Why the study?
There was a paucity of evidence on whether non-medical practitioners in cardiothoracic surgery are attuned to building research capacity and capability, and what barriers or enablers exist.
There is a strong interest in research among non-medical cardiothoracic practitioners, but significant barriers exist regarding allocated time and research skills training.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Barriers in time and skills limit research engagement despite high interest; leaves open whether targeted support would boost participation.
Policy and research literature worldwide support the need to build research capacity and capability among non-medical practitioners within healthcare systems. However, there exists a paucity of evidence on whether practitioners in cardiothoracic surgery are attuned to this and on what barriers or enablers exist. A survey was carried out with non-medical practitioners working in cardiothoracic surgery in the United Kingdom to explore attitudes towards health research and audit, and to identify current challenges and barriers to surgical research and audit as perceived by cardiothoracic nurses and allied health professionals. A total of 160 completed questionnaires were returned. 99% of respondents supported the need for research and believed that evidence-based surgical care improves outcomes for patients. Seventy-two percent reported that their employer motivates them to take part in national research or audit but, only 22% were allocated time to do so within their role; 96% reported their interest in being involved in research and audit, yet only 30% believed they had the skills to undertake research, and 96% reported needing additional training. More work is needed to increase awareness, capacity and capability among cardiothoracic surgery care practitioners, and indeed other specialities to achieve research progress.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Britton et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: