 'supporting clinicians in research', 'working together', 'valuing research for excellence' and reflected the importance of 'individual attributes'.

Conclusion: The toolkit supported the implementation of specific strategies to enhance research capacity and culture. Improvements within the organisation and team were evident; however, these were not seen at an individual level. Further research about the contribution of individual-related factors and processes to the building of research capacity is required.

Keywords: capacity building; occupational therapy; quality improvement; research capacity and culture.

Publication types

Observational Study

MeSH terms

Australia
Capacity Building*
Cohort Studies
Humans
Occupational Therapy Department, Hospital
Occupational Therapy*