Research capacity and culture in an Australian metropolitan public mental health service: scoping the skills and experience of social workers and occupational therapists

Migliorini, Christine; McDowell, Caitlin; Turville, Megan; Bevilacqua, JoAnne; Harvey, Carol

doi:10.1186/s12909-022-03936-0

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A key question arising from the study is: does the derivation of our sample solely from a mental health and learning disabilities service provider explain dissimilarities with previous findings? Compared with Migliorini et al's (2022) study, conducted in a mental health service in Australia, median ratings were marginally less poor on individual skills (9/14 inadequate medians), but clearly better on team (12/19 inadequate medians) and organizational culture (3/18 inadequate medians). Compared with the current sample, Comer et al's (2022) UK-based study comprising approximately 10% of its sample from mental health services had fewer median ratings of inadequate on individual skills (6/14) and a similar number of inadequate medians on the remaining two scales (24/37).…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 74%

“…Most involved Allied Health Professionals (AHPs) and most participants were AHPs. Only one sample, the smallest of those included, was drawn solely from a mental health service ( Migliorini et al, 2022 ) while two further studies included <10% individuals working in mental health services within their samples ( Comer et al, 2022 ; Gill et al, 2019 ). Mental health professionals, and mental health nurses in particular, are understudied.…”

Section: Review Of Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mental Health Nurses’ and Allied Health Professionals’ Individual Research Capacity and Organizational Research Culture: A Comparative Study

Dickens,

Avantaggiato-Quinn,

Long

et al. 2024

SAGE Open Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Healthcare professionals have development needs related to their consumption, use, and practice of clinical research. Little is known about these issues in mental health services specifically. Objectives A survey of healthcare staff working in an NHS Mental Health and Disability Trust in England was conducted to describe research capacity and culture compared with previously reported samples, and to examine subgroup differences. Methods An online questionnaire was utilized. The main measure was the Research Capacity and Culture tool comprising measures of individual's perceived research skills and of team and organizational research culture. Previous studies using the same measure were systematically identified, and pooled results, weighted by sample size, were calculated. Analyses were descriptive (current sample versus previous results) and inferential (comparisons between demographic and professional groups within the current sample). Results N = 293 people completed the survey. The median item scores were poorer than those of pooled samples from studies reporting median item scores on 39/51 (76.5%) occasions and poorer than those pooled samples of studies reporting mean item scores on 51/51 (100.0%) occasions. Individual capability for research was in the ‘less than adequate’ range more than in previous samples (71.4% vs. 42.9%). For team culture items, the proportions were 84.2% vs. 78.9%, while most responses about organizational culture were in the ‘adequate’ range (55.6% vs. 66.7%). Staff >20 years employment had poorer perceptions of team and organizational culture. Conclusion Perceptions of individual research capacity and team and organizational culture were poor compared with previous studies, most of which were conducted in non-mental health settings. There is need for development of research capacity and culture in mental health services including opportunities to develop basic research skills through to strategic developments to promote clinical academic careers. There is considerable room for improvement in the way organizations support research and signpost opportunities.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 74%

Section: Review Of Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Mental Health Nurses’ and Allied Health Professionals’ Individual Research Capacity and Organizational Research Culture: A Comparative Study

Dickens,

Avantaggiato-Quinn,

Long

et al. 2024

SAGE Open Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As the extracted data proved, research culture may be composed of layers (Dewey et al, 2021) that included a combination of cultures of all research-related institutions and individuals. The other found approach included levels: organization, team, and individual (Migliorini et al, 2022).…”

Section: Editorialmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…McCann & Schneiderman, 2019 Autonomy and freedom; care and collegiality; collaboration; equality, diversity and inclusion; integrity and ethics; and openness and transparency (Science Europe) zero tolerances of inappropriate behaviour, a safe and supportive research environment, fair opportunities for career advancement, and common courtesy and kindnessMcKenna, 2023Three levels of research culture: organisation, team and individualMigliorini et al, 2022 …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Culture of Research: A Systematic Scoping Review

Tikhonova,

Raitskaya

2024

JLE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Research culture is the core of many processes in science. It is a broad concept presumably entailing practices, traditions, norms, etc. that prevail among researchers and other stakeholders in the field. Its definition, architecture, and taxonomy are essential in generating and pursuing scientific policies at universities and countries. As there is a lack of comprehensive reviews on research culture, the present publication aspires to fill the existing gap in the knowledge. This review aims to define research culture and build an architecture of research culture based on the relevant literature indexed in the Scopus database. Method: The problem, concept, and context (PCC) framework was applied to establish an effective search strategy and word the research questions corresponding to the aim. Based on Arksey and O'Malley's methodology (2005) and PRISMA checklist (2020) for systematic reviews, the authors sorted out 56 relevant publications for systematic scoping review. In addition, a bibliometric analysis was applied to examine the field. Results: Using a bibliometric analysis, the 56 publications were distributed by year, country, most prolific authors, sources, research fields, affiliation, and type of publication. With the help of VOSviewer, the authors singled out four thematic clusters (research culture; medical and biomedical research, methodology and research ethics, and clinical studies and human experiments). After synthesizing the data extracted from the documents under review, research culture was defined; components of research culture were singled out and summed up; and a framework of research culture was made up. The authors analysed the review findings in contrast with other research, offering their own comprehensive definition of research culture, its taxonomy, and an architecture of research culture. Conclusion: The current review adds to the understanding of research culture, its gist, component classification. The limitation related to the period of review (2019-2024) may be overcome by further reviews of relevant publications from a historic perspective that would broaden perceptions of the origin of modern research culture and its negative aspects.

show abstract

“…Deltagandet var lägre bland socialarbetare än bland arbetsterapeuter. Vidare påvisade studien att respondenterna hade låg tilltro till sin kapacitet att delta i forskningsrelaterade aktiviteter (Migliorini m.fl., 2022).…”

Section: Hälso-och Sjukvårdskuratorsrelaterad Forskningunclassified

Vetenskapligt kunskapsutnyttjande och nyttjande av kunskapskällor bland hälso- och sjukvårdskuratorer

Ståhl,

Lundälv

2024

SVT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research knowledge utilisation and the use of knowledge sources among health social workers - a comparison based on licence Previous research has shown that health social workers make little use of research knowledge in their professional practice. The purpose of the study was to investigate possible differences between licensed and non-licensed health social workers based on background factors, research knowledge utilisation and use of knowledge sources. The study was based on a national web survey that was answered by a total of 1236 health social workers. The survey responses were analysed using cross-tabulations, Chi2 tests and binary logistic regression. The results showed that there were differences in a number of background factors: sex, number of years in the profession, highest completed education and whether the respondents had studied all/part of their education abroad. All these background factors, with the exception of gender, were found in the regression analysis to be associated with licence status. The results show that there was a difference in the frequency of reading research literature between licensed and non-licensed respondents. The respondents' answers regarding the most important sources of knowledge in their work differed with respect to four variables: theory, life experience, colleagues and supervision. In comparison, their answers regarding the barriers that affect them most differed with respect to only one variable: lack of organisational support for applying scientific knowledge in practice. The study’s main results show that there are no major differences in terms of research knowledge utilisation between licensed and non-licensed health social workers. Rather, the results indicate that there are more similarities between the groups. In terms of use of knowledge sources, however, both differences and similarities between the groups were demonstrated. The article proposes an important question for further research and highlights implications for practice.

show abstract

Research capacity and culture in an Australian metropolitan public mental health service: scoping the skills and experience of social workers and occupational therapists

Cited by 5 publications

References 42 publications

Mental Health Nurses’ and Allied Health Professionals’ Individual Research Capacity and Organizational Research Culture: A Comparative Study

Mental Health Nurses’ and Allied Health Professionals’ Individual Research Capacity and Organizational Research Culture: A Comparative Study

The Culture of Research: A Systematic Scoping Review

Vetenskapligt kunskapsutnyttjande och nyttjande av kunskapskällor bland hälso- och sjukvårdskuratorer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About