An evaluation of the 'Designated Research Team' approach to building research capacity in primary care
An evaluation of the 'Designated Research Team' approach to building research capacity in primary care
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1471-2296-9-37
复制
发表时间：
2008-06-27
影响因子：
2.9
通讯作者：
Williams, Martin
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cooke, Jo;Nancarrow, Susan;Williams, Martin
背景：这篇论文描述了一个倡议的评估，以增加在初级和社区护理设置在英国的一个地区临床组的研究能力。“指定研究小组”（DRT）方法使用了从研究能力建设（RCB）六项原则框架中得出的指标进行了评估，这些原则包括：培养技能和信心、与实践的相关性、传播、联系和合作、可持续性和基础设施发展。方法：整理特伦特研究发展支持单位（RDSU）作为DRTs支持的6个临床研究小组的背景、活动、经验、产出和影响等信息。每个小组的过程和结果数据被用来评估DRT方法在六个原则中的每一个原则的研究能力建设方面的有效程度（由20个可能的研究能力发展指标证明）。结果：发现DRT方法与RCB原则很好地一致，并且在开发研究能力方面普遍有效。事实证明，它在发展联系、合作和技能方面特别有效。在研究能力发展缓慢的地方，这反映在RCB的原则与团队的特征、他们的活动或环境之间的不一致。一个团队无法开展一个研究项目，资金在早期阶段被撤回。在剩下的五个团队中，每个团队中至少有一个人通过研究伙伴关系和资助成功，在资助期之后继续进行研究活动。研究发现，有利的基础设施，包括从临床职责中解脱出来从事研究，以及高级管理人员的支持，是DRT开发成功的重要决定因素。drt的研究问题来自实践问题，几个项目产生的产出有可能改变日常实践，包括在实践中使用研究证据和规划服务变化。结论：DRT方法在RCB团队中是有效的，特别是在团队成员可以从临床职责中解脱出来并且管理层支持强大的情况下。团队的发展阶段和组成成员的研究经验似乎也会影响成功。RCB的六项原则被证明可以作为制定和评估RCB倡议的框架。
Background: This paper describes an evaluation of an initiative to increase the research capability of clinical groups in primary and community care settings in a region of the United Kingdom. The 'designated research team' (DRT) approach was evaluated using indicators derived from a framework of six principles for research capacity building (RCB) which include: building skills and confidence, relevance to practice, dissemination, linkages and collaborations, sustainability and infrastructure development.Methods: Information was collated on the context, activities, experiences, outputs and impacts of six clinical research teams supported by Trent Research Development Support Unit (RDSU) as DRTs. Process and outcome data from each of the teams was used to evaluate the extent to which the DRT approach was effective in building research capacity in each of the six principles (as evidenced by twenty possible indicators of research capacity development).Results: The DRT approach was found to be well aligned to the principles of RCB and generally effective in developing research capabilities. It proved particularly effective in developing linkages, collaborations and skills. Where research capacity was slow to develop, this was reflected in poor alignment between the principles of RCB and the characteristics of the team, their activities or environment. One team was unable to develop a research project and the funding was withdrawn at an early stage. For at least one individual in each of the remaining five teams, research activity was sustained beyond the funding period through research partnerships and funding successes. An enabling infrastructure, including being freed from clinical duties to undertake research, and support from senior management were found to be important determinants of successful DRT development. Research questions of DRTs were derived from practice issues and several projects generated outputs with potential to change daily practice, including the use of research evidence in practice and in planning service changes.Conclusion: The DRT approach was effective at RCB in teams situated in a supportive organisation and in particular, where team members could be freed from clinical duties and management backing was strong. The developmental stage of the team and the research experience of constituent members also appeared to influence success. The six principles of RCB were shown to be useful as a framework for both developing and evaluating RCB initiatives.