Evaluation of the research capacity and culture of allied health professionals in a large regional public health service

Figures & data

Table 1 Demographic information and professional qualifications of participants

Gender (n=264)	n (%)	Professional group (n=268)	n (%)
Female	213 (80)	Allied health assistant	9 (3)
Male	41 (16)	Clinical measurements	4 (2)
Other/prefer not to disclose	10 (4)	Medical imaging	11 (4)
No. of years employed as an AHP (n=264)		Nutrition and dietetics	24 (9)
<2	31 (12)	Occupational therapy	51 (19)
2–5	60 (23)	Oral health	6 (2)
6–10	58 (22)	Orthoptic	1 (<1)
11–15	41 (16)	Pharmacy	34 (13)
16–20	29 (11)	Physiotherapy	33 (12)
20+	45 (17)	Podiatry	0 (0)
No. of years employed in GCH (n=264)	n (%)	Public health	9 (3)
<2	71 (27)	Psychology	29 (11)
2–5	77 (29)	Social work	22 (8)
6–10	63 (24)	Speech pathology	27 (10)
11–15	31 (12)	Welfare	1 (<1)
16–20	12 (5)	Other/prefer not to disclose	7 (3)
20+	10 (4)	Service area (n=268)
Current employment status (n=264)	n (%)	Hospital-based adult physical or pediatric	171 (64)
Full-time permanent	161 (61)	Hospital-based mental health	15 (6)
Full-time temporary	56 (21)	Community-based adult physical	41 (16)
Part-time permanent	35 (13)	Community-based mental health	10 (4)
Part-time temporary	10 (4)	Community-based pediatric	6 (2)
Casual	2 (1)	Other/prefer not to disclose	25 (9)
Current pay grade (n=264)	n (%)	Professional qualifications (n=268)
HP3 (entry level AHP)	113 (43)	Undergraduate certificate or diploma	20 (8)
HP4 (senior level AHP)	86 (33)	Undergraduate degree	114 (43)
HP5 (clinical specialist or team leader)	36 (14)	Undergraduate degree with honors or postgraduate diploma by research	44 (16)
HP6/7 (director)	11 (5)	Postgraduate qualification by coursework	94 (35)
		Masters or PhD by research	52 (19)
OO3 (allied health assistant)	13 (5)	Currently enrolled in an RHD or other PD relating to research (n=268)
OO4 (senior allied health assistant)	1 (<1)	Yes	19 (7)
Other/prefer not to disclose	4 (2)	No	249 (93)

Abbreviations: AHP, allied health professional; GCH, Gold Coast Health; PD, professional development; RHD, research higher degree.

Table 2 Organization domain results of the RCC tool (n=299)

Item	Description	Component (rank)	Regression coefficients for components 1 and 2	Correlations between items and components 1 and 2	Mediana (IQR)	% unsure	Alison et al component (rank)
ix	Promotes clinical practice based on evidence	1 (1)	1.037 (1), −0.292 (2)	0.832 (1), 0.435 (2)	8 (6–9)	6	2 (1)
vi	Ensures that organizational planning is guided by evidence	1 (2)	0.880 (1), −0.051 (2)	0.845 (1), 0.567 (2)	7 (5–8)	14	2 (2)
x	Encourages research activities that are relevant to practice	1 (3)	0.865 (1), 0.028 (2)	0.885 (1), 0.635 (2)	8 (6–9)	11	2 (5)
xviii	Supports the peer-reviewed publication of research	1 (4)	0.761 (1), 0.137 (2)	0.857 (1), 0.671 (2)	8 (5–9)	25	2 (3)
xiv	Supports a multidisciplinary approach to research	1 (5)	0.747 (1), 0.158 (2)	0.858 (1), 0.683 (2)	7 (5–8)	16	1 (8)
xvi	Engages external partners (eg, universities) in research	1 (6)	0.705 (1), 0.170 (2)	0.824 (1), 0.665 (2)	8 (7–9)	12	1 (9)
vii	Has consumers involved in research	1 (7)	0.701 (1), 0.166 (2)	0.817 (1), 0.658 (2)	6 (4–8)	25	1 (11)
xvii	Supports applications for research scholarships/degrees	1 (8)	0.699 (1), 0.176 (2)	0.822 (1), 0.666 (2)	7 (5–9)	27	2 (4)
xii	Has mechanisms to monitor research quality	1 (9)	0.644 (1), 0.269 (2)	0.832 (1), 0.720 (2)	6 (4–8)	44	1 (4)
xiii	Has identified experts accessible for research advice	1 (10)	0.567 (1), 0.302 (2)	0.779 (1), 0.700 (2)	7 (5–9)	25	1 (10)
viii	Accesses external funding for research	1 (11)	0.487 (1), 0.373 (2)	0.750 (1), 0.716 (2)	6 (5–8)	36	1 (6)
xi	Has software programs for analyzing research data	1 (12)	0.426 (1), 0.405 (2)	0.710 (1), 0.704 (2)	5 (3–8)	47	1 (3)
i	Has resources to support staff research training	2 (1)	−0.020 (1), 0.887 (2)	0.603 (1), 0.873 (2)	7 (5–8)	15	1 (2)
ii	Has funds, equipment, or administrative support for research	2 (2)	−0.015 (1), 0.881 (2)	0.604 (1), 0.871 (2)	6 (3–7)	21	1 (1)
iii	Has a plan or policy for research development	2 (3)	0.106 (1), 0.782 (2)	0.655 (1), 0.857 (2)	6 (5–8)	23	1 (5)
xv	Has regular forums to present research findings	2 (4)	0.166 (1), 0.644 (2)	0.617 (1), 0.760 (2)	7 (5–9)	14	2 (7)
v	Ensures staff career pathways are available in research	2 (5)	0.393 (1), 0.519 (2)	0.757 (1), 0.797 (2)	6 (3–7)	19	1 (7)
iv	Has executive managers who support research	2 (6)	0.398 (1), 0.461 (2)	0.721 (1), 0.740 (2)	7 (5–8)	16	2 (6)
	Overall domain score				7 (5–8)

Notes: Correlation between components 1 and 2=0.702. Cronbach’s alpha for items within component 1=0.961 and component 2=0.916. Component 1: initial eigenvalue=11.6, % of variance=64.3. Component 2: initial eigenvalue=1.0, % of variance=5.6.

a Median scores of >7=high skill/success, 4–6.9=moderate skill/success, and <4=low skill/success.

Table 3 Team domain results of the RCC tool (n=282)

Item	Description	Component (rank)	Regression coefficients for components 1 and 2	Correlations between items and components 1 and 2	Mediana (IQR)	% unsure	Alison et al component (rank)
xviii	Supports the peer-reviewed publication of research	1 (1)	1.016 (1), −0.133 (2)	0.915 (1), 0.640 (2)	7 (5–9)	18	1 (4)
xvii	Engages external partners (eg, universities) in research	1 (2)	0.968 (1), −0.093 (2)	0.897 (1), 0.643 (2)	8 (5–9)	13	1 (8)
x	Conducts research activities that are relevant to practice	1 (3)	0.858 (1), 0.078 (2)	0.918 (1), 0.731 (2)	8 (5–9)	13	1 (9)
v	Has team leaders who support research	1 (4)	0.856 (1), 0.020 (2)	0.871 (1), 0.671 (2)	7 (5–9)	7	1 (6)
xiii	Has identified experts accessible for research advice	1 (5)	0.827 (1), 0.097 (2)	0.901 (1), 0.726 (2)	7 (4–9)	22	1 (5)
xi	Supports applications for research scholarships/degrees	1 (6)	0.811 (1), 0.040 (2)	0.841 (1), 0.656 (2)	7 (4–9)	20	1 (2)
xiv	Disseminates research results at forums/seminars	1 (7)	0.798 (1), 0.092 (2)	0.868 (1), 0.699 (2)	7 (5–9)	13	1 (1)
xv	Supports a multidisciplinary approach to research	1 (8)	0.796 (1), 0.012 (2)	0.874 (1), 0.707 (2)	7 (5–9)	15	1 (7)
vii	Does planning that is guided by evidence	1 (9)	0.604 (1), 0.299 (2)	0.831 (1), 0.758 (2)	7 (5–8)	11	1 (3)
xii	Has mechanisms to monitor research quality	1 (10)	0.558 (1), 0.435 (2)	0.889 (1), 0.859 (2)	6 (3–8)	35	1 (10)
ix	Has applied for external funding for research	1 (11)	0.475 (1), 0.442 (2)	0.811 (1), 0.803 (2)	6 (3–8)	34	1 (11)
ii	Has funds, equipment, or administrative support for research	2 (1)	−0.226 (1), 1.089 (2)	0.602 (1), 0.917 (2)	4 (2–6)	17	2 (2)
i	Has resources to support staff research training	2 (2)	0.066 (1), 0.871 (2)	0.728 (1), 0.921 (2)	5 (3–7)	14	2 (3)
iii	Does team-level planning for research development	2 (3)	0.187 (1), 0.768 (2)	0.771 (1), 0.910 (2)	5 (3–7)	13	2 (4)
xix	Has software available to support research activities	2 (4)	0.209 (1), 0.678 (2)	0.725 (1), 0.838 (2)	5 (2–8)	39	2 (6)
iv	Ensures staff involvement in developing a research plan	2 (5)	0.296 (1), 0.646 (2)	0.787 (1), 0.871 (2)	6 (3–7)	12	2 (5)
xvi	Has incentives and support for research mentoring activities	2 (6)	0.308 (1), 0.638 (2)	0.793 (1), 0.873 (2)	5 (2–7.5)	21	2 (8)
viii	Has consumer involvement in research activities/planning	2 (7)	0.281 (1), 0.611 (2)	0.745 (1), 0.824 (2)	5 (3–8)	22	2 (7)
vi	Provides opportunities to get involved in research	2 (8)	0.490 (1), 0.494 (2)	0.865 (1), 0.866 (2)	6 (4–8)	7	1 (12) and 2 (1)
	Overall domain score				6 (3–8)

Notes: Correlation between components 1 and 2=0.760. Cronbach’s alpha for items within component 1=0.968 and component 2=0.963. Component 1: initial eigenvalue=14.0, % of variance=73.8. Component 2: initial eigenvalue=1.1, % of variance=5.5.

a Median scores of >7=high skill/success, 4–6.9=moderate skill/success, and <4=low skill/success.

Table 4 Individual domain results of the RCC tool (n=277)

Item	Description	Component (rank)	Regression coefficients for components 1 and 2	Correlations between items and components 1 and 2	Mediana (IQR)	% unsure	Alison et al component (rank)
v	Securing research funding	1 (1)	0.939 (1), −0.399 (2)	0.756 (1), 0.032 (2)	3 (1–4)	10	1 (14)
vi	Writing an ethics application	1 (2)	0.915 (1), −0.119 (2)	0.860 (1), 0.300 (2)	3 (1–6)	7	1 (7)
iv	Writing a research protocol	1 (3)	0.871 (1), 0.038 (2)	0.888 (1), 0.438 (2)	4 (2–7)	5	1 (1)
xv	Providing advice to less experienced researchers	1 (4)	0.853 (1), 0.047 (2)	0.857 (1), 0.439 (2)	3 (2–6)	7	1 (4)
xii	Writing a research report	1 (5)	0.836 (1), 0.121 (2)	0.892 (1), 0.505 (2)	5 (2–7)	5	1 (2)
xiii	Writing for publication in peer-reviewed journals	1 (6)	0.832 (1), 0.066 (2)	0.862 (1), 0.448 (2)	3 (2–6)	7	1 (3)
vii	Designing questionnaire	1 (7)	0.785 (1), 0.062 (2)	0.813 (1), 0.422 (2)	5 (3–6)	5	1 (11)
xi	Analyzing quantitative research data	1 (8)	0.770 (1), 0.140 (2)	0.843 (1), 0.494 (2)	4 (2–7)	4	1 (6)
ix	Using computer data management systems	1 (9)	0.755 (1), 0.099 (2)	0.801 (1), 0.446 (2)	5 (2–7)	5	1 (5)
x	Analyzing qualitative research data	1 (10)	0.713 (1), 0.163 (2)	0.788 (1), 0.491 (2)	4 (2–7)	4	1 (9)
viii	Collecting data (eg, surveys, interviews)	1 (11)	0.634 (1), 0.191 (2)	0.722 (1), 0.482 (2)	6 (4–8)	4	1 (8)
iii	Using a computer referencing system (eg, EndNote)	1 (12)	0.544 (1), 0.322 (2)	0.692 (1), 0.572 (2)	6 (3–7)	4	1 (13)
xiv	Integrating research findings into practice	1 (13)	0.406 (1), 0.388 (2)	0.584 (1), 0.574 (2)	7 (4–8)	4	–
i	Finding relevant literature	2 (1)	0.134 (1), 0.849 (2)	0.524 (1), 0.910 (2)	7 (6–8)	3	1 (12)
ii	Critically reviewing the literature	2 (2)	0.182 (1), 0.821 (2)	0.559 (1), 0.904 (2)	7 (5–8)	4	1 (10)
	Overall domain score				5 (2–7)

Notes: Correlation between components 1 and 2=0.459. Cronbach’s alpha for questions within component 1=0.954 and component 2=0.909. Component 1: initial eigenvalue=9.2, % of variance=61.7. Component 2: initial eigenvalue=1.2, % of variance=8.2.

a Median scores of >7=high skill/success, 4–6.9=moderate skill/success, and <4=low skill/success.

Table S1 Research engagement and support for research

Is research part of your role description? (n=269)	n (%)	What research activities have you participated in over the past 20 months? (n=274)	n (%)
Yes	81 (30)	Writing a literature review	73 (27)
No	101 (38)	Writing an ethics application	63 (23)
Unsure	86 (32)	Applying for research funding	34 (12)
If yes, what provisions are made for you to undertake research within your role? (n=81)	n (%)	Collecting data as part of an approved project	119 (43)
Research supervision/mentoring	27 (33)	Analyzing quantitative research data	54 (20)
Dedicated time	17 (21)	Analyzing qualitative research data	49 (18)
Dedicated research funds	8 (10)	Presenting research findings at a conference	41 (15)
Training	23 (28)	Writing a manuscript for publication	47 (17)
Administrative support	9 (11)	None	104 (38)
Software access (eg, EndNote, NVivo)	28 (35)
Library access	43 (53)
No provisions	21 (26)

Table S2 Barriers to undertaking research (n=277)

What are the barriers to doing research?	For you as an individual		For your professional group
	n	%	n	%
Lack of time for doing research	241	87	191	69
Lack of suitable backfill	174	63	187	68
Other work roles take priority	233	84	159	57
Lack of funds for research	142	51	172	62
Lack of support from management	59	21	63	23
Lack of access to equipment for research	73	26	76	27
Lack of software for research	81	29	87	31
Isolation	66	24	43	16
Different experience levels of team members	N/A	N/A	101	37
Lack of library/Internet access	22	8	18	7
Not interested in research	51	18	45	16
Other personal commitments	111	40	30	11
Desire for work/life balance	171	62	37	13
Lack of a coordinated approach to research	82	30	89	32
Lack of skills for research	148	53	70	25
Intimidated by research language	92	33	39	14
Intimidated by fear of getting it wrong	94	34	30	11
Staff shortages	N/A	N/A	142	51

Abbreviation: N/A, not available.

Table S3 Motivators for undertaking research (n=271)

What are the motivators for doing research?	For you as an individual		For your professional group
	n	%	n	%
To develop skills	221	82	154	57
Career advancement	164	61	106	39
Increased job satisfaction	177	65	97	36
Study or research scholarships available	80	30	79	29
Dedicated time for research	138	51	109	40
Research written into role description	81	30	86	32
Colleagues doing research	106	39	118	44
Mentors available to supervise	146	54	93	34
Research encouraged by managers	118	44	127	47
Grant funds	94	35	121	45
Links to universities	114	42	136	50
Forms part of postgraduate study	90	33	68	25
Opportunities to participate at own level	127	47	51	19
Problem identified that needs changing	154	57	109	40
Desire to prove a theory/hunch	107	40	65	24
To keep the brain stimulated	149	55	41	15
Increased credibility	131	48	120	44
Team building	N/A	N/A	96	35

Abbreviation: N/A, not available.