Research motivators, barriers and progress of allied health clinicians engaged in an Allied Health Research Clinic. An observational study

Research motivators, barriers and progress of allied health clinicians engaged in an Allied Health Research Clinic. An observational study | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Research motivators, barriers and progress of allied health clinicians engaged in an Allied Health Research Clinic. An observational study Adam I Semciw, Hazel Heng, Mark Tacey, Jingfei Wu, Rebecca L Jessup This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6518500/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 17 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Embedding evidence-based practice (EBP) into healthcare is essential to improving patient outcomes and workforce sustainability. Building research capacity among allied health professionals is a key strategy for strengthening EBP and fostering a culture of inquiry in clinical settings. The aim of this study was to understand the experiences and outcomes of allied health professionals who accessed research support through a newly developed research clinic, including their research capacity, motivators, barriers, and research activity over time. Methods A prospective observational cohort design was employed, targeting AH professionals at a major metropolitan public health service in Melbourne, Australia. AH Clinicians with an interest in research self-registered for assistance through a structured research clinic. Baseline and six-month follow-up surveys assessed research capacity using the Research Capacity and Culture (RCC) tool and documented research activities, motivators, and barriers. Multivariable binomial logistic regression analysed the influence of gender and seniority on research motivators, barriers, and progression. Results Between January 2020 and August 2023, 43 AH professionals registered for the clinic. Most were women (67.4%), with a mean age of 35.2 years and average of 11.4 years’ clinical experience. The cohort was discipline diverse, with physiotherapists (41.9%) the largest group. Over half (53.5%) were junior staff, and 37.2% held postgraduate qualifications. At baseline, participants reported higher confidence in literature searching and critical appraisal, and lower confidence with grant writing, ethics submissions, and academic publication. Top motivators included skill development (91%) and solving practical problems (70%) while the main barriers were competing priorities (74%) and lack of time (70%). At six months, 73.5% of participants reported progress in their research, with senior staff being significantly more likely to advance their projects compared to junior staff (OR 9.60, 95% CI 1.40 to 195.70, p = 0.049). Conclusion Addressing barriers such as time constraints and providing tailored mentorship are important for fostering a sustainable research culture in AH settings. Future efforts should focus on creating dedicated time for research and enhancing support systems to further integrate research into clinical practice. Research Activity Research Capacity Health Services Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Background Embedding evidence based practice (EBP) into clinical practice is important for addressing the growing demands on healthcare systems and to ensure patients receive the best possible care ( 1 ). Integrating EBP and supporting a strong research culture in day-to-day healthcare delivery is associated with patient, staff and organisational benefits ( 2 ). One strategy to improve the EBP of health professionals is through enhancing their research capacity. The process of developing and translating new knowledge into practice unfolds over a long timeframe, starting out at basic laboratory science in academic environments, and moving through to investigations that occur in clinical contexts, and ultimately leading to implementation and translation into practice ( 3 ). Developing the research skills of healthcare staff not only enriches their professional expertise and empowers them to contribute to the evidence base that guides their clinical practice, but in many cases rapidly shortens the time lag that occurs between conception and implementation. It has also been shown to improve job satisfaction and retention, offering health professionals a sense of professional achievement and growth, as well as offering alternative pathways for career advancement ( 4 ). Research has shown that Allied Health (AH) professionals’ requirements around research capacity building may differ from medical and nursing professionals. These differences stem from the multidisciplinary nature of their work, the differences in care settings (with care often occurring in the community) and the strong emphasis on achieving holistic outcomes for patients ( 5 ). Strategies to improve research culture in AH must therefore be both content and context specific, and include provision of appropriate infrastructure, commitment from leadership ( 6 ), dedicated time for research ( 7 , 8 ), and tailored mentorship and guidance from seasoned researchers ( 9 ). There is also a need to understand motivators and barriers to research for AH clinicians, so educational opportunities can be tailored. Over the past decade, embedded researcher roles within healthcare settings have become increasingly recognised as enablers in building AH professional research capacity ( 10 , 11 ). However, less is known about the different methods used by clinicians employed in these roles to build research capacity. To promote and facilitate clinician-led research activity, two dedicated AH research positions were created through a partnership between a university and a metropolitan public health service in Melbourne, Australia. These research positions provided support to AH professionals through a newly developed AH Research Clinic. AH professionals were able to register and book an appointment time where they were provided with tailored advice and guidance in furthering their research projects and ideas. While understanding the research capacity of the broader AH workforce is valuable, this study focuses specifically on the self-selecting group of clinicians who actively sought research support from an AH Research Clinic. These clinicians represent a distinct subgroup of AH professionals already demonstrating interest or engagement in research, and therefore offer unique insights into the motivations, perceived barriers, and research trajectories of those seeking to build their research skills. The aim of this study was to understanding the experiences and outcomes of these professionals, including their research capacity, motivators, barriers, and research progression over time. Specific objectives of the study were to: Describe the baseline characteristics and research capacity of AH professionals who participated in the clinic, Explore motivators and barriers to research engagement, Examine whether research activity progressed over a six-month period following initial engagement, and Investigate whether gender or professional seniority were associated with research motivators, barriers, or progression. Methods Design This study used a prospective observational cohort design. Ethical approval Ethical approval was received from the Northern Health Low Risk Ethics Committee (HREC number: 64993). All participants provided informed consent to take part in the study. Context: Research Clinic The clinic was staffed is by two AH PhD qualified researchers (AS and RJ/HH) with different research methodology expertise in both quantitative and qualitative research. These research clinic staff formed the core team, while a biostatistician (MT) and ethics and governance specialist (JW) were engaged on an as-needed basis, depending on the support needs of the clinic participants. As part of the clinic, data is captured about attendees experiences with research and their progression is documented 6 months following clinic attendance (Figure 1). Population Participants were AH professionals working at Northern Health (NH), who proactively registered for the AH Research Clinic, reflecting a group with pre-existing interest in or intent to pursue research activity. NH is a major metropolitan public health service and is the primary provider of acute, subacute, and ambulatory specialist services in the northern region of Melbourne. The network encompasses a 410-bed acute hospital, which includes facilities such as mental health, an intensive care unit, a special care nursery, and a short stay unit. Additionally, there are two subacute hospital sites (134 and 87 beds) along with an outpatient and day procedure site. AH staff employed include dietitians, exercise physiologists, occupational therapists, orthotists, physiotherapists, psychologists, podiatrists, social workers, and speech pathologists. Registration for the AH Research Clinic was self-initiated. AH professionals from all settings including acute, sub-acute and community, were invited to register for the clinic if they required any form of assistance with research, ranging from early research question development, through to dissemination of research findings. Data collection The research clinic functioned as a structured mechanism to engage interested clinicians in research and capture insights into their capacity, motivation, and barriers. Surveys were conducted using Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap). Baseline assessment At registration, participants were asked to complete a survey about their general and professional demographics, and their clinical experience. Research capacity was assessed using the Research Capacity and Culture tool (RCC) (12). The RCC tool describes research capacity and culture across three domains: the organisation, the team, and the individual. For this study, only the ‘individual’ domain was used. Participants were asked to describe their self-perceived skills across 14 research-related skills: finding relevant literature, critically reviewing the literature, using a computer referencing system (e.g. Endnote), writing a research protocol, securing research funding, submitting an ethics application, designing questionnaires, collecting data, using computer data management systems, analysing qualitative research data, analysing quantitative research data, writing a research report, writing for publication in peer-reviewed journals, and providing advice to less experienced researchers. Responses for each item reflected the individual’s perceived confidence on a 10-point numerical scale, ranging from 1 (lowest skill level) to 10 (highest skill level). Scores from each item were summed for each participant to get a total RCC score. The RCC tool has demonstrates excellent internal consistency (ICC = 0.96) and strong test-retest reliability (0.82 for individual domain). To maximise responses, a forced response format was used, whereby the option ‘don’t know’ was eliminated (13). Additional questions pertaining to the RCC tool that we asked participants about were the stage of their current research (10 items); research activities completed in the last 12 months (4 items); motivators (16 items) and barriers (18 items) to engagement in research (Supplementary File 1). The original question related to barriers contained 17 items. We developed an additional item – “Difficulties in identifying a research question” based on our experience working with clinician-researchers in the past. Participants could select more than one option for each question. 6- month follow-up Six months following their research clinic appointment, participants were sent a survey with questions about the status of their research. Participants were asked if they had completed any additional research items since the appointment from the following list (multiple options could be chosen): gathered literature, formulated the research question, completed a research protocol, assembled the research team, received ethics approval, applied for grant funding, received grant funding, completed data collection, completed data analysis, published a journal paper, presented the project at a conference (including posters), the project has not progressed, or other. If participants had completed any additional item of research in the last six months, their project was considered to have ‘progressed’. If participants had indicated that their project had not progressed, they were asked to identify reasons behind this, selecting from the following list (multiple options could be chosen): funding, time, motivation, lack of research support or mentoring, the original research question was not feasible anymore, or other. Selecting other in response to any question would prompt an open text box. Data analysis Demographic data were reported descriptively. Likert scale data were summarised with descriptive measures of median and interquartile range (IQR). A radar plot was used to represent the median score of each of the items on the RCC tool. Open ended responses were summarised and described narratively. For data analysis, position classification was grouped into junior (Grade 1 and 2) and senior (Grade 3 and 4) to represent seniority. Multivariable binomial logistic regression was used to examine the effects of gender and seniority on motivators and barriers to research. We limited this analysis to these two variables (gender and seniority) to minimise over-fitting our data, and seniority level could theoretically be considered a surrogate of age, years of experience or qualifications. To examine the relationship between progression of research, and either seniority or gender, a multivariable binomial logistic regression was used. Outcomes were reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals to indicate the odds of progression at 6 months. All analyses were performed with Jamovi Version 2.3 (https://www.jamovi.org/). In our analyses, we have not use p-values as strict cut-offs for significance. While a p-value of 0.05 will help identify potentially stronger associations, we recognize that associations with p-values between 0.05 and 0.10 cannot be completely ruled out and still provide meaningful evidence towards an association, especially if effect sizes are large. This approach aligns with recommendations to avoid the dichotomous interpretation of p-values and to consider the full context of effect sizes and confidence intervals (14). Results Between January 2020 and August 2023, 43 AH staff participated in the research clinic. At the six-month mark, 34 surveys were completed, representing a 79% response rate. Most participants were women (67.4%), the mean age was 35.2 years (SD 9.5), and the mean number of years of experience was 11.4 years (SD 9.5). Physiotherapists made up the largest group of users (41.9%) followed by Dietetics (14%), Social Work (9.3%) and Occupational Therapy (9.3%). Approximately half of the participants were junior staff (53.5%) and most participants worked in a clinical role (81.4%). Just over one in three participants held postgraduate qualifications (37.2%). About a third of participants were not currently involved in any other research activities (27.8%), while the remaining participants reported being involved in at least one or more other research activities at the time of the survey (Supplementary file 2). Full details of participant characteristics can be found in Table 1. Table 1: Participant characteristics (N = 43) Item Mean (SD); n (%) Age 35.2 (9.52) Gender Women 29 (67.4%) Men 14 (32.6%) Allied Health Discipline Physiotherapy 18 (41.9%) Occupational Therapy 4 (9.3%) Dietetics 6 (14%) Speech Therapy 2 (4.7%) Pharmacy 3 (7%) Social Work 4 (9.3%) Psychology 1 (2.3%) Podiatry 2 (4.7%) Exercise Physiologist 2 (4.7%) Mean years of experience (full-time equivalent) 11.44 (9.5%) Current position classification Grade 1 5 (11.6%) Grade 2 18 (41.9%) Grade 3 13 (30.2%) Grade 4 7 (16.3%) Primary work role Clinical 35 (81.4%) Clinical education 3 (7%) Management 5 (11.6%) Research 0 (0%) Highest qualification attained Bachelor 16 (37.2%) Bachelor with Honours (Research) 4 (9.3%) Graduate Certificate 8 (18.6%) Masters by Coursework 14 (32.6%) Masters by Research 0 (0%) PhD 1 (2.3%) Research Capacity Respondents indicated relatively high confidence or skills with searching and critically reviewing literature (Median [IQR]; 7 [1] and 6 [2] respectively). Participants reported the lowest confidence in securing research funding (1 [1]), submitting an ethics application (2 [3]), publication writing (2 [3]), and providing mentorship to other colleagues (2 [2]). Median scores for each item were plotted on a radar plot (Figure 2). Motivators and barriers to research, and their relationship between gender and seniority Participants identified their top three motivators to research as being development of skills (91%), wanting to change an identified problem (70%), and keeping their brain stimulated (51%). The top three barriers were that other work roles take priority (74%), a perceived lack of time (63%), and lack of research skills (56%). The full distribution of motivators and barriers can be found in Table 2. Table 2: Motivators and barriers for allied health staff participating in research What are the motivators to do research for you personally? Tick as many as apply What are the barriers to do research for you personally? Tick as many as apply Motivators Frequency (n = 43) Barriers Frequency (n = 43) To develop skills 39 (91%) Other work roles take priority 39 (91%) Identified a problem that needs changing 30 (70%) Lack of time 30 (70%) Keep brain stimulated 22 (51%) Lack of research skills 22 (51%) Career advancement 21 (49%) Intimidated by research language 21 (49%) Increased job satisfaction 21 (49%) Fear of getting it wrong 21 (49%) Desire to prove theory/hunch 19 (44%) Lack of suitable backfill 19 (44%) Mentors available to supervise 16 (37%) Desire for work/life balance 16 (37%) Research encouraged by managers 15 (35%) Identifying research question 15 (35%) Opportunities to participate at own level 15 (35%) Lack of coordinated approach to research 15 (35%) Increased credibility 13 (30%) Lack of research funds 13 (30%) Links to Universities 12 (28%) Lack of admin support 12 (28%) Colleagues doing research 9 (21%) Lack of research software 9 (21%) Dedicated time for research 7 (16%) Other personal commitments 7 (16%) Forms part of postgrad study 6 (14%) Isolation 6 (14%) Grant funds 4 (9%) Lack of access to research equipment 4 (9%) Research written into role description 3 (7%) Not interested 3 (7%) Lack of library/internet access 2 (5%) Lack of management support 1 (2.3%) There was evidence of an association between gender and motivation (supplementary file 3). Men had almost 10 times greater odds of selecting links to universities as a motivator for pursuing research compared to women (OR 9.75, 95% CI 2.18 to 55.96, p = 0.005). We could not rule out an association toward male participants being more motivated to conduct research to advance their career (OR 3.77, 95% CI 0.96 to 17.12, p = 0.066) or as part of their postgraduate study (OR 5.1, 95% CI 0.84 to 41.66, p = 0.086). When considering seniority level, having an “identified problem that needs changing” may be more likely to motivate senior staff to partake in research (4.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 21.18, p = 0.067), while junior staff are likely to see “opportunities to participate in research at their level” (0.27, 95%CI 0.06 to 1.01, p = 0.061), and to “keep their brain stimulated” (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.12, p = 0.079) as motivators. Men were more likely to report the desire for work-life balance (OR 5.15, 95% CI 1.15 to 26.89, p = 0.038) and other personal commitments (OR 11.31, 95% CI 1.43 to 240.16, p = 0.042) as barriers to engagement in research. Senior staff were potentially more likely to see a lack of backfill as a barrier to research (OR 3.73, 95% CI 0.91 to 18.36, p = 0.080). The association between barriers for research with gender and seniority are provided in Supplementary file 4. Research progression at six months At six months, 25 of the 34 respondents had progressed in their research (73.5%) (Table 3). Majority of respondents had completed 1-4 research items (70.8%), seven had completed 5-8 research items (29.2%), and none had completed more than 8 items. The top four completed research items were: formulating a question (38.2%), gathering research literature (38.2%), assembling the research team (23.5%), and completing data collection (23.5%). Four respondents reported other research outputs including extension of project timeline, increased allocated work hours, postgraduate degree submission, completion of data collection tools and commencement of intervention implementation. Nine participants reported not progressing their research, two were men, and eight were junior staff (Table 3). The majority reported lack of time as a reason for not progressing their research (77.8%), while one participant reported lack of funding. Five participants also reported other reasons for the lack of progression including upcoming leave, cessation of project and their work focus moving out of the project area. There was evidence of an association between seniority and progression of research at the 6-month mark where senior staff were 9.6 times (95% CI 1.40 to 195.70, p = 0.049) more likely to have progressed compared to junior staff, after adjusting for sex (figure 3). There was no association between gender and progression of research (OR 2.49 95%CI 0.42 to 21.0, p = 0.344). Table 3: Characteristics of six-month survey respondents Progressed (n=25) Not progressed (n=9) Mean age, y (SD) 35.44 (9.73) 31.89 (9.03) Gender, (%) Women 16 (64.0) 7 (77.8) Men 9 (36.0) 2 (22.2) Years of experience, y (SD) 11.36 (9.08) 8.44 (10.75) Qualification (%) Undergraduate 14 (56.0) 9 (100) Postgraduate 11 (44.0) 0 (0) Current position level (%) Grade 1 3 (12) 3 (33.3) Grade 2 10 (40) 5 (55.6) Grade 3 8 (32) 1 (11.1) Grade 4 4 (16) 0 (0) Discussion This study explored the research motivations, barriers, and progress of a group of AH professionals who actively sought support for research-related activities. By focusing on those who self-registered for a research clinic, we were able to examine the characteristics and experiences of clinicians who are already inclined toward engaging in research. These individuals represent a distinct subset of the broader AH workforce — one that is often overlooked in system-wide assessments of research capacity. Our exploratory analysis of the factors that motivate these allied health professionals to engage in research, as well as their perceived barriers to involvement, suggest that both motivations and barriers to engagement vary across gender and seniority. Or results also indicate that research led by senior clinicians are more likely to progress than those led by junior colleagues. These findings highlight the importance of a tailored approach to supporting individuals across their research journey. Our findings reinforce findings from other studies that have demonstrated that motivations for research engagement amongst allied health professionals are multifaceted (4). Skill development, intellectual stimulation, and a desire to solve practical problems were frequently cited drivers. These align with previous literature highlighting the value AH clinicians place on research that is relevant to their practice and professional growth (4, 15, 16). Motivations varied by career stage: junior clinicians were more likely to be motivated by intellectual stimulation and accessible opportunities, while senior clinicians were more driven by problem-solving and systems-level impact. Additionally, men were more likely to see research as an opportunity to progress their career (e.g., links to universities and career advancement), but saw the impact of research on work-life balance as a deterrent. These observed differences in motivation by career stage and gender contribute nuanced insights to the existing literature on research engagement in health professionals. Understanding these motivations and barriers provides an opportunity for developing targeted support services such as the research clinic described in this paper. For junior staff, providing opportunities to participate in research not only offers intellectual stimulation but fosters critical thinking skills and keeps them updated with the latest advancements in clinical research. Given that junior clinicians may have recently transitioned from academic settings, these research opportunities allow them to maintain their connection to academia. This continuity can enhance their professional development by integrating academic knowledge with practical clinical experience, thereby reinforcing their engagement and commitment to research culture. Providing opportunities for junior clinical staff to engage in research can be seen as integral in building the next generation of clinician researchers (17). Providing allied health staff who are interested in research with the support and resources they need to succeed is important to implementation of best practices that least to improvements in care processes and patient outcomes (18). Our finding that time constraints and competing work priorities are significant barriers to engaging in aligns with the findings of other studies (7, 15, 16, 19), and is consistent with research on barriers to evidence-based practice in general (20). Previous studies have shown that having dedicated time for allied health clinicians to engage in research can significantly enhance research capacity (21-23). This consideration is important, given that public health services primarily focus on the delivery of care and seldom allocate dedicated time for clinicians to engage in research activities. A recent allied health benchmarking process identified that the proportion of non-clinical time increases with seniority, recommending that senior clinical leaders receive up to a third of their time as non-clinical (24). Non-clinical time includes a range of competing activities such as professional development, administrative tasks, supervision, and research. Considering that not all allied health clinicians have an interest in research (25), we advocate for providing those with a passion and interest in research the opportunity to prioritise research as part of their non-clinical roles. Clinician led research is more likely to progress if led by a senior clinician. Senior clinicians have greater capacity to negotiate protected time (19, 26), ensure work is done that aligns with the strategic priorities of the organisation, and increase the likelihood of administrative buy-in and implementation. While we believe there is a place for all clinicians interested in research, we would recommend that senior clinicians take a leading role in prioritised research activities to maximise the likelihood of success. Implications for practice Our findings provide evidence of a need for tailored support to enhance research capacity among AH professionals. Promoting a research-inclusive culture by integrating research into clinical roles and addressing barriers such as time constraints and lack of skills is important to the building of research capacity. Many participants sought assistance for mid and tail-end phases of research, including data collection, analysis, write-up, and publication, indicating areas where clinics can offer targeted support. By providing specialised resources, such as access to a biostatistician, health services can ensure that research projects not only commence but also reach completion, contributing to the broader scientific community. Junior staff should be given entry-level research opportunities, while senior staff can be engaged through problem-solving initiatives, and leading research projects (with support). Monitoring research progress helps identify where support is most needed and fosters a culture of accountability and continuous improvement. This comprehensive approach may enhance research participation, improve patient care, and foster a robust research culture in AH. Strengths and limitations Our study has several strengths, including providing tailored advice and support, achieving a high follow-up response rate, involving a diverse range of allied health disciplines, and employing a longitudinal design that offered insights into the progression of research engagement over time. However, the small sample size means while there were noted differences between respondents, many of these did not reach statistical significance. In addition, this was conducted at a single site with its own operational systems and culture. Leadership support, existing research infrastructure, and institutional values, may not be representative of other settings, potentially limiting the generalisability of the findings to other hospitals and healthcare environments with varied cultural and operational dynamics. Conclusion This study provides new insights into the research engagement of AH professionals who actively sought research support through a structured clinic. By examining this self-selecting group who are already motivated to engage in research, we identified key enablers and challenges influencing research capacity and progression. Participants commonly reported a desire to develop skills, solve clinical problems, and engage intellectually, but also highlighted persistent barriers such as time constraints, competing priorities, and limited research experience. These findings will contribute to growing understanding of how best to foster a research-active allied health workforce, inform the design of future capacity-building strategies, and maximise the likelihood of achieving research outcomes. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate This study was approved by the Northern Health Low Risk Ethics Committee (HREC number: 64993). All participants provided informed consent with completion of the survey. Research was conducted in accordance to the Helsinki Declaration. Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Funding No funding was received to conduct this study. Availability of data and materials De-identified participant data from this research will be shared upon reasonable request with the corresponding author. Authors’ contributions AIS, RJ participated in the design of the study. AIS, RJ, MT, JW conducted the data collection and AIS, HH conducted the analysis and interpretation. AIS wrote the draft paper and AIS, RJ, JW, MT, HH participated in editing. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the staff for engaging with the Allied Health research Clinic. References Hoffmann T, Bennett S, Del Mar C. EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE. Australia: Elsevier; 2018. Harding K, Lynch L, Porter J, Taylor NF. Organisational benefits of a strong research culture in a health service: a systematic review. Aust Health Rev. 2017;41(1):45–53. Drolet BC, Lorenzi NM. Translational research: understanding the continuum from bench to bedside. Translational Res. 2011;157(1):1–5. Borkowski D, McKinstry C, Cotchett M, Williams C, Haines T. Research culture in allied health: a systematic review. Aust J Prim Health. 2016;22(4):294–303. Pickstone C, Nancarrow S, Cooke J, Vernon W, Mountain G, Boyce RA, et al. Building research capacity in the allied health professions. Evid Policy. 2008;4(1):53–68. Matus J, Walker A, Mickan S. Research capacity building frameworks for allied health professionals - a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):716. Pager S, Holden L, Golenko X. Motivators, enablers, and barriers to building allied health research capacity. J multidisciplinary Healthc. 2012:53–9. Pain T, Petersen M, Fernando M. Building Allied Health Research Capacity at a Regional Australian Hospital: A Follow-up Study. Internet J Allied Health Sci Pract. 2018;16(4):8. Matus J, Wenke R, Hughes I, Mickan S. Evaluation of the research capacity and culture of allied health professionals in a large regional public health service. J Multidisciplinary Healthc. 2019:83–96. Wenke RJ, Ward EC, Hickman I, Hulcombe J, Phillips R, Mickan S. Allied health research positions: a qualitative evaluation of their impact. Health Res policy Syst. 2017;15:1–11. Slade SC, Philip K, Morris ME. Frameworks for embedding a research culture in allied health practice: a rapid review. Health Res policy Syst. 2018;16:1–15. Holden L, Pager S, Golenko X, Ware RS. Validation of the research capacity and culture (RCC) tool: measuring RCC at individual, team and organisation levels. Aust J Prim Health. 2012;18(1):62–7. Williams C, Miyazaki K, Borkowski D, McKinstry C, Cotchet M, Haines T. Research capacity and culture of the Victorian public health allied health workforce is influenced by key research support staff and location. Aust Health Rev. 2015;39(3):303–11. Greenland S, Senn SJ, Rothman KJ, Carlin JB, Poole C, Goodman SN, et al. Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: a guide to misinterpretations. Eur J Epidemiol. 2016;31(4):337–50. Borkowski D, McKinstry C, Cotchett M. Research culture in a regional allied health setting. Aust J Prim Health. 2017;23(3):300–6. Cordrey T, King E, Pilkington E, Gore K, Gustafson O. Exploring research capacity and culture of allied health professionals: a mixed methods evaluation. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):85. Avery M, Westwood G, Richardson A. Enablers and barriers to progressing a clinical academic career in nursing, midwifery and allied health professions: a cross-sectional survey. J Clin Nurs. 2022;31(3–4):406–16. Chalmers S, Hill J, Connell L, Ackerley S, Kulkarni A, Roddam H. The value of allied health professional research engagement on healthcare performance: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23(1):766. Wenke R, Noble C, Weir KA, Mickan S. What influences allied health clinician participation in research in the public hospital setting: a qualitative theory-informed approach. BMJ open. 2020;10(8):e036183. Harding KE, Porter J, Horne-Thompson A, Donley E, Taylor NF. Not enough time or a low priority? Barriers to evidence-based practice for allied health clinicians. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2014;34(4):224–31. Wenke R, Weir KA, Noble C, Mahoney J, Mickan S. Not enough time for research? Use of supported funding to promote allied health research activity. J Multidisciplinary Healthc. 2018:269–77. Wenke RJ, Mickan S, Bisset L. A cross sectional observational study of research activity of allied health teams: is there a link with self-reported success, motivators and barriers to undertaking research? BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17:1–10. Harding KE, Stephens D, Taylor NF, Chu E, Wilby A. Development and evaluation of an allied health research training scheme. J Allied Health. 2010;39(4):E143–8. Hearn C, Ross J, Govier A, Semciw AI. Clinical care ratios for allied health practitioners: an update and implications for workforce planning. Aust Health Rev. 2024. Stephens D, Taylor N, Leggat SG. Research experience and research interests of allied health professionals. J Allied Health. 2009;38(4):E107–11. Hearn C, Ross JA, Govier A, Semciw AI. Clinical care ratios for allied health practitioners: an update and implications for workforce planning. Aust Health Rev. 2024:–. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Supplementaryfiles.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 13 Jun, 2025 Reviews received at journal 12 Jun, 2025 Reviews received at journal 12 Jun, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 04 Jun, 2025 Reviews received at journal 03 Jun, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 02 Jun, 2025 Reviews received at journal 02 Jun, 2025 Reviews received at journal 02 Jun, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 01 Jun, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 31 May, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 28 May, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 20 May, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 14 May, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 14 May, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 28 Apr, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 28 Apr, 2025 First submitted to journal 28 Apr, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6518500","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":457283746,"identity":"2186cf8c-bb97-4adf-8e0b-6e7605d2181d","order_by":0,"name":"Adam I Semciw","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"La Trobe University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Adam","middleName":"I","lastName":"Semciw","suffix":""},{"id":457283747,"identity":"348ffbe6-0c40-431f-a98c-b91201bfe55f","order_by":1,"name":"Hazel Heng","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"La Trobe University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hazel","middleName":"","lastName":"Heng","suffix":""},{"id":457283748,"identity":"b8ac6b47-5c4d-43fa-95d1-1a604487d4f4","order_by":2,"name":"Mark Tacey","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Northern Health","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mark","middleName":"","lastName":"Tacey","suffix":""},{"id":457283749,"identity":"cfeb14c5-f169-45dd-8d24-aa6d6bad40cb","order_by":3,"name":"Jingfei Wu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Northern Health","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jingfei","middleName":"","lastName":"Wu","suffix":""},{"id":457283750,"identity":"fb309afc-a939-4973-a8a0-7cfb9d3858f9","order_by":4,"name":"Rebecca L Jessup","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"La Trobe University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rebecca","middleName":"L","lastName":"Jessup","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-04-24 08:08:13","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6518500/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6518500/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":82901305,"identity":"07ef813c-78a6-4d14-8a0f-846c92394ad1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-16 13:29:14","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":50885,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAllied Health Clinic\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6518500/v1/0e02096c30b39058b8542813.png"},{"id":82901306,"identity":"948f797c-7792-427e-9779-768aed3f5242","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-16 13:29:14","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":122382,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRadar plot illustrating research capacity scores. Higher scores indicate greater research capacity\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6518500/v1/443a726c1b0d19e9da433b2a.png"},{"id":82901779,"identity":"1a989793-ca48-4aac-b850-06261dd09894","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-16 13:37:14","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":25352,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eProbability of progression at 6-months by seniority level.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6518500/v1/220c8bf9f3c87a228b79d6e5.png"},{"id":82903974,"identity":"0176b443-bbf8-40f3-ac60-dda4eb39ef0b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-16 13:53:35","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1227772,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6518500/v1/78a03f1d-1b2e-45df-93f7-f56d46b021ee.pdf"},{"id":82901307,"identity":"773c344a-3542-44b2-afdf-d3c3b537d2a3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-16 13:29:14","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":34565,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Supplementaryfiles.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6518500/v1/e4e2d20fcc659a0e6da8fc82.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Research motivators, barriers and progress of allied health clinicians engaged in an Allied Health Research Clinic. An observational study","fulltext":[{"header":"Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eEmbedding evidence based practice (EBP) into clinical practice is important for addressing the growing demands on healthcare systems and to ensure patients receive the best possible care (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Integrating EBP and supporting a strong research culture in day-to-day healthcare delivery is associated with patient, staff and organisational benefits (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOne strategy to improve the EBP of health professionals is through enhancing their research capacity. The process of developing and translating new knowledge into practice unfolds over a long timeframe, starting out at basic laboratory science in academic environments, and moving through to investigations that occur in clinical contexts, and ultimately leading to implementation and translation into practice (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). Developing the research skills of healthcare staff not only enriches their professional expertise and empowers them to contribute to the evidence base that guides their clinical practice, but in many cases rapidly shortens the time lag that occurs between conception and implementation. It has also been shown to improve job satisfaction and retention, offering health professionals a sense of professional achievement and growth, as well as offering alternative pathways for career advancement (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResearch has shown that Allied Health (AH) professionals\u0026rsquo; requirements around research capacity building may differ from medical and nursing professionals. These differences stem from the multidisciplinary nature of their work, the differences in care settings (with care often occurring in the community) and the strong emphasis on achieving holistic outcomes for patients (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e). Strategies to improve research culture in AH must therefore be both content and context specific, and include provision of appropriate infrastructure, commitment from leadership (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e), dedicated time for research (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e), and tailored mentorship and guidance from seasoned researchers (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e). There is also a need to understand motivators and barriers to research for AH clinicians, so educational opportunities can be tailored.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOver the past decade, embedded researcher roles within healthcare settings have become increasingly recognised as enablers in building AH professional research capacity (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e). However, less is known about the different methods used by clinicians employed in these roles to build research capacity. To promote and facilitate clinician-led research activity, two dedicated AH research positions were created through a partnership between a university and a metropolitan public health service in Melbourne, Australia. These research positions provided support to AH professionals through a newly developed AH Research Clinic. AH professionals were able to register and book an appointment time where they were provided with tailored advice and guidance in furthering their research projects and ideas. While understanding the research capacity of the broader AH workforce is valuable, this study focuses specifically on the self-selecting group of clinicians who actively sought research support from an AH Research Clinic. These clinicians represent a distinct subgroup of AH professionals already demonstrating interest or engagement in research, and therefore offer unique insights into the motivations, perceived barriers, and research trajectories of those seeking to build their research skills.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe aim of this study was to understanding the experiences and outcomes of these professionals, including their research capacity, motivators, barriers, and research progression over time. Specific objectives of the study were to:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col style=\"list-style-type: lower-roman;\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDescribe the baseline characteristics and research capacity of AH professionals who participated in the clinic,\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eExplore motivators and barriers to research engagement,\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eExamine whether research activity progressed over a six-month period following initial engagement, and\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eInvestigate whether gender or professional seniority were associated with research motivators, barriers, or progression.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDesign\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study used a prospective observational cohort design.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical approval\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthical approval was received from the Northern Health Low Risk Ethics Committee (HREC number: 64993). All participants provided informed consent to take part in the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eContext:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eResearch Clinic\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe clinic was staffed is by two AH PhD qualified researchers (AS and RJ/HH) with different research methodology expertise in both quantitative and qualitative research. These research clinic staff formed the core team, while a biostatistician (MT) and ethics and governance specialist (JW) were engaged on an as-needed basis, depending on the support needs of the clinic participants.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs part of the clinic, data is captured about attendees experiences with research and their progression is documented 6 months following clinic attendance (Figure 1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePopulation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants were AH professionals working at Northern Health (NH), who proactively registered for the AH Research Clinic, reflecting a group with pre-existing interest in or intent to pursue research activity. NH is a major metropolitan public health service and is the primary provider of acute, subacute, and ambulatory specialist services in the northern region of Melbourne. The network encompasses a 410-bed acute hospital, which includes facilities such as mental health, an intensive care unit, a special care nursery, and a short stay unit. Additionally, there are two subacute hospital sites (134 and 87 beds) along with an outpatient and day procedure site. AH staff employed include dietitians, exercise physiologists, occupational therapists, orthotists, physiotherapists, psychologists, podiatrists, social workers, and speech pathologists.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegistration for the AH Research Clinic was self-initiated. AH professionals from all settings including acute, sub-acute and community, were invited to register for the clinic if they required any form of assistance with research, ranging from early research question development, through to dissemination of research findings.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData collection\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe research clinic functioned as a structured mechanism to engage interested clinicians in research and capture insights into their capacity, motivation, and barriers. Surveys were conducted using Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBaseline assessment\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt registration, participants were asked to complete a survey about their general and professional demographics, and their clinical experience. Research capacity was assessed using the Research Capacity and Culture tool (RCC) (12). The RCC tool describes research capacity and culture across three domains: the organisation, the team, and the individual. For this study, only the \u0026lsquo;individual\u0026rsquo; domain was used. Participants were asked to describe their self-perceived skills across 14 research-related skills: finding relevant literature, critically reviewing the literature, using a computer referencing system (e.g. Endnote), writing a research protocol, securing research funding, submitting an ethics application, designing questionnaires, collecting data, using computer data management systems, analysing qualitative research data, analysing quantitative research data, writing a research report, writing for publication in peer-reviewed journals, and providing advice to less experienced researchers. Responses for each item reflected the individual\u0026rsquo;s perceived confidence on a 10-point numerical scale, ranging from 1 (lowest skill level) to 10 (highest skill level). Scores from each item were summed for each participant to get a total RCC score. The RCC tool has demonstrates excellent internal consistency (ICC = 0.96) and strong test-retest reliability (0.82 for individual domain). To maximise responses, a forced response format was used, whereby the option \u0026lsquo;don\u0026rsquo;t know\u0026rsquo; was eliminated (13).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdditional questions pertaining to the RCC tool that we asked participants about were the stage of their current research (10 items); research activities completed in the last 12 months (4 items); motivators (16 items) and barriers (18 items) to engagement in research (Supplementary File 1). The original question related to barriers contained 17 items. We developed an additional item \u0026ndash; \u0026ldquo;Difficulties in identifying a research question\u0026rdquo; based on our experience working with clinician-researchers in the past. Participants could select more than one option for each question.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e6- month follow-up\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSix months following their research clinic appointment, participants were sent a survey with questions about the status of their research. Participants were asked if they had completed any additional research items since the appointment from the following list (multiple options could be chosen): gathered literature, formulated the research question, completed a research protocol, assembled the research team, received ethics approval, applied for grant funding, received grant funding, completed data collection, completed data analysis, published a journal paper, presented the project at a conference (including posters), the project has not progressed, or other.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIf participants had completed any additional item of research in the last six months, their project was considered to have \u0026lsquo;progressed\u0026rsquo;. If participants had indicated that their project had not progressed, they were asked to identify reasons behind this, selecting from the following list (multiple options could be chosen): funding, time, motivation, lack of research support or mentoring, the original research question was not feasible anymore, or other. Selecting other in response to any question would prompt an open text box.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDemographic data were reported descriptively. Likert scale data were summarised with descriptive measures of median and interquartile range (IQR). A radar plot was used to represent the median score of each of the items on the RCC tool. Open ended responses were summarised and described narratively. For data analysis, position classification was grouped into junior (Grade 1 and 2) and senior (Grade 3 and 4) to represent seniority. Multivariable binomial logistic regression was used to examine the effects of gender and seniority on motivators and barriers to research. We limited this analysis to these two variables (gender and seniority) to minimise over-fitting our data, and seniority level could theoretically be considered a surrogate of age, years of experience or qualifications.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo examine the relationship between progression of research, and either seniority or gender, a multivariable binomial logistic regression was used. Outcomes were reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals to indicate the odds of progression at 6 months. All analyses were performed with Jamovi Version 2.3 (https://www.jamovi.org/). In our analyses, we have not use p-values as strict cut-offs for significance. While a p-value of 0.05 will help identify potentially stronger associations, we recognize that associations with p-values between 0.05 and 0.10 cannot be completely ruled out and still provide meaningful evidence towards an association, especially if effect sizes are large. This approach aligns with recommendations to avoid the dichotomous interpretation of p-values and to consider the full context of effect sizes and confidence intervals (14).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eBetween January 2020 and August 2023, 43 AH staff participated in the research clinic. At the six-month mark, 34 surveys were completed, representing a 79% response rate. Most participants were women (67.4%), the mean age was 35.2 years (SD 9.5), and the mean number of years of experience was 11.4 years (SD 9.5). Physiotherapists made up the largest group of users (41.9%) followed by Dietetics (14%), Social Work (9.3%) and Occupational Therapy (9.3%).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eApproximately half of the participants were junior staff (53.5%) and most participants worked in a clinical role (81.4%). Just over one in three participants held postgraduate qualifications (37.2%). About a third of participants were not currently involved in any other research activities (27.8%), while the remaining participants reported being involved in at least one or more other research activities at the time of the survey (Supplementary file 2). Full details of participant characteristics can be found in Table 1.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 1: Participant characteristics (N = 43)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"580\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 345px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eItem\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 235px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMean (SD); n (%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 345px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 235px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35.2 (9.52)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 345px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGender\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 235px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 345px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWomen\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 235px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29 (67.4%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 345px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMen\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 235px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14 (32.6%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 345px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAllied Health Discipline\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 235px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 345px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePhysiotherapy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 235px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18 (41.9%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 345px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOccupational Therapy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 235px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4 (9.3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 345px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDietetics\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 235px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6 (14%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 345px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeech Therapy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 235px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (4.7%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 345px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePharmacy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 235px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 (7%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 345px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSocial Work\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 235px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4 (9.3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 345px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePsychology\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 235px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (2.3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 345px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePodiatry\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 235px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (4.7%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 345px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eExercise Physiologist\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 235px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (4.7%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 345px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMean years of experience (full-time equivalent)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 235px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.44 (9.5%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 345px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCurrent position classification\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 235px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 345px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGrade 1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 235px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5 (11.6%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 345px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGrade 2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 235px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18 (41.9%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 345px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGrade 3\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 235px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13 (30.2%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 345px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGrade 4\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 235px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7 (16.3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 345px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePrimary work role\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 235px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 345px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClinical\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 235px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35 (81.4%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 345px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClinical education\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 235px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 (7%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 345px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eManagement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 235px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5 (11.6%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 345px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 235px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0 (0%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 345px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHighest qualification attained\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 235px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 345px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBachelor\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 235px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16 (37.2%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 345px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBachelor with Honours (Research)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 235px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4 (9.3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 345px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGraduate Certificate\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 235px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8 (18.6%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 345px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMasters by Coursework\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 235px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14 (32.6%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 345px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMasters by Research\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 235px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0 (0%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 345px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePhD\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 235px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (2.3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch Capacity\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRespondents indicated relatively high confidence or skills with searching and critically reviewing literature (Median [IQR]; 7 [1] and 6 [2] respectively). Participants reported the lowest confidence in securing research funding (1 [1]), submitting an ethics application (2 [3]), publication writing (2 [3]), and providing mentorship to other colleagues (2 [2]). Median scores for each item were plotted on a radar plot (Figure 2).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMotivators and barriers to research, and their relationship between gender and seniority\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants identified their top three motivators to research as being development of skills (91%), wanting to change an identified problem (70%), and keeping their brain stimulated (51%). The top three barriers were that other work roles take priority (74%), a perceived lack of time (63%), and lack of research skills (56%). The full distribution of motivators and barriers can be found in Table 2.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"600\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 600px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2: Motivators and barriers for allied health staff participating in research\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 292px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhat are the motivators to do research for you personally? Tick as many as apply\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 308px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhat are the barriers to do research for you personally? Tick as many as apply\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 217px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMotivators\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFrequency (n = 43)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 237px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBarriers\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFrequency (n = 43)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 217px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo develop skills\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e39 (91%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 237px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOther work roles take priority\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e39 (91%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 217px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIdentified a problem that needs changing\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30 (70%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 237px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLack of time\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30 (70%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 217px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKeep brain stimulated\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22 (51%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 237px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLack of research skills\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22 (51%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 217px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCareer advancement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21 (49%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 237px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIntimidated by research language\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21 (49%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 217px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIncreased job satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21 (49%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 237px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFear of getting it wrong\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21 (49%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 217px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDesire to prove theory/hunch\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19 (44%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 237px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLack of suitable backfill\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19 (44%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 217px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMentors available to supervise\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16 (37%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 237px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDesire for work/life balance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16 (37%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 217px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResearch encouraged by managers\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15 (35%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 237px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIdentifying research question\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15 (35%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 217px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOpportunities to participate at own level\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15 (35%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 237px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLack of coordinated approach to research\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15 (35%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 217px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIncreased credibility\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13 (30%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 237px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLack of research funds\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13 (30%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 217px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLinks to Universities\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12 (28%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 237px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLack of admin support\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12 (28%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 217px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eColleagues doing research\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9 (21%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 237px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLack of research software\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9 (21%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 217px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDedicated time for research\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7 (16%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 237px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOther personal commitments\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7 (16%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 217px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eForms part of postgrad study\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6 (14%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 237px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIsolation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6 (14%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 217px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGrant funds\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4 (9%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 237px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLack of access to research equipment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4 (9%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 217px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResearch written into role description\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 (7%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 237px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNot interested\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 (7%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 217px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 237px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLack of library/internet access\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (5%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 217px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 237px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLack of management support\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (2.3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere was evidence of an association between gender and motivation (supplementary file 3). Men had almost 10 times greater odds of selecting links to universities as a motivator for pursuing research compared to women (OR 9.75, 95% CI 2.18 to 55.96, p = 0.005). We could not rule out an association toward male participants being more motivated to conduct research to advance their career (OR 3.77, 95% CI 0.96 to 17.12, p = 0.066) or as part of their postgraduate study (OR 5.1, 95% CI 0.84 to 41.66, p = 0.086). When considering seniority level, having an \u0026ldquo;identified problem that needs changing\u0026rdquo; may be more likely to motivate senior staff to partake in research (4.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 21.18, p = 0.067), while junior staff are likely to see \u0026ldquo;opportunities to participate in research at their level\u0026rdquo; (0.27, 95%CI 0.06 to 1.01, p = 0.061), and to \u0026ldquo;keep their brain stimulated\u0026rdquo; (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.12, p = 0.079) as motivators.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMen were more likely to report the desire for work-life balance (OR 5.15, 95% CI 1.15 to 26.89, p = 0.038) and other personal commitments (OR 11.31, 95% CI 1.43 to 240.16, p = 0.042) as barriers to engagement in research. Senior staff were potentially more likely to see a lack of backfill as a barrier to research (OR 3.73, 95% CI 0.91 to 18.36, p = 0.080). The association between barriers for research with gender and seniority are provided in Supplementary file 4.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch progression at six months\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt six months, 25 of the 34 respondents had progressed in their research (73.5%) (Table 3). Majority of respondents had completed 1-4 research items (70.8%), seven had completed 5-8 research items (29.2%), and none had completed more than 8 items. The top four completed research items were: formulating a question (38.2%), gathering research literature (38.2%), assembling the research team (23.5%), and completing data collection (23.5%). \u0026nbsp;Four respondents reported other research outputs including extension of project timeline, increased allocated work hours, postgraduate degree submission, completion of data collection tools and commencement of intervention implementation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNine participants reported not progressing their research, two were men, and eight were junior staff (Table 3). The majority reported lack of time as a reason for not progressing their research (77.8%), while one participant reported lack of funding. Five participants also reported other reasons for the lack of progression including upcoming leave, cessation of project and their work focus moving out of the project area. There was evidence of an association between seniority and progression of research at the 6-month mark where senior staff were 9.6 times (95% CI 1.40 to 195.70, p = 0.049) more likely to have progressed compared to junior staff, after adjusting for sex (figure 3). There was no association between gender and progression of research (OR 2.49 95%CI 0.42 to 21.0, p = 0.344).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 3: Characteristics of six-month survey respondents\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 31px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProgressed (n=25)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNot progressed (n=9)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMean age, y (SD)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 31px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35.44 (9.73)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31.89 (9.03)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGender, (%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 31px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWomen\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 31px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16 (64.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7 (77.8)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMen\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 31px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9 (36.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (22.2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eYears of experience, y (SD)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 31px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.36 (9.08)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.44 (10.75)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQualification (%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 31px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eUndergraduate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 31px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14 (56.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9 (100)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePostgraduate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 31px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11 (44.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0 (0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCurrent position level (%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 31px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGrade 1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 31px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 (12)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 (33.3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGrade 2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 31px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10 (40)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5 (55.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGrade 3\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 31px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8 (32)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (11.1)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGrade 4\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 31px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4 (16)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0 (0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study explored the research motivations, barriers, and progress of a group of AH professionals who actively sought support for research-related activities. By focusing on those who self-registered for a research clinic, we were able to examine the characteristics and experiences of clinicians who are already inclined toward engaging in research. These individuals represent a distinct subset of the broader AH workforce \u0026mdash; one that is often overlooked in system-wide assessments of research capacity. Our exploratory analysis of the factors that motivate these allied health professionals to engage in research, as well as their perceived barriers to involvement, suggest that both motivations and barriers to engagement vary across gender and seniority. Or results also indicate that research led by senior clinicians are more likely to progress than those led by junior colleagues. These findings highlight the importance of a tailored approach to supporting individuals across their research journey.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur findings reinforce findings from other studies that have demonstrated that motivations for research engagement amongst allied health professionals are multifaceted (4). Skill development, intellectual stimulation, and a desire to solve practical problems were frequently cited drivers. These align with previous literature highlighting the value AH clinicians place on research that is relevant to their practice and professional growth (4, 15, 16). Motivations varied by career stage: junior clinicians were more likely to be motivated by intellectual stimulation and accessible opportunities, while senior clinicians were more driven by problem-solving and systems-level impact. Additionally, men were more likely to see research as an opportunity to progress their career (e.g., links to universities and career advancement), but saw the impact of research on work-life balance as a deterrent. These observed differences in motivation by career stage and gender contribute nuanced insights to the existing literature on research engagement in health professionals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUnderstanding these motivations and barriers provides an opportunity for developing targeted support services such as the research clinic described in this paper. For junior staff, providing opportunities to participate in research not only offers intellectual stimulation but fosters critical thinking skills and keeps them updated with the latest advancements in clinical research. Given that junior clinicians may have recently transitioned from academic settings, these research opportunities allow them to maintain their connection to academia. This continuity can enhance their professional development by integrating academic knowledge with practical clinical experience, thereby reinforcing their engagement and commitment to research culture. Providing opportunities for junior clinical staff to engage in research can be seen as integral in building the next generation of clinician researchers (17). Providing allied health staff who are interested in research with the support and resources they need to succeed is important to implementation of best practices that least to improvements in care processes and patient outcomes (18).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur finding that time constraints and competing work priorities are significant barriers to engaging in aligns with the findings of other studies (7, 15, 16, 19), and is consistent with research on barriers to evidence-based practice in general (20). Previous studies have shown that having dedicated time for allied health clinicians to engage in research can significantly enhance research capacity (21-23). This consideration is important, given that public health services primarily focus on the delivery of care and seldom allocate dedicated time for clinicians to engage in research activities. A recent allied health benchmarking process identified that the proportion of non-clinical time increases with seniority, recommending that senior clinical leaders receive up to a third of their time as non-clinical (24). Non-clinical time includes a range of competing activities such as professional development, administrative tasks, supervision, and research. Considering that not all allied health clinicians have an interest in research (25), we advocate for providing those with a passion and interest in research the opportunity to prioritise research as part of their non-clinical roles.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eClinician led research is more likely to progress if led by a senior clinician. Senior clinicians have greater capacity to negotiate protected time (19, 26), ensure work is done that aligns with the strategic priorities of the organisation, and increase the likelihood of administrative buy-in and implementation. While we believe there is a place for all clinicians interested in research, we would recommend that senior clinicians take a leading role in prioritised research activities to maximise the likelihood of success.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eImplications for practice\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur findings provide evidence of a need for tailored support to enhance research capacity among AH professionals. Promoting a research-inclusive culture by integrating research into clinical roles and addressing barriers such as time constraints and lack of skills is important to the building of research capacity. Many participants sought assistance for mid and tail-end phases of research, including data collection, analysis, write-up, and publication, indicating areas where clinics can offer targeted support. By providing specialised resources, such as access to a biostatistician, health services can ensure that research projects not only commence but also reach completion, contributing to the broader scientific community. Junior staff should be given entry-level research opportunities, while senior staff can be engaged through problem-solving initiatives, and leading research projects (with support). Monitoring research progress helps identify where support is most needed and fosters a culture of accountability and continuous improvement. This comprehensive approach may enhance research participation, improve patient care, and foster a robust research culture in AH.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStrengths and limitations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur study has several strengths, including providing tailored advice and support, achieving a high follow-up response rate, involving a diverse range of allied health disciplines, and employing a longitudinal design that offered insights into the progression of research engagement over time. However, the small sample size means while there were noted differences between respondents, many of these did not reach statistical significance. In addition, this was conducted at a single site with its own operational systems and culture. Leadership support, existing research infrastructure, and institutional values, may not be representative of other settings, potentially limiting the generalisability of the findings to other hospitals and healthcare environments with varied cultural and operational dynamics.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study provides new insights into the research engagement of AH professionals who actively sought research support through a structured clinic. By examining this self-selecting group who are already motivated to engage in research, we identified key enablers and challenges influencing research capacity and progression. Participants commonly reported a desire to develop skills, solve clinical problems, and engage intellectually, but also highlighted persistent barriers such as time constraints, competing priorities, and limited research experience. These findings will contribute to growing understanding of how best to foster a research-active allied health workforce, inform the design of future capacity-building strategies, and maximise the likelihood of achieving research outcomes.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was approved by the Northern Health Low Risk Ethics Committee (HREC number: 64993). All participants provided informed consent with completion of the survey. Research was conducted in accordance to the Helsinki Declaration.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNo funding was received to conduct this study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDe-identified participant data from this research will be shared upon reasonable request with the corresponding author.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u0026rsquo; contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAIS, RJ participated in the design of the study. AIS, RJ, MT, JW conducted the data collection and AIS, HH conducted the analysis and interpretation. AIS wrote the draft paper and AIS, RJ, JW, MT, HH participated in editing. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors would like to thank the staff for engaging with the Allied Health research Clinic.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHoffmann T, Bennett S, Del Mar C. EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE. Australia: Elsevier; 2018.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHarding K, Lynch L, Porter J, Taylor NF. Organisational benefits of a strong research culture in a health service: a systematic review. Aust Health Rev. 2017;41(1):45\u0026ndash;53.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDrolet BC, Lorenzi NM. Translational research: understanding the continuum from bench to bedside. Translational Res. 2011;157(1):1\u0026ndash;5.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBorkowski D, McKinstry C, Cotchett M, Williams C, Haines T. Research culture in allied health: a systematic review. Aust J Prim Health. 2016;22(4):294\u0026ndash;303.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePickstone C, Nancarrow S, Cooke J, Vernon W, Mountain G, Boyce RA, et al. Building research capacity in the allied health professions. Evid Policy. 2008;4(1):53\u0026ndash;68.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMatus J, Walker A, Mickan S. Research capacity building frameworks for allied health professionals - a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):716.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePager S, Holden L, Golenko X. Motivators, enablers, and barriers to building allied health research capacity. J multidisciplinary Healthc. 2012:53\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePain T, Petersen M, Fernando M. Building Allied Health Research Capacity at a Regional Australian Hospital: A Follow-up Study. Internet J Allied Health Sci Pract. 2018;16(4):8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMatus J, Wenke R, Hughes I, Mickan S. Evaluation of the research capacity and culture of allied health professionals in a large regional public health service. J Multidisciplinary Healthc. 2019:83\u0026ndash;96.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWenke RJ, Ward EC, Hickman I, Hulcombe J, Phillips R, Mickan S. Allied health research positions: a qualitative evaluation of their impact. Health Res policy Syst. 2017;15:1\u0026ndash;11.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSlade SC, Philip K, Morris ME. Frameworks for embedding a research culture in allied health practice: a rapid review. Health Res policy Syst. 2018;16:1\u0026ndash;15.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHolden L, Pager S, Golenko X, Ware RS. Validation of the research capacity and culture (RCC) tool: measuring RCC at individual, team and organisation levels. Aust J Prim Health. 2012;18(1):62\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWilliams C, Miyazaki K, Borkowski D, McKinstry C, Cotchet M, Haines T. Research capacity and culture of the Victorian public health allied health workforce is influenced by key research support staff and location. Aust Health Rev. 2015;39(3):303\u0026ndash;11.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGreenland S, Senn SJ, Rothman KJ, Carlin JB, Poole C, Goodman SN, et al. Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: a guide to misinterpretations. Eur J Epidemiol. 2016;31(4):337\u0026ndash;50.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBorkowski D, McKinstry C, Cotchett M. Research culture in a regional allied health setting. Aust J Prim Health. 2017;23(3):300\u0026ndash;6.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCordrey T, King E, Pilkington E, Gore K, Gustafson O. Exploring research capacity and culture of allied health professionals: a mixed methods evaluation. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):85.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAvery M, Westwood G, Richardson A. Enablers and barriers to progressing a clinical academic career in nursing, midwifery and allied health professions: a cross-sectional survey. J Clin Nurs. 2022;31(3\u0026ndash;4):406\u0026ndash;16.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChalmers S, Hill J, Connell L, Ackerley S, Kulkarni A, Roddam H. The value of allied health professional research engagement on healthcare performance: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23(1):766.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWenke R, Noble C, Weir KA, Mickan S. What influences allied health clinician participation in research in the public hospital setting: a qualitative theory-informed approach. BMJ open. 2020;10(8):e036183.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHarding KE, Porter J, Horne-Thompson A, Donley E, Taylor NF. Not enough time or a low priority? Barriers to evidence-based practice for allied health clinicians. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2014;34(4):224\u0026ndash;31.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWenke R, Weir KA, Noble C, Mahoney J, Mickan S. Not enough time for research? Use of supported funding to promote allied health research activity. J Multidisciplinary Healthc. 2018:269\u0026ndash;77.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWenke RJ, Mickan S, Bisset L. A cross sectional observational study of research activity of allied health teams: is there a link with self-reported success, motivators and barriers to undertaking research? BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17:1\u0026ndash;10.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHarding KE, Stephens D, Taylor NF, Chu E, Wilby A. Development and evaluation of an allied health research training scheme. J Allied Health. 2010;39(4):E143\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHearn C, Ross J, Govier A, Semciw AI. Clinical care ratios for allied health practitioners: an update and implications for workforce planning. Aust Health Rev. 2024.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStephens D, Taylor N, Leggat SG. Research experience and research interests of allied health professionals. J Allied Health. 2009;38(4):E107\u0026ndash;11.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHearn C, Ross JA, Govier A, Semciw AI. Clinical care ratios for allied health practitioners: an update and implications for workforce planning. Aust Health Rev. 2024:\u0026ndash;.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-health-services-research","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"bhsr","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Health Services Research](http://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/BHSR/default.aspx","title":"BMC Health Services Research","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Research Activity, Research Capacity, Health Services","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6518500/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6518500/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmbedding evidence-based practice (EBP) into healthcare is essential to improving patient outcomes and workforce sustainability. Building research capacity among allied health professionals is a key strategy for strengthening EBP and fostering a culture of inquiry in clinical settings. The aim of this study was to understand the experiences and outcomes of allied health professionals who accessed research support through a newly developed research clinic, including their research capacity, motivators, barriers, and research activity over time.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA prospective observational cohort design was employed, targeting AH professionals at a major metropolitan public health service in Melbourne, Australia. AH Clinicians with an interest in research self-registered for assistance through a structured research clinic. Baseline and six-month follow-up surveys assessed research capacity using the Research Capacity and Culture (RCC) tool and documented research activities, motivators, and barriers. Multivariable binomial logistic regression analysed the influence of gender and seniority on research motivators, barriers, and progression.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBetween January 2020 and August 2023, 43 AH professionals registered for the clinic. Most were women (67.4%), with a mean age of 35.2 years and average of 11.4 years\u0026rsquo; clinical experience. The cohort was discipline diverse, with physiotherapists (41.9%) the largest group. Over half (53.5%) were junior staff, and 37.2% held postgraduate qualifications. At baseline, participants reported higher confidence in literature searching and critical appraisal, and lower confidence with grant writing, ethics submissions, and academic publication. Top motivators included skill development (91%) and solving practical problems (70%) while the main barriers were competing priorities (74%) and lack of time (70%). At six months, 73.5% of participants reported progress in their research, with senior staff being significantly more likely to advance their projects compared to junior staff (OR 9.60, 95% CI 1.40 to 195.70, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.049).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusion\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAddressing barriers such as time constraints and providing tailored mentorship are important for fostering a sustainable research culture in AH settings. Future efforts should focus on creating dedicated time for research and enhancing support systems to further integrate research into clinical practice.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Research motivators, barriers and progress of allied health clinicians engaged in an Allied Health Research Clinic. An observational study","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-05-16 13:29:10","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6518500/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-06-13T11:16:06+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-06-13T01:17:25+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-06-12T19:07:09+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"220196634554331550328585599472589764041","date":"2025-06-05T03:40:36+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-06-03T12:32:39+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"59326456297966594192556049289802936826","date":"2025-06-02T12:51:05+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-06-02T11:54:42+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-06-02T07:21:46+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"288232404523215026123029690737329790690","date":"2025-06-01T15:09:24+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"301068296868896864564686418897959279575","date":"2025-05-31T09:12:56+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"158988319797872547192212660436293712077","date":"2025-05-29T02:53:05+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"77400623694199411249544264424335519459","date":"2025-05-20T15:48:06+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"245505585316043310635185390946962041502","date":"2025-05-14T11:02:30+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-05-14T05:57:15+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-04-28T10:39:31+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-04-28T08:08:05+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Health Services Research","date":"2025-04-28T08:06:53+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-health-services-research","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"bhsr","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Health Services Research](http://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/BHSR/default.aspx","title":"BMC Health Services Research","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"7cc5b972-3ff6-4aff-8e38-50de0a8e68bc","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 16th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-08-21T09:08:19+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-05-16 13:29:10","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6518500","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6518500","identity":"rs-6518500","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}