French nurses’ and allied health professionals’ perception of research in their fields: A descriptive qualitative study

Abstract

Aim: To gather information from nurses and allied health professionals in the French context of the emergence of research in the field so as to inform the development of a new tool: The research in nursing and allied health sciences' Ideas Generator (GénI) capable of sustaining the identification of research ideas from professionals in the field. Background: In many countries, research in nursing and allied health sciences remains underdeveloped. Introduction: Before developing the Ideas Generator tool, it was essential to explore professionals' basis of reference in providing care, then investigate (1) their representation of research in this field of science and (2) their perception of needs for and obstacles to starting a research process. Methods: The qualitative research design used focus groups. The study population included 24 participants naive to research in four hospitals in eastern France (13 nurses and 11 allied health professionals). Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data. The study was reported in compliance with the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research criteria. Findings: Professionals used tacit knowledge and their experiences to address care, but the culture of scientific evidence was clearly missing (lack of knowledge of the origin of care guidelines, few bibliographic skills). Participation in a research process could hardly be envisaged without a supervised collaboration with a physician. Research was perceived not to be part of professionals' culture. They self-censured for lack of methodological competencies. Discussion: Findings underlined some leverage, obstacles, and need to consider to generate a stimulation in the field, especially in countries where such research is still in its infancy. Implication for nursing, health, and education policy: Strengthening the field of nursing and allied health research is essential to extend the skills of nurses and allied health workers and to improve the quality of patient care by taking into account results from the literature. The Ideas Generator tool will be implemented to sustain learning the skills of research through education and training.

Representations of Research among Newly Graduated Paramedical Professionals: A Qualitative Study

“…The notion of collaboration and being supported by competent professionals was a common thread throughout the interviews: collaboration is seen as a necessity, and its absence is experienced as a barrier to engaging in research. This is in line with the finding that paramedical professionals cannot envisage the idea of participating in a research process that is not supervised by a physician [31].…”

“…Research is also essentially perceived as patient centered; this should be considered in light of the fact that the main barrier to research was a preference for their core work [4]. This also concurs with the fact that nurses' satisfaction at work has been found to strongly correlate with thinking of their function in terms of "people-centered" care of patients [8], and the fact that research has been perceived as not being part of their culture [31].…”

Barriers to research findings utilization amongst critical care nurses and allied health professionals: An international survey

“…This item is a commonly cited barrier to scientific literature reading and utilization (Estabrooks et al, 2008). Previous studies have shown that nurses prefer using local procedures (policies and procedures manuals) (Ricci et al, 2022), the knowledge they acquired through their personal experiences (during their training and at work), rather than research findings to guide their practice (Squires et al, 2007). In the critical care setting, nurses primarily looked for resources for clinical decision-making from local protocols or by senior nurses and nursing managers (Oh, 2008).…”

What contextual features affect the outcome and sustainability of therapeutic patient education interventions?

“…HCPs actually addressed practical contributions of the training in designing an intervention or implementing their activity (e.g., training in an appropriate relationship with patients, active listening, benevolence, use of open-ended questions). However, they did not address the training as a way to deepen their thinking or knowledge of theoretical models, pedagogical approaches or behavioral therapies, probably because theoretical understanding is less important to them than their practice, regardless, this is also a weakness of the training courses, which calls their content into question [ 37 ]. Smit et al, in their analysis of the development of primary-care interventions, highlighted the need to pay attention to the in-depth analysis of context, including the implementation of thorough and effective training for providers [ 38 ].…”