Evaluating a team-based approach to research capacity building using a matched-pairs study design

48Citations
Citations of this article
75Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: There is a continuing need for research capacity building initiatives for primary health care professionals. Historically strategies have focused on interventions aimed at individuals but more recently theoretical frameworks have proposed team-based approaches. Few studies have evaluated these new approaches. This study aims to evaluate a team-based approach to research capacity building (RCB) in primary health using a validated quantitative measure of research capacity in individual, team and organisation domains. Methods. A non-randomised matched-pairs trial design was used to evaluate the impact of a multi-strategy research capacity building intervention. Four intervention teams recruited from one health service district were compared with four control teams from outside the district, matched on service role and approximate size. All were multi-disciplinary allied health teams with a primary health care role. Random-effects mixed models, adjusting for the potential clustering effect of teams, were used to determine the significance of changes in mean scores from pre- to post-intervention. Comparisons of intervention versus control groups were made for each of the three domains: individual, team and organisation. The Individual Domain measures the research skills of the individual, whereas Team and Organisation Domains measure the team/organisation's capacity to support and foster research, including research culture. Results: In all three domains (individual, team and organisation) there were no occasions where improvements were significantly greater for the control group (comprising the four control teams, n = 32) compared to the intervention group (comprising the four intervention teams, n = 37) either in total domain score or domain item scores. However, the intervention group had a significantly greater improvement in adjusted scores for the Individual Domain total score and for six of the fifteen Individual Domain items, and to a lesser extent with Team and Organisation Domains (two items in the Team and one in the Organisation domains). Conclusions: A team-based approach to RCB resulted in considerable improvements in research skills held by individuals for the intervention group compared to controls; and some improvements in the team and organisation's capacity to support research. More strategies targeted at team and organisation research-related policies and procedures may have resulted in increased improvements in these domains. © 2012 Holden et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

References Powered by Scopus

A framework to evaluate research capacity building in health care

263Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Organizational process: A missing link between research and practice

162Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Motivators, enablers, and barriers to building allied health research capacity

160Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Research capacity building frameworks for allied health professionals - A systematic review

98Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

A thematic analysis of the role of the organisation in building allied health research capacity: A senior managers perspective

72Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Research culture in allied health: A systematic review

69Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Holden, L., Pager, S., Golenko, X., Ware, R. S., & Weare, R. (2012). Evaluating a team-based approach to research capacity building using a matched-pairs study design. BMC Family Practice. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-13-16

Readers over time

‘12‘13‘14‘15‘16‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24‘25036912

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 34

71%

Researcher 7

15%

Professor / Associate Prof. 6

13%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

2%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Social Sciences 13

36%

Medicine and Dentistry 9

25%

Nursing and Health Professions 8

22%

Business, Management and Accounting 6

17%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0