Perceptions and characteristics of the mentor role in research capacity building programs for clinicians: A scoping review

Perceptions and characteristics of the mentor role in research capacity building programs for clinicians: A scoping review | 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 Perceptions and characteristics of the mentor role in research capacity building programs for clinicians: A scoping review Tracy Flenady, Pauline Calleja, Ashlyn Sahay, Lisa Wirihana, Amy-Louise Byrne This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4578511/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Research capacity building programs are in facilitating clinicians’ engagement with best-practice research. Benefits of research capacity in healthcare locations have far reaching benefits including individuals, communities, and health services. Commonly, research capacity building programs include an element of mentoring, to facilitate experiential learning. The role of the mentor is diverse, thus this review aimed to uncover the role and perceptions of mentors, from both mentees and mentors. Methods A systematic copsing review was conducted, using the five-stage framework of Arksey and O’Malley (2005). CINAHL, Embase, PubMed and Scopus databases were searched. Thematic analysis was conducted to reconcile the data against the aims and objectives. Results A total of 25 articles were included for analysis. Analysis of data related to the mentor perception found two main themes and associated subthemes; Measures of success (Facilitate opportunities, understand the research process and embed research into routine practice) and Operational Factors (understanding their role and multi-modal delivery) For the mentees, analysis uncovered two main themes and associated subthemes; Ideal mentor attributes (appropriately experienced, regular contact, approachable and enthusiastic ), and Desired outcomes (increased confidence in research, facilitate collaboration, and support to do research). Conclusions The value and importance of the mentor in research capacity building is clear. This article provides a framework for the role of the mentor in research capacity building programs. Research capacity building mentoring research capability health service research support Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Background Research Capacity Building (RCB) has been defined as the ‘process of individual and institutional development which leads to higher levels of skills and greater ability to perform useful research’ ( 1 ). In healthcare settings, RCB programs play a significant role in generating and sustaining new research that can influence clinicians' evidence-based practices. Research conducted by clinicians within the healthcare industry is critical as it enhances professional practice and is translated to inform policies and procedures that ensure the provision of safe and quality healthcare ( 2 ). By engaging clinicians in research, evidence-based practices are translated into clinical practice at an accelerated rate ( 3 ), while developing clinicians' skills and knowledge ( 4 ). Evidence-based practices lead to improved patient outcomes and the advancement of clinical professions ( 5 ). The key drivers of such research capacity building programs include identified protected time, research space, institutional funding, and mentoring ( 6 , 7 ). In the context of clinicians, feeling that research is connected to clinical practice and patient outcomes is also important ( 8 ). Despite evidence of clinicians’ personal motivation driving their participation in research ( 9 ), published data indicates that a supportive environment can have an even more significant effect on research productivity than solely relying on the clinicians' own motivations ( 10 ). Further, even with clinicians being well positioned to be active in doing research and not simply being the recipients and potential users of research, a lack of research expertise is a significant barrier for clinicians ( 11 , 12 ). To address these factors, healthcare services are increasingly engaging experienced researchers, usually academics, to support clinicians to conduct research ( 13 , 14 , 15 ). Indeed, King et al. ( 16 ) found that the integration of mentoring in educational programs is a critical element for research capacity building. Programs that involve academics providing research expertise support to clinicians aim to bridge the chasm between knowledge generation and translation and contribute to the development of a positive research culture in the clinical setting ( 17 , 18 , 19 ). Research capacity-building programs (RCBP) often comprise of various structures and components that make their approach unique, however, little is reported on the specific benefit of embedding mentors in the RCBP. Whilst it is reported that research academics fulfil the role of ‘mentor’ for the clinicians, little is known regarding the characteristics of mentors, and how the mentors and mentees perceive the role of the mentor in RCB ( 19 ). Therefore, this literature review sets out to examine the characteristics of the mentor role in RCB and to identify how the mentors and mentees perceive the role of the mentor. Research capacity building is important for safe, quality clinical practice, and the development of research capacity and capability in regional areas is of particular importance. In regional areas, research capability is typically lower, due to lower staffing levels, reduced resource availability and geographical disbursement of staff. Successful research outcomes thus rely on supervision and mentoring of research projects ( 20 ). Innovation in this space is key, as is a strong understanding of the role of the mentor, as they work with clinicians on problems unique to their environment. Indeed, research capacity building programs in the regional setting are important and have become more popular in these diverse locations. The Research Ready Grant Program ( 21 ) is an example of one such program, which incorporates multiple levels of mentoring support, which is seen as fundamental to research success. Mentors provide much needed expertise and support across technical and critical aspects of research, often acting as a conduit between the clinical and research worlds ( 20 , 21 ). Therefore, understanding the role of the mentor, and how the role can be applied to diverse contexts is an important endeavour. Methods Aims and Questions This review aimed to uncover the role of the mentor in research capacity building programs designed for clinicians. The review questions were: How do mentors perceive their role when supporting clinicians participating in research capacity building programs? How do participants of research capacity building programs perceive the role of the mentor? Objectives The objective of this review was to systematically review the literature with reference to research capacity building, specifically noting the relevance of mentoring. The review objective is to develop a knowledge translation strategy, that once embedded, can support a sustainable change in clinician practice toward research participation and engagement. Design This review adopts the five-stage framework of Arksey and O’Malley ( 22 ) for scoping reviews, (Identification and research question; Identify relevant studies; Study selection; Charting the data; and collating, summarising, and reporting the results). This review complies with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) ( 23 ) checklist. A review protocol was not registered or published. Search Methods The search strategy for this study was developed by utilising the Problem/Population, Interest/Intervention and Context (PICo) framework ( 24 ) (see Table 1 ). The PICo framework facilitated the construction of several domains designed to effectively guide our literature search. An iterative process was used that included all team members to populate each of the search domains. An experienced healthcare facility librarian was consulted to provide feedback throughout the generation of our search strategy. Table 1 PICo framework P Problem/Population Clinicians, Mentors, I Intervention/Interest Research Capacity Building Program Co Context Hospital setting Domains Keywords and MeSH terms P Clinicians Healthcare personnel OR clinician* OR staff OR nurs* OR medical officer OR practitioner P Mentors Mentor* OR trainer OR educat* OR teach* I Research Capacity Building Program Research Capacity Building Program OR Research Capacity Building OR RCB OR research education Co Hospital setting Hospital OR “health clinic” OR “health sector” OR “nursing home” OR “health service” OR ward OR “acute care” OR “inpatient service” Insert Table 1 here Databases searched included the Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, PubMed and Scopus as demonstrated in Fig. 1 below. Eligibility Criteria and Selection To be eligible for inclusion, articles meeting criteria demonstrated in Table 2 , were sought. Whilst the literature search excludes certain article types, we did not exclude studies based on the methodology employed, therefore the included studies had the potential to include both qualitative and quantitative results. The search limited inclusion to studies published from January 2007 to May 2024 to ensure contemporary evidence was included and reported upon. Table 2 Inclusion and exclusion criteria across level one and two screening. Level 1- Title and Abstract Inclusion Exclusion Peer reviewed articles on research capacity building programs Conference papers, editorials and discussion papers In a hospital setting Research capacity building programs not clearly identified Full text English language Population groups are clinicians mentors Level 2- Full text review Inclusion Exclusion Reports the characteristics of mentor/advisor/educator/facilitator in the delivery of the research capacity building program As above and does not discuss mentoring And/or Information regarding the participants and or the mentors perspectives about the mentor/advisor/educator/facilitator role are included Literature reviews of any kind Insert Table 2 here Once records were identified, all articles were downloaded into Endnote, and exported into Covidence software for blinded appraisal. Members of the research team (TF, AS, PC, LW) independently completed level 1 screening as per Table 1 above. Next, the same members completed level 2 screening. A team meeting was held to gain consensus on the inclusions and exclusions of all records. A total of 25 records were progressed for quality appraisal. Quality appraisal The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) is designed to appraise the methodological quality of quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies ( 25 ). As this review did not exclude studies based on their chosen methodologies, the MMAT suited this project’s purpose. Two of the team (TF, ALB) used the MMAT tool to appraise the quality of each included study. The tool begins with two overall screening questions; are there clear research questions and do the collected data allow to address the research questions. Following on from these, questions were asked based on each study’s methodology. The tool advises users to not calculate an overall score from awarding ratings to each question, rather, users are advised to provide more details about each criterion to arrive at a more informed overview of the quality of each study. No articles were excluded based on the quality appraisal. Overall results of the search strategy are displayed in Fig. 1 below. Insert Fig. 1 here. Data Extraction and Analysis Data from the selected articles were extracted onto a purpose-built data extraction tool developed in Microsoft Excel. The extraction tool was designed around the overarching objectives and aims of the review and was used to develop an understanding of the characteristics and components of mentoring within research capacity building programs for clinicians. Independent respondents were collated by the lead author and a thematic analysis was completed. Using the work of Braun and Clarke ( 26 ), data were analysed against the defined aims. Two authors (TF, ALB) did an initial analysis and code generation, and subsequent meetings were held to further generate codes, collapsing them into themes. An independent member of the team validated the themes against the dataset. A final meeting was held to define and name the themes, presented herein ( 26 ). A summary of the selected articles is presented in Table 3 below. Table 3 Summary of included articles Paper # Authors, year, Country Population Research Design Name of program/group, Nuances of the program, and initial outcomes Relationship between research capacity building program and mentoring Quantitative studies 1 Corchon, S., Carmen Portillo, M., Watson, R., Saracibar, M. 2011. Spain Clinical nurses Quasi-experimental design Research intervention implemented in Spanish hospital. An intervention, as a nursing education program + mentoring, delivered over one year, mostly consisting of research courses and journal clubs. Mentoring was established to implement the intervention activities and to provide expert support. Mentors consisted of nurses with Masters’ or PhD working in the hospital with research knowledge and experience. Support was fundamental to research capability. While not specifically attributed to the mentors, support also included ward management support. Mentors helped to instil a research culture within the facility. 2 Wenke, R., Weir, K.A., Noble, C., Mahoney, J., Mickan, S. 2018. Australia Allied health staff Quantitative research capacity and culture survey Consolidated research time. Allied health professionals received 4 weeks relief from clinical duties to undertake research. Statistically significant improvements demonstrated for funding grants, analysing data, writing for publication, literature searching, and providing advice to others. Mentors provided advice and support for the whole project. Mentoring was useful in facilitating outcomes. Mentors should be local to mentees. Mixed Methods 3 Donley, E., & Moon, F. 2021. Australia Social workers in a metropolitan hospital setting Mixed methods survey. Collaborative research projects allocated to clinicians. The research engagement improved confidence across all domains (question, literature review, methodology, conclusion, and poster). Mentoring, especially in the context of the busy hospital, was fundamental to program success, particularly in maintaining motivation. The research lead and line manager support roles were fundamental to success. 4 Ekeroma, A.J., Kenealy, T., Shulruf, B., McCowan, L.M.E., & Hill, A. 2014. Fiji Nurses/midwives, medical doctors, health workers working in reproductive health Mixed methods survey and interviews Research Capacity Building Program in Pacific Islands. Barriers to research capacity include limited knowledge and skill, lack of access to recourse, lack of access to a mentor and limited line management support. Mentoring is seen as leadership and is required to enable clinician research to reach full potential. Mentoring is provided onsite, via phone, email and Skype. 5 King, O.A., Wong Shee, A., Howlett, O., Clapham, R., Versace, V.L. 2022. Australia Rural and remote Allied health professionals Mixed methods- EBP-KAP tool and Qualitative- semi structured interviews Rural Health Multidisciplinary Training While quantitative factors did not demonstrate improvement in evidence-based practice, qualitative evidence demonstrated that the individual research capacity was improved with mentored support, and that organisational factors impacted their ability to engage in and practice research. Training consisted of two face-to face full-day workshops, mentored by experienced researchers. Mentoring promoted the practical application of research. Mentorship extended beyond the defined training period. 6 Nightingale, J., Fowler-Davis, S., Grafton, K., Kelly, S., Langham, C., Lewis, R., Bianco, B., & Harrop, D. 2020. United Kingdom Nurses, midwives and allied health professionals who completed an Integrated clinical academic internship Mixed methods Internship program The academic internship is available to clinical staff with no research experience. Interns were supported by line managers and academic mentors. Barriers included not having protected time off/away from clinical. The support of the line manager and the mentor was the most positive influence on the intern. Mentors suggested that where the research focus was unclear, mentoring could be challenging. The intern and mentor both benefitted the wider clinical team. 7 Oulton, K., Wray, J., Kelly, P., Shair, K., Sell, D., & Gibson, F. 2020. United Kingdom Nurses and allied health professionals working in a Children’s hospital. Mixed methods, survey and interviews Clinical Academic Programme. Program consisted of internships, workshops, mentoring and supervision, conferences, training and resources. Mentoring was provided though formal and informal lines. Mentoring is an essential element of capacity building. Qualitative studies 8 Shepherd, M., Endacott, R., Quinn, H. 2022 England Nurses – Hispanic undergraduate and graduates Case study, Qualitative. Capacity building framework Senior Nurse Leader Programme Whole of Systems approach, Accommodating diversity, reducing barriers to participation, enabling collaboration, mentoring and facilitating networking. Mentoring provided an opportunity for hands-on experience, provided clarity, and was included in all aspects of the processes. Highly regarded by participants. 9 Arnold, L.D., Barnoya, J., Gharzouzi, E.N., Benson, P., Colditz, G.A. 2013 Guatemala Clinicians working in cancer care Case study report Cancer control Research Training Institute. A dedicated research training program for clinicians can help to build research capacity, in the low- and middle-income context. Mentoring was provided during and after the program, leading to ongoing relationships. The training program (including the mentoring) lead to an increased confidence in research and in developing protocols. 10 Birden, H.H. 2007 Australia General practitioners Lessons learned from the Researcher Development Program The Research Development Program (RDP). Seeks to build research capacity in primary healthcare. Provides financial support and leadership to engage in research activities. While mentoring is seen as very positive, time was an issue for both GP’s and mentors. Participants felt that a mentoring network would be advantageous. 11 Birkhoff, S.D., McCulloh, J., Monturo, C., Molyneaux, D., Rochman, M.F., Sawyer, A.M., & Moriarty, H. 2020 Philadelphia, USA Nurses Case study across three sites Nurse Scientists in Magnet designated hospitals. Provided target education and worked on improving a culture of research and evidence-based practice. The nurse scientist provides one-on-one education and mentoring to other nurses, aiming to increase capacity. This translates to patient care and improved patient outcomes 12 Carter, E.J., Cato, K.D., Rovera, R.R., Kulage, K.M. Liu, J., Vose, C., & Larson, E. 2020 United States Clinical Nurses Retrospective analysis of the Academic-practice research fellowship The Academic-Practice Research Fellowship. Of the 13 nurses accepted into the program. The first cohort ( 5 ) nurses all successfully completed their research and presented at international conferences. Four had submitted manuscripts for publication and two being accepted. The current fellows are meeting milestones. Academic mentor (one-on-one) allocated to each nurse. Protected time was provided to each fellow for mentoring. Mentoring is viewed as valuable, and cost must be factored in. 13 Connor, J.A., Mott, S., DeGrazia, M., Lajoie, D., Dwyer, P., Poyner Reed, M., Porter, C., & Hickey, P.A. 2020. United States Nursing fellowships Children’ Case review of the Nursing Science Fellowship (NSF) The Nurse Science Fellowship (NSF). Six nurse scientists serve as faculty mentors to nurses in the facility, fostering nurse-led enquiry. Each nurse scientist provides quarterly forums of education and bi-monthly mentorship sessions. Mentoring was important to the progression of the nurses academically but was also viewed as important to clinical care. Mentoring also supported the translation of evidence-based practice. 14 Davis, K.F., Harris, M., Boland, M.G. 2019. United States Nurses working in not-for-profit health service in Hawaii Case review of academic-practice partnership Partnership between American Association of Colleges of Nurses and the America Organization of Nurse Executives. Mentors provided by the University to the hospital to establish a partnership model between hospital and University Mentoring is viewed as instrumental in shaping nursing infrastructure and capacity. Mentoring and financial support are important to the program’s success. 15 Edwards, N., & MacDonald, J-A. 2009. Canada Nurses working across areas such as community health, acute care, complex and continuing care, mental health and children’s. Case review of a three-month internship in research capacity building Nursing Chairs- with the Canadian Health Services Research Foundations Postdoctoral fellow and career scientists provided mentoring to the interns. This supported their research understanding, but also supported the interns to be mentors to others. Mentors led education sessions and provided hands on experiential learning The inclusion of mentors was essential to the success of the program. Mentoring also offered the opportunity for creative writing and debate sessions. 16 Flenady, T., Dwyer, T., Kahl, J., Sobolewska, A., Reid-Searl, K., & Signal, T. 2022. Australia Clinicians working across a Regional Australian Health Service Qualitative thematic review Research Ready Grant Program (RRGP) This article explores the role of the research facilitator in the delivery of the research capacity building program. The facilitator also provided mentoring and advice to novice researchers The facilitator/mentor provided support and expertise. Participants felt greater support through the structured program, and they valued the program 17 Friesen, E.L., Comino, E.J., Reath, J., Derrett, A., Jonson, M., Powell Davies, G., Teng-Liaw, S., & Kemp, L. 2014. Australia Public health clinicians in speech pathology, physiotherapy, counselling (sexual assault), community nursing, dietetics and paediatric psychology. Case review of the PCHRU Program Primary and Community Health Research Unit (PCHRU) Each clinician team was linked with a university-based mentor. Four research workshops were hosted, and mentoring was provided face-to-face, via email and telephone. Workload was a challenge for clinicians, Flexible mentoring was viewed favourably and led to the development of research skills. 18 Gullick, J.G., & West, S.H. 2015. Australia Advanced practice nurses Qualitative descriptive design Community of Practice (CoP) framework. Community of practice model offered different levels of participation, allowing for research capacity building. Each group was mentored through a research project by a university based academic. Participants applied the value of research to care for their patients and families. Onsite mentorship was highly regarded and viewed as key to success. 19 Hanlon, M-C., Ludbrook, J., Jovamovic, K., Greer, P., & Martin, J. M. 2018. Australian Director of research and research coordinator and explores the impact on clinician oncology departments Case review Director of Research and Research Coordinator roles created. The director and coordinator roles provided education, newsletters, and ongoing mentoring to clinicians, along with coaching and project management skills. Barriers to becoming involved in research included insufficient time and lack of mentoring, with varied support from leadership. This model mitigated some barriers by being visible and accessible to staff. 20 Ploeg, J., de Witt, L., Hutchinson, B., Hayward, L., Grayson, K. 2008. Canada Community care staff from public private and not for profit organisations Qualitative study Research mentorship through Communicate Care Research Centre (CCRC). Research mentorship was implemented, by university mentors. The mentoring program allowed the participants to ‘take hold’ of research skills and knowledge, and to apply this to their community and beyond. In most cases, mentoring was seen as positive, however where university systems did not recognise and support mentoring activities, workload hindered the relationship. Benefits to the individual were easier to articulate than benefits to the organisation. 21 Rosenberg, A., Uwitonze, J.M., Dworkin, M., Kabagema, I., Dushime, T., Nkeshimana, M., Riviello, R., & Jayaraman, S. 2020. Rwanda Clinicians providing emergency/first responder care Case Review Service d’Aide Medicale Urgente (SAMU) Research Group Education, training, and support was provided, and success measures included conference presentations and publications about clinician-led problems. One-on-one mentorship programs were provided. Mentoring fostered collaboration and research capacity and planted the seed for future projects. 22 Usher, K., Redman-MacLaren, M.L., Mills, J., West, C., Casella, E., Hapsari, E.D., Bonita, S., Rosaldo, R., Liswar, A.K., & Zang, U. 2015. Australia Nurses from the Asia-pacific emergency disaster nursing network Case review Research capacity building for the Asia Pacific Emergency and Disaster Nursing Network (APEDNN). A course was delivered using an action research framework to guide learning. Formal mentoring relationships were established, and the program led to research outcomes across 19 countries. Mentoring helped to develop critical thinking and develop research skill. Mentoring is ongoing. Mentoring requires mutually respectful relationships. 23 Webster, E., Thomas, M., Ong, N., & Cutler, L. 2011. Australia Rural and remote based clinicians Case review Rural Research Capacity Building Program. Teaching, mentoring, and networking led to the development of research capability, which translated into enhanced workforce development and organisational change. Resources such as backfill were important in the rural context. Mentoring and regular contact improves motivation and understanding. Mentors reported a positive experience. Mentoring often extended beyond the program. Mentors supported the development of skills and the dissemination of research. 24 Wilkes, L., Cummings, J., McKay, N. 2013. Australia Clinical nurse consultants in general children’s practice Case review Clinical Nurse Consultant group. The research program was viewed as a way of bridging leadership development, patient care and translating research findings into practice. Mentors were available via phone and face-to-face. Mentoring is viewed as essential to success. Mentoring must be sustained. Mentoring facilitated research capacity in nursing and translation of knowledge into practice. 25 Wright, D., Fry, M., Adams, J., & Bowen, C. 2020. United Kingdom Nurses and allied health professionals working in musculoskeletal/ rheumatology Qualitative interviews The Nurse and Allied Health Professional musculoskeletal research internship. Interns demonstrated early research capability in the form of publications and conference abstracts. The internship improved intentions to work in research. Mentors and interns viewed the program favourably. Mentors helped to build a peer support network. Mentors expressed that time was needed to successful mentor interns. Over time, interns themselves became mentors to others. Insert Table 3 here. Results After duplicates were removed, 261 records met the criteria for level one (abstract and title) screening. One hundred and forty-five records were excluded after level one screening, leaving 116 articles for level two screening (full text). Level two screening resulted in 91 articles being removed, with 25 records eligible to be included in the review. Of these 25, 19 used qualitative methods, four employed quantitative methods and two studies used mixed methods. Many countries were represented, with 11 articles from Australia, four from the United Kingdom and the United States of America respectively, two from Canada and one each from Guatemala, Rwanda, Fiji, and Spain. Publication dates varied from 2007 to 2022. Each of the included articles were reviewed for the purpose of answering two distinct research questions: How do mentors perceive their role when supporting clinicians participating in research capacity building programs? How do participants of research capacity building programs perceive the role of the mentor? The findings are summarised in Fig. 2 and demonstrate a novel framework for the role of the mentor in RCBPs. Insert Fig. 2 here. Review question A Analysis of the data revealed two main themes related to the Mentors ’ perception of their role when supporting clinicians participating in RCBPs: Measures of Success and Operational Factors. Measures of Success Measures of success pertain to the ideal outcomes of their mentorship according to the mentors themselves. Three distinct measures of success were identified; facilitating opportunities, supporting the clinicians to understand the research process, and embedding research into routine practice. Facilitate Opportunities Twenty of the included 25 studies referred to one or more measures of success ( 27 – 51 ). Mentors felt an important aspect of their role was to facilitate opportunities for clinicians to develop research networks, collaborate with other researchers and stimulate multidisciplinary and intersectoral collaboration ( 28 , 30 – 35 , 38 , 39 , 41 ). Mentors believed that fostering these opportunities led to the development of rural research networks ( 31 , 33 ), new research opportunities ( 34 ) and novel ways of discussing, thinking about and approaching clinical practice changes ( 28 , 31 , 33 ). Developing sustainable research networks was identified as another positive outcome of mentor-facilitated collaboration opportunities ( 39 ) and facilitating opportunities for engagement with research higher degree programs was a highly valued measure of success ( 41 ). Facilitating opportunities for dissemination occurred when mentors supported clinicians to disseminate their research via publications ( 30 – 32 , 35 , 38 ), conference presentations ( 41 ) and by informing local policy ( 27 , 34 ). Understand the Research Process Supporting the clinicians to develop an understanding of the research process was seen as a measure of success by nine of the included studies ( 27 , 32 , 33 , 35 , 37 , 38 , 40 , 43 , 46 ). This was largely achieved by aiding clinicians to develop their research protocols, and to develop their research question, and guided them on the most effective way to collect and analyse their data ( 27 , 33 , 35 , 38 , 40 ). Mentors also felt it was important to support the clinicians throughout the ethics process ( 27 , 32 , 33 ) as well as outlining the requirements of conducting literature reviews ( 32 , 35 , 37 , 43 ). When specific needs arose, for example, help understanding statistical or thematic analysis for example, mentors either provided it themselves, or arranged for assistance from experts, to ensure clinicians were supported ( 35 , 38 ). Embed Research into Routine Practice Overwhelmingly, mentors considered it a measure of success when clinicians embedded research activities into their routine practice ( 27 – 30 , 32 – 34 , 36 , 39 , 42 , 44 , 45 ). This was evidenced when clinicians operationalised the projects their mentors helped them to develop ( 29 , 39 , 42 ) applied findings from research into their practice ( 28 , 33 , 34 , 44 ) or used their findings to inform policy ( 27 , 34 ). Mentors encouraged clinicians to choose a project topic that was close to the clinician’s practice to aid in the translation of evidence in their local context ( 29 , 39 , 45 ). Mentors who maintained contact with clinicians reported a sense of satisfaction when the clinicians’ projects remained on track ( 29 ), when the clinicians were observed looking for evidence to inform their clinical practice ( 34 ) and when clinicians provided support to their peers who were interested in conducting research ( 28 , 34 ). By supporting clinicians to embed research into practice, mentors felt that both the mentors and the clinicians were contributing to an improved research culture ( 30 , 32 , 33 , 36 ). Operational Factors When focusing on review question A, analysis of the included studies revealed two themes. The second theme related to how mentors perceived their role when supporting clinicians participating in research capacity building programs is Operational Factors. The operational factors mentors felt responsible for included Understanding Their Role, and the Importance of Multi-Modal Mentoring. Understanding Their Role Nineteen of the 25 included studies mentioned the importance of understanding the mentor’s role when it comes to setting/context and managing mentoring expectations ( 27 , 29 – 36 , 38 – 40 , 42 , 43 , 45 , 47 – 50 ). Depending on the setting, mentors were seen as educators ( 34 ), research experts ( 27 , 32 , 33 , 36 , 39 , 43 ), trainers ( 27 , 38 ) or nurse scientists ( 42 , 47 , 48 ). Regardless of these labels, nearly all mentors had some research qualification ( 27 , 29 – 31 , 34 , 35 , 40 , 45 , 49 ) and mentors explicitly stated that they understood their role involved more than didactic delivery of information ( 27 , 36 , 38 ). Mentors spoke about the importance of facilitating hands-on sessions to embed deeper learning ( 38 ) and ensured their expertise aligned with any content they were delivering ( 27 , 29 , 34 ). Multi-Modal Mentoring Delivery methods included face –to-face ( 30 , 32 , 38 , 39 , 44 , 49 ), virtual ( 38 , 39 , 46 , 49 ) email ( 38 , 40 , 46 , 49 ) or telephone platforms ( 32 , 38 , 49 ). Various mentors acknowledged that the use of multiple communication modes was an optimal approach that provided alternatives for clinicians who may prefer different communication channels. However, some mentors stated that face –to-face encounters were pivotal to successful outcomes, claiming that face-to-face support overcame language and cultural barriers and offered better opportunities for guidance and assistance ( 30 , 44 , 46 ). Regardless of the mentoring mode, mentors and clinicians agreed it was integral that the mentors remain highly engaged to achieve optimal outcomes ( 29 , 32 , 35 , 46 , 48 , 49 ). Review Question B When it came to developing an understanding of the clinicians’ perception, analysis of the data revealed two overarching themes: Ideal Mentor Attributes and Desired Outcomes. Ideal Mentor Attributes Clinicians had very clear ideas on the Ideal mentor attributes, including mentors having Appropriate experience, being Approachable and enthusiastic, and Maintaining regular contact. Appropriately Experienced Ten articles included clinicians’ thoughts on the importance of mentors’ research experience and or academic qualifications ( 30 , 33 , 34 , 39 , 41 , 43 , 44 , 46 , 49 , 51 ). Whilst clinicians referred to mentors as academics, scientists or senior researchers, the clinicians appeared to value mentors’ research experience rather than their title ( 33 , 34 , 43 , 45 ). Despite this, it was also important to the clinicians that the mentors embraced effective adult learning strategies, for example providing formal mentoring support to some ( 30 , 41 , 43 , 45 , 47 , 51 ) and ad hoc ongoing guidance to others ( 33 , 47 , 49 ). Regular Contact Clinicians expressed how important it was to have regular contact with the mentors ( 29 , 30 , 33 , 38 , 48 , 51 ), which varied from weekly, monthly and quarterly meetings, depending on the research capacity building program in use. Regardless of the regularity, clinicians felt it was essential that the mentors remained engaged ( 29 , 51 ) and that clear expectations were discussed and set early in the relationship ( 48 ). Approachable and Enthusiastic Six of the included articles discussed clinician’s perspectives on how approachable and enthusiastic the mentors were ( 33 , 34 , 39 , 43 , 47 , 51 ). Clinicians felt that approachable mentors resulted in a positive experience ( 51 ) that was pivotal to continued engagement in the research process ( 43 ). Approachability was thought to increase clinicians’ capacity for research through the development of trust ( 47 ), whilst some clinicians claimed that approachable mentors facilitated greater and more meaningful learning experiences ( 33 , 34 ). Enthusiasm is contagious and this proved to be true for clinicians who reported that an enthusiastic mentor kept them engaged in their projects and increased their enthusiasm for learning ( 33 , 34 ). Desired Outcomes When focusing on review question B, analysis of the included studies revealed two themes. The second theme related to how clinicians perceive the mentor role was identified as Desired Outcomes. The desired outcomes that clinician’s value include Increased confidence to do research, Facilitated collaboration and Support to do research. Increased Confidence to do Research Clinicians stated that access to regular mentoring increased their confidence to do research, and that this was a highly regarded outcome ( 27 , 29 , 34 , 39 , 47 , 49 , 51 ). Participants from one study claimed that their increased confidence to do research spilled over into their professional and personal life with a long-lasting positive effect ( 30 ). Increasing clinicians’ confidence to do research had various other impacts with clinicians developing the confidence to review practice guidelines ( 34 ), share their findings with their workplace colleagues ( 39 ) broaden their research networks ( 30 , 34 , 50 ) and pursue a career in research ( 27 ). Clinicians mentioned that gaining the confidence to do research inspired them to develop future funding proposals to explore research in areas related to their disciplines ( 27 , 47 ). Facilitated Collaboration Review question A of this study revealed that mentors felt it was their responsibility to facilitate collaboration opportunities, and clinicians from six of the included studies reiterated how valuable this aspect of mentoring was personally ( 30 , 33 , 39 , 43 , 47 , 49 ). Clinicians appreciated mentors’ efforts to facilitate collaboration with internal and external researchers and believed it led to the development of research networks ( 30 , 33 , 39 , 43 ) and their involvement in collaborative research projects ( 47 ). Clinicians in one study said that the facilitated collaboration opportunities stimulated interagency and intersectoral networking and resource sharing ( 49 ). Support to do Research Ultimately, clinician support to undertake research is essential ( 27 , 28 , 32 , 34 , 36 – 38 , 44 , 47 ). Ideally, this involved the mentors providing guidance in regard to developing a research proposal ( 33 , 47 ) and then supporting the clinician to operationalise their project ( 39 , 43 ). Being shown how to translate their findings into practice was a highly valued outcome ( 34 , 47 ), as was exposure to the skills required to develop a project from inception through to dissemination ( 43 , 47 ). Clinicians reported the positive impact that a mentor’s invaluable and encouraging support had on the clinician’s ability to ‘do’ research ( 30 , 43 ). Discussion Analysis from the included studies of this scoping review resulted in two major themes and several subthemes for each area of enquiry. For mentors themselves, the literature suggests that success comes in the form of facilitated opportunities, greater participant understanding of research processes and the integration of research into clinical practice. In addition to these success factors, the scoping review found that mentors need clear role explanation, particularly around setting and managing mentoring expectations with participants. Mentors themselves are described as educators, research experts and trainers, and the importance of using diverse learning approaches was clear. Diverse ways of learning, partnered with multi-modal forms of connecting (face –to-face, online, telephone and email) are required to ensure solid outcomes in relation to capacity building. Indeed, more recent studies have shown that mentoring not only supports individual capability but allows for translation of knowledge into practice ( 52 ). For those working in the health sphere, this is a critical point. Research must drive practice, and to decrease the research to practice time gap, clinicians must be able to relate to knowledge in ways that they can reconcile ( 53 ). Clinical education is one area we can support research engagement; however, an equally important element is culture creation ( 54 ). Clinicians engaging with research do so with the knowledge that their outcomes may support safer care, and the cross pollination of research skills to clinicians within a health service footprint is key. Strengthening the clinical workforce in research not only supports quality care but builds a culture of evidence-based practice and excellence ( 55 ). This scoping review has allowed for the development of a framework that depicts the role of the mentor in RCBPs (Fig. 2 ). This framework demonstrates the relationship between the mentor and the mentee, providing tangible guidance for others seeking to embed mentors to facilitate RCB. The framework not only provides guidance on who a mentor should be, but what they should focus on, how they should be inducted into their role and how they can support reportable outcomes for the individual and the health service. Mentoring is undoubtedly an essential element of research capacity building. The role is mutually beneficial, as participants learn and engage with research processes, and mentors develop and refine essential mentoring skills ( 36 , 46 ). In the clinical context, mentoring is an applied form of leadership. In this context, mentors drive individual and facility culture, by helping clinicians to engage with evidence and partake in research important to their practice, thereby facilitating future engagement with research ( 29 , 32 ). Mentoring, while essential, can only be successful when appropriate time, support and collaboration are embedded within RCBPs, thus allowing clinicians the space to explore and interact with research in the clinical realm ( 29 , 38 , 41 ). Limitations Given the nature of research capacity building programs, research on outcomes is varied. Some articles included in this review had methodological limitations, including small sample sizes, and were more exploratory than descriptive. Standardised assessment tools and theoretical frameworks were not always used, particularly in the context of smaller research capacity building programs. For this review the authors chose to include published literature only, thus grey, and unpublished literature has not been included, and therefore limits the collection of data from those sources. Conclusion This scoping review provides a comprehensive examination of the mentor's role in research capacity building programs for clinicians, highlighting both mentors' and participants' perceptions. Our findings underscore the pivotal role that mentors play in facilitating opportunities, enhancing participants’ understanding of research processes, and integrating research into clinical practice. Success in mentoring is linked to clear role expectations and diverse engagement strategies. For the clinicians, an ideal mentor embodies experience, regular communication, enthusiasm, and approachability, aiming to bolster confidence in research and promote collaboration. Mentoring emerges as a critical component of research capacity building, serving as a form of leadership that can profoundly enhance the research culture within clinical settings. Moving forward, it is essential to ensure that mentoring programs are supported with adequate time, space, and resources to maximize their impact and sustainability. The outcomes of this review underscore the transformative potential of mentoring in fostering a robust and dynamic research environment in clinical practice. Declarations Ethical approval Ethical approval for this evaluation was obtained through CQUniversity HREC approval number 0000023575, as well as the Hospital and Health Service HREC, approval number HREC/2022/QCQ/80422. Data availability All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files]. Competing interests The authors declare no conflicts of interest. All authors consent to publication. Funding The RRGP project is jointly funded by Central Queensland University, Australia, and Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service. Author contributions Contribution Author Conceptualisation of the article TF, PC, LW, AS Searching of databases TF, PC, LW, AS Appraisal of articles TF, PC, LW, AS Data extraction TF, PC, LW, AS, AB Writing of manuscript draft AB, TF, Editing of manuscript AB, TF, AS, PC, LW Finalisation and approval of manuscript TF, PC, LW, AS, AB Ethics statement As a systematic review, ethics is not required for this article. No data was directly obtained participants. Acknowledgements With thanks to Kathryn Ritchie, Senior Librarian, for their assistance with the search strategy and terms. References Trostle J. Research capacity building in international health: definitions evaluations and strategies for success. Social Science and Medicine 1994;35(11), 1321-1324. Scala E, Price C, Day J. An integrative review of engaging clinical nurses in nursing research. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 2016;48(4), 423-430. Gill SD, Gwini SM, Otmar R, Lane SE, Quirk F, Fuscaldo G. Assessing research capacity in Victoria's south-west health service providers. Australian Journal of Rural Health,2019;27(6), 505-513. McCarthy P, Bethune C, Fitzgerald S, Graham W, Asghari S, Heeley T, Godwin M. Curriculum development of 6for6. Canadian Family Physician, 2016;62(2), e89-95. Hendricks J, Cope V. Research is not a ‘scary’ word: Registered nurses and the barriers to research utilisation. Nordic journal of nursing research, 2017;37(1), 44-50. Hiscock H, Ledgerwood K, Danchin M, Ekinci E, Johnson E, Wilson A. Clinical research potential in Victorian hospitals: the Victorian clinician researcher needs analysis survey. International Medicine Journal, 2014;44(5), 477-482. Perry JJ, Snider CE, Artz JD, Stiell IG, Shaeri S, McLeod S, Le Sage N, Hohl C, Calder LA, Vailliancourt C, Holroyd B, Hollander JE, Morrison LJ. CAEP 2014 Academic Symposium: How to make research succeed in your emergency department: How to develop and train career researchers in emergency medicine. Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine, 2015; 17(3). Morrison L, Johnston B, Cooper M. Mixed methods systematic review: Factors influencing research activity among nurses in clinical practice. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 2021;31, 17-18. Siedlecki SL, Albert NM. Research‐active clinical nurses: against all odds. Journal of clinical nursing, 2017;26(5-6), 766-773. Archibald D, Hogg W, Lemelin J, Dahrouge S, St Jean M, Boucher F. Building capacity for medical education research in family medicine: the Program for Innovation in Medical Education (PIME). Health Research Policy and Systems, 2017;15(1), 91. doi:10.1186/s12961-017-0256-y Alison JA, Zafiropoulos B, Heard R. Key factors influencing allied health research capacity in a large Australian metropolitan health district. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 2017;9(10). Higgins I, Parker V, Keatinge D, Giles M, Winskill R, Guest E, . . . Phelan C. Doing clinical research: the challenges and benefits. Contemporary Nurse, 2010;35(2), 171-181. Harbman P, Bryant-Lukosius D, Martin-Misener R, Carter N, Covell CL, Donald F, . . . Valaitis R. Partners in research: building academic-practice partnerships to educate and mentor advanced practice nurses. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 2017; 23(2), 382-390. McKee G, Codd M, Dempsey O, Gallagher P, Comiskey C. Describing the implementation of an innovative intervention and evaluating its effectiveness in increasing research capacity of advanced clinical nurses: using the consolidated framework for implementation research. BMC nursing, 2017;16(1), 21. Schmidt DD, Webster E, Duncanson K. Building research experience: Impact of a novice researcher development program for rural health workers. Australian Journal of Rural Health, 2019;27(5), 392-397. King O, West E, Lee S, Glenister K, Quilliam C, Wong Shee A, Beks H. Research education and training for nurses and allied health professionals: A systematic scoping review. BMC Medical Education, 2022;22. Berta W, Cranley L, Dearing J W, Dogherty E J, Squires JE, Estabrooks CA. Why (we think) facilitation works: insights from organizational learning theory. Implementation Science, 2015;10(1), 141. Cranley LA, Cummings GG, Profetto-McGrath J, Toth F, Estabrooks CA. Facilitation roles and characteristics associated with research use by healthcare professionals: a scoping review. BMJ Open, 2017;7(8), e014384. Elledge C, Avworo A, Cochetti J, Carvalho C, Grota P. Characteristics of facilitators in knowledge translation: An integrative review. Collegian, 2017;26(1), 171-182. Moxham L, Taylor E, Dwyer T, Lauder W, Antonious C, Roxburgh M. Articulating expectations about post graduate supervision: Getting it right at the start of the journey. In: Fourie-Malherbe M, Albertyn R, Aitchison C, Bitzer E, editors. Postgraduate Supervision: Future foci for the knowledge society. African SUN 2016; MeDIA Flenady T, Dwyer T, Kahl J, Sobolewska A, Reid-Searl K, Signal T. Research capacity-building for clinicians: understanding how the research facilitator role fosters clinicians’ engagement in the research process. Health Research Policy and Systems, 2022;20. 0:45 Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: toward a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 2005;8(1). 19-32. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, . . . Weeks L. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of internal medicine, 2018;169(7), 467-473. Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J, Hayward RS. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club, 1995;123(3). Hong QN, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, Dagenais P, . . . O’Cathain A. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Education for Information, 2018; 34(4), 285-291. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2008;3(2), 77-101. Davis KF, Harris MM, Boland MG. Ten Years and Counting: A Successful Academic-Practice Partnership to Develop Nursing Research Capacity. Journal of professional nursing: official journal of the American Association of Colleges of Nursing. 2019;35(6):473-9. Shepherd M, Endacott R, Quinn H. Bridging the gap between research and clinical care: strategies to increase staff awareness and engagement in clinical research. Journal of Research in Nursing. 2022;27(1-2):168-81. Hanlon MC, Ludbrook J, Jovanovic K, Greer P, Martin JM, Hanlon M-C. Fostering a culture of research within a clinical radiation oncology department. Journal of Medical Imaging & Radiation Oncology. 2018;62(1):102-8. Gullick JG, West SH. Building research capacity and productivity among advanced practice nurses: an evaluation of the Community of Practice model. Journal of Advanced Nursing (John Wiley & Sons, Inc). 2016;72(3):605-19. Birden HH. The researcher development program: how to extend the involvement of Australian general practitioners in research? Rural Remote Health. 2007;7(3):776. Wilkes L, Cummings J, McKay N. Developing a Culture to Facilitate Research Capacity Building for Clinical Nurse Consultants in Generalist Paediatric Practice. Nursing Research & Practice. 2013:1-8. King OA, Wong Shee A, Howlett O, Clapham R, Versace VL. Research training incorporating education and mentoring for rural and regional allied health professionals: An evaluation study. Aust J Rural Health. 2022;30(5):654-65. Ploeg J, de Witt L, Hutchison B, Hayward L, Grayson K. Evaluation of a research mentorship program in community care. Evaluation and Program Planning. 2008;31(1):22-33. Carter EJ, Cato KD, Rivera RR, Kulage KM, Liu J, Vose C, et al. Programmatic details and outcomes of an Academic-Practice Research Fellowship for clinical nurses. Applied nursing research : ANR. 2020;55:151296. Edwards N, MacDonald J. Building nurses' capacity in community health services. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship. 2009;6(1):1-18. 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 Multidiscip Healthc, 2018;11:269-77. Friesen EL, Comino EJ, Reath J, Derrett A, Johnson M, Davies GP, et al. Building research capacity in south-west Sydney through a Primary and Community Health Research Unit. Australian Journal of Primary Health. 2014;20(1):4-8. Webster E, Thomas M, Ong N, Cutler L. Rural research capacity building program: Capacity building outcomes. Australian Journal of Primary Health. 2011;17(1):107-13. Arnold LD, Barnoya J, Gharzouzi EN, Benson P, Colditz GA. A training programme to build cancer research capacity in low- and middle-income countries: findings from Guatemala. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2014;92(4):297-302. Oulton K, Wray J, Kelly P, Khair K, Sell D, Gibson F. Culture, cognisance, capacity and capability: The interrelationship of individual and organisational factors in developing a research hospital. J Clin Nurs. 2022;31(3-4):362-77. Corchon S, Portillo MC, Watson R, Saracíbar M. Nursing research capacity building in a Spanish hospital: an intervention study. Journal of Clinical Nursing (John Wiley & Sons, Inc). 2011;20(17-18):2479-89. Wright D, Fry M, Adams J, Bowen C. Building research capacity in musculoskeletal health: qualitative evaluation of a graduate nurse and allied health professional internship programme. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):751. Rosenberg A, Uwitonze JM, Dworkin M, Kabagema I, Dushime T, Nkeshimana M, et al. Fostering Trauma and Emergency Research Capacity in Rwanda Through Collaboration. J Surg Educ. 2020;77(5):1018-23. Flenady T, Dwyer T, Kahl J, Sobolewska A, Reid-Searl K, Signal T. Research capacity-building for clinicians: understanding how the research facilitator role fosters clinicians’ engagement in the research process. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2022;20(1):45. Usher K, Redman-MacLaren ML, Mills J, West C, Casella E, Hapsari ED, et al. Strengthening and preparing: Enhancing nursing research for disaster management. Nurse Education in Practice. 2015;15(1):68-74. Birkhoff SD, Nair JM, Monturo C, Molyneaux D, Rochman MF, Sawyer AM, et al. Increasing nursing research capacity: The roles and contributions of nurse scientists within healthcare systems in the Greater Philadelphia region. Applied nursing research : ANR. 2020;55:151288. Connor JA, Mott S, DeGrazia M, Lajoie D, Dwyer P, Reed MP, et al. Nursing science fellowship at Boston Children's Hospital. Applied nursing research : ANR. 2020;55:151292. Ekeroma AJ, Kenealy T, Shulruf B, McCowan LM, Hill A. Building reproductive health research and audit capacity and activity in the Pacific Islands (BRRACAP) study: methods, rationale and baseline results. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14:121. Nightingale J, Fowler-Davis S, Grafton K, Kelly S, Langham C, Lewis R, et al. The role of Allied Health Professions and Nursing Research Internships in developing a research culture: a mixed-methods exploration of stakeholder perspectives. Health Research Policy & Systems. 2020;18(1):1-17. Donley E, Moon F. Building Social Work Research Capacity in a Busy Metropolitan Hospital. Research on Social Work Practice. 2021;31(1):101-7. Asampong E, Mberu Kamau E, Tabong K T-N, Glozah F, Swameme A, Opoku-Mensah K, Amankwa B, Dako-Gyeke P. Capacity building through comprehensive implementation research training and mentorship: an approach for translating knowledge into practice. Globalization and Health. 2003; 19. Abdullahi KO, Ghiyasvandian S, Hasanpour M. Theory-Practice Gap: The Knowledge and Perception of Nigerian Nurses. Iran Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Research. 2022; 27(1), 30-34. Saifan A, Devadas B, Daradkeh F, Abdel-Fattah H, Aljabery M, Michael L.M. Solutions to bridge the theory-practice gap in nursing education in the UAE: a qualitative study. BMC Medical Education. 2021; 21. Brown GV, Sorrell TC. (2009). Building quality in health — the need for clinical researchers. Medical Journal of Australia, 2009; 190(11). 627-629. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files PRISMAScRScopingreview1.pdf Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted 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-4578511","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":321496079,"identity":"db16f763-c4da-4ebd-bda9-114758092658","order_by":0,"name":"Tracy Flenady","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Central Queensland University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tracy","middleName":"","lastName":"Flenady","suffix":""},{"id":321496080,"identity":"0c4adc3e-5961-402f-9881-7683e58811d8","order_by":1,"name":"Pauline Calleja","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"James Cook University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Pauline","middleName":"","lastName":"Calleja","suffix":""},{"id":321496086,"identity":"23703662-7543-44eb-917b-04c0c96bc84b","order_by":2,"name":"Ashlyn Sahay","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Central Queensland University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ashlyn","middleName":"","lastName":"Sahay","suffix":""},{"id":321496092,"identity":"5c305e5f-88b1-4b18-8ce7-ed4433e19b93","order_by":3,"name":"Lisa Wirihana","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Central Queensland University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Lisa","middleName":"","lastName":"Wirihana","suffix":""},{"id":321496095,"identity":"9eb4d96b-5ac9-4bd7-a285-81b8746fe322","order_by":4,"name":"Amy-Louise Byrne","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"James Cook University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Amy-Louise","middleName":"","lastName":"Byrne","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-06-13 23:23:12","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4578511/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4578511/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":60339059,"identity":"e33a558a-fdce-43a6-9bbe-3d1180bb0ef8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-15 17:52:20","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":26910,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePRIMSA flowchart for scoping review\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4578511/v1/347409df8cb71ba8d742dc7d.png"},{"id":60339060,"identity":"3d8a9cfe-19a0-49a4-a6bf-352f3cd18342","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-15 17:52:20","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":127908,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFramework for the role of the mentor in research capacity building\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4578511/v1/2e28f1ec6fbf24bd5c2f7939.png"},{"id":65060884,"identity":"6644cb79-769d-46dc-92a6-d6bbaa9037b7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-09-23 07:54:51","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1185995,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4578511/v1/fbac250d-8e78-4667-977e-2997b5479808.pdf"},{"id":60339061,"identity":"b8b96dc7-8775-4694-bad7-53def9f94d78","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-15 17:52:20","extension":"pdf","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":562016,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"PRISMAScRScopingreview1.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4578511/v1/27da428f13d21fbf40deb168.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Perceptions and characteristics of the mentor role in research capacity building programs for clinicians: A scoping review","fulltext":[{"header":"Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eResearch Capacity Building (RCB) has been defined as the ‘process of individual and institutional development which leads to higher levels of skills and greater ability to perform useful research’ (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). In healthcare settings, RCB programs play a significant role in generating and sustaining new research that can influence clinicians' evidence-based practices. Research conducted by clinicians within the healthcare industry is critical as it enhances professional practice and is translated to inform policies and procedures that ensure the provision of safe and quality healthcare (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). By engaging clinicians in research, evidence-based practices are translated into clinical practice at an accelerated rate (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e), while developing clinicians' skills and knowledge (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). Evidence-based practices lead to improved patient outcomes and the advancement of clinical professions (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e). The key drivers of such research capacity building programs include identified protected time, research space, institutional funding, and mentoring (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e). In the context of clinicians, feeling that research is connected to clinical practice and patient outcomes is also important (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite evidence of clinicians’ personal motivation driving their participation in research (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e), published data indicates that a supportive environment can have an even more significant effect on research productivity than solely relying on the clinicians' own motivations (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e). Further, even with clinicians being well positioned to be active in doing research and not simply being the recipients and potential users of research, a lack of research expertise is a significant barrier for clinicians (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e). To address these factors, healthcare services are increasingly engaging experienced researchers, usually academics, to support clinicians to conduct research (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e). Indeed, King et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e) found that the integration of mentoring in educational programs is a critical element for research capacity building.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrograms that involve academics providing research expertise support to clinicians aim to bridge the chasm between knowledge generation and translation and contribute to the development of a positive research culture in the clinical setting (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e). Research capacity-building programs (RCBP) often comprise of various structures and components that make their approach unique, however, little is reported on the specific benefit of embedding mentors in the RCBP. Whilst it is reported that research academics fulfil the role of ‘mentor’ for the clinicians, little is known regarding the characteristics of mentors, and how the mentors and mentees perceive the role of the mentor in RCB (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, this literature review sets out to examine the characteristics of the mentor role in RCB and to identify how the mentors and mentees perceive the role of the mentor.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch capacity building is important for safe, quality clinical practice, and the development of research capacity and capability in regional areas is of particular importance. In regional areas, research capability is typically lower, due to lower staffing levels, reduced resource availability and geographical disbursement of staff. Successful research outcomes thus rely on supervision and mentoring of research projects (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e). Innovation in this space is key, as is a strong understanding of the role of the mentor, as they work with clinicians on problems unique to their environment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndeed, research capacity building programs in the regional setting are important and have become more popular in these diverse locations. The Research Ready Grant Program (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e) is an example of one such program, which incorporates multiple levels of mentoring support, which is seen as fundamental to research success. Mentors provide much needed expertise and support across technical and critical aspects of research, often acting as a conduit between the clinical and research worlds (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, understanding the role of the mentor, and how the role can be applied to diverse contexts is an important endeavour.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eAims and Questions\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e This review aimed to uncover the role of the mentor in research capacity building programs designed for clinicians.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe review questions were:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow do mentors perceive their role when supporting clinicians participating in research capacity building programs?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow do participants of research capacity building programs perceive the role of the mentor?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e\u003cp\u003eObjectives\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e The objective of this review was to systematically review the literature with reference to research capacity building, specifically noting the relevance of mentoring. The review objective is to develop a knowledge translation strategy, that once embedded, can support a sustainable change in clinician practice toward research participation and engagement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDesign\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis review adopts the five-stage framework of Arksey and O’Malley (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e) for scoping reviews, (Identification and research question; Identify relevant studies; Study selection; Charting the data; and collating, summarising, and reporting the results). This review complies with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e) checklist. A review protocol was not registered or published.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSearch Methods\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe search strategy for this study was developed by utilising the Problem/Population, Interest/Intervention and Context (PICo) framework (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e) (see Table \u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). The PICo framework facilitated the construction of several domains designed to effectively guide our literature search. An iterative process was used that included all team members to populate each of the search domains. An experienced healthcare facility librarian was consulted to provide feedback throughout the generation of our search strategy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePICo framework\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eP\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProblem/Population\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClinicians, Mentors,\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eI\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntervention/Interest\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch Capacity Building Program\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCo\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eContext\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHospital setting\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDomains\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKeywords and MeSH terms\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eP\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClinicians\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHealthcare personnel OR clinician* OR staff OR nurs* OR medical officer OR practitioner\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eP\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMentors\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMentor* OR trainer OR educat* OR teach*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eI\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch Capacity Building Program\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch Capacity Building Program OR Research Capacity Building OR RCB OR research education\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCo\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHospital setting\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHospital OR “health clinic” OR “health sector” OR “nursing home” OR “health service” OR ward OR “acute care” OR “inpatient service”\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eInsert\u003c/em\u003e Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e \u003cem\u003ehere\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDatabases searched included the Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, PubMed and Scopus as demonstrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e below.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEligibility Criteria and Selection\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo be eligible for inclusion, articles meeting criteria demonstrated in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, were sought. Whilst the literature search excludes certain article types, we did not exclude studies based on the methodology employed, therefore the included studies had the potential to include both qualitative and quantitative results. The search limited inclusion to studies published from January 2007 to May 2024 to ensure contemporary evidence was included and reported upon.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInclusion and exclusion criteria across level one and two screening.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLevel 1- Title and Abstract\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInclusion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExclusion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePeer reviewed articles on research capacity building programs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConference papers, editorials and discussion papers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn a hospital setting\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch capacity building programs not clearly identified\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFull text\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnglish language\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePopulation groups are clinicians mentors\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLevel 2- Full text review\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eInclusion\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eExclusion\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReports the characteristics of mentor/advisor/educator/facilitator in the delivery of the research capacity building program\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs above and does not discuss mentoring\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnd/or\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInformation regarding the participants and or the mentors perspectives about the mentor/advisor/educator/facilitator role are included\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLiterature reviews of any kind\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eInsert\u003c/em\u003e Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e \u003cem\u003ehere\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOnce records were identified, all articles were downloaded into Endnote, and exported into Covidence software for blinded appraisal. Members of the research team (TF, AS, PC, LW) independently completed level 1 screening as per Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e above. Next, the same members completed level 2 screening. A team meeting was held to gain consensus on the inclusions and exclusions of all records. A total of 25 records were progressed for quality appraisal.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuality appraisal\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) is designed to appraise the methodological quality of quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e). As this review did not exclude studies based on their chosen methodologies, the MMAT suited this project’s purpose. Two of the team (TF, ALB) used the MMAT tool to appraise the quality of each included study. The tool begins with two overall screening questions; are there clear research questions and do the collected data allow to address the research questions. Following on from these, questions were asked based on each study’s methodology. The tool advises users to not calculate an overall score from awarding ratings to each question, rather, users are advised to provide more details about each criterion to arrive at a more informed overview of the quality of each study. No articles were excluded based on the quality appraisal. Overall results of the search strategy are displayed in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e below.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eInsert\u003c/em\u003e Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e \u003cem\u003ehere.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eData Extraction and Analysis\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eData from the selected articles were extracted onto a purpose-built data extraction tool developed in Microsoft Excel. The extraction tool was designed around the overarching objectives and aims of the review and was used to develop an understanding of the characteristics and components of mentoring within research capacity building programs for clinicians. Independent respondents were collated by the lead author and a thematic analysis was completed. Using the work of Braun and Clarke (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e), data were analysed against the defined aims. Two authors (TF, ALB) did an initial analysis and code generation, and subsequent meetings were held to further generate codes, collapsing them into themes. An independent member of the team validated the themes against the dataset. A final meeting was held to define and name the themes, presented herein (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e). A summary of the selected articles is presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e below.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSummary of included articles\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePaper #\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAuthors, year, Country\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePopulation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch Design\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eName of program/group, Nuances of the program, and initial outcomes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRelationship between research capacity building program and mentoring\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"5\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eQuantitative studies\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCorchon, S., Carmen Portillo, M., Watson, R., Saracibar, M. 2011.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpain\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClinical nurses\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuasi-experimental design\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch intervention implemented in Spanish hospital.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn intervention, as a nursing education program + mentoring, delivered over one year, mostly consisting of research courses and journal clubs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMentoring was established to implement the intervention activities and to provide expert support. Mentors consisted of nurses with Masters’ or PhD working in the hospital with research knowledge and experience.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupport was fundamental to research capability. While not specifically attributed to the mentors, support also included ward management support.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMentors helped to instil a research culture within the facility.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWenke, R., Weir, K.A., Noble, C., Mahoney, J., Mickan, S. 2018.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAustralia\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAllied health staff\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuantitative research capacity and culture survey\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConsolidated research time.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAllied health professionals received 4 weeks relief from clinical duties to undertake research. Statistically significant improvements demonstrated for funding grants, analysing data, writing for publication, literature searching, and providing advice to others.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMentors provided advice and support for the whole project. Mentoring was useful in facilitating outcomes. Mentors should be local to mentees.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"5\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMixed Methods\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDonley, E., \u0026amp; Moon, F. 2021.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAustralia\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial workers in a metropolitan hospital setting\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMixed methods survey.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCollaborative research projects allocated to clinicians.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe research engagement improved confidence across all domains (question, literature review, methodology, conclusion, and poster).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMentoring, especially in the context of the busy hospital, was fundamental to program success, particularly in maintaining motivation. The research lead and line manager support roles were fundamental to success.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEkeroma, A.J., Kenealy, T., Shulruf, B., McCowan, L.M.E., \u0026amp; Hill, A. 2014.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFiji\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNurses/midwives, medical doctors, health workers working in reproductive health\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMixed methods survey and interviews\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch Capacity Building Program in Pacific Islands.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBarriers to research capacity include limited knowledge and skill, lack of access to recourse, lack of access to a mentor and limited line management support.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMentoring is seen as leadership and is required to enable clinician research to reach full potential.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMentoring is provided onsite, via phone, email and Skype.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKing, O.A., Wong Shee, A., Howlett, O., Clapham, R., Versace, V.L. 2022.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAustralia\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural and remote Allied health professionals\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMixed methods- EBP-KAP tool and Qualitative- semi structured interviews\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural Health Multidisciplinary Training\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile quantitative factors did not demonstrate improvement in evidence-based practice, qualitative evidence demonstrated that the individual research capacity was improved with mentored support, and that organisational factors impacted their ability to engage in and practice research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTraining consisted of two face-to face full-day workshops, mentored by experienced researchers. Mentoring promoted the practical application of research. Mentorship extended beyond the defined training period.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNightingale, J., Fowler-Davis, S., Grafton, K., Kelly, S., Langham, C., Lewis, R., Bianco, B., \u0026amp; Harrop, D. 2020.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnited Kingdom\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNurses, midwives and allied health professionals who completed an Integrated clinical academic internship\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMixed methods\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInternship program\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe academic internship is available to clinical staff with no research experience. Interns were supported by line managers and academic mentors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBarriers included not having protected time off/away from clinical.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe support of the line manager and the mentor was the most positive influence on the intern.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMentors suggested that where the research focus was unclear, mentoring could be challenging.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe intern and mentor both benefitted the wider clinical team.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOulton, K., Wray, J., Kelly, P., Shair, K., Sell, D., \u0026amp; Gibson, F. 2020.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnited Kingdom\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNurses and allied health professionals working in a Children’s hospital.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMixed methods, survey and interviews\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClinical Academic Programme.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eProgram consisted of internships, workshops, mentoring and supervision, conferences, training and resources.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMentoring was provided though formal and informal lines. Mentoring is an essential element of capacity building.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"5\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eQualitative studies\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eShepherd, M., Endacott, R., Quinn, H. 2022\u0026nbsp;England\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNurses – Hispanic undergraduate and graduates\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCase study, Qualitative. Capacity building framework\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSenior Nurse Leader Programme\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhole of Systems approach, Accommodating diversity, reducing barriers to participation, enabling collaboration, mentoring and facilitating networking.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMentoring provided an opportunity for hands-on experience, provided clarity, and was included in all aspects of the processes. Highly regarded by participants.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eArnold, L.D., Barnoya, J., Gharzouzi, E.N., Benson, P., Colditz, G.A. 2013\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGuatemala\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClinicians working in cancer care\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCase study report\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCancer control Research Training Institute.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA dedicated research training program for clinicians can help to build research capacity, in the low- and middle-income context.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMentoring was provided during and after the program, leading to ongoing relationships.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe training program (including the mentoring) lead to an increased confidence in research and in developing protocols.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBirden, H.H. 2007\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAustralia\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGeneral practitioners\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLessons learned from the Researcher Development Program\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Research Development Program (RDP).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeeks to build research capacity in primary healthcare. Provides financial support and leadership to engage in research activities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile mentoring is seen as very positive, time was an issue for both GP’s and mentors. Participants felt that a mentoring network would be advantageous.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBirkhoff, S.D., McCulloh, J., Monturo, C., Molyneaux, D., Rochman, M.F., Sawyer, A.M., \u0026amp; Moriarty, H. 2020\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhiladelphia, USA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNurses\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCase study across three sites\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNurse Scientists in Magnet designated hospitals.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eProvided target education and worked on improving a culture of research and evidence-based practice.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe nurse scientist provides one-on-one education and mentoring to other nurses, aiming to increase capacity. This translates to patient care and improved patient outcomes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCarter, E.J., Cato, K.D., Rovera, R.R., Kulage, K.M. Liu, J., Vose, C., \u0026amp; Larson, E. 2020\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnited States\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClinical Nurses\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRetrospective analysis of the Academic-practice research fellowship\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Academic-Practice Research Fellowship. Of the 13 nurses accepted into the program. The first cohort (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e) nurses all successfully completed their research and presented at international conferences. Four had submitted manuscripts for publication and two being accepted. The current fellows are meeting milestones. Academic mentor (one-on-one) allocated to each nurse.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProtected time was provided to each fellow for mentoring.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMentoring is viewed as valuable, and cost must be factored in.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConnor, J.A., Mott, S., DeGrazia, M., Lajoie, D., Dwyer, P., Poyner Reed, M., Porter, C., \u0026amp; Hickey, P.A. 2020.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnited States\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNursing fellowships\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eChildren’\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCase review of the Nursing Science Fellowship (NSF)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Nurse Science Fellowship (NSF). Six nurse scientists serve as faculty mentors to nurses in the facility, fostering nurse-led enquiry. Each nurse scientist provides quarterly forums of education and bi-monthly mentorship sessions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMentoring was important to the progression of the nurses academically but was also viewed as important to clinical care. Mentoring also supported the translation of evidence-based practice.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDavis, K.F., Harris, M., Boland, M.G. 2019.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnited States\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNurses working in not-for-profit health service in Hawaii\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCase review of academic-practice partnership\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePartnership between American Association of Colleges of Nurses and the America Organization of Nurse Executives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMentors provided by the University to the hospital to establish a partnership model between hospital and University\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMentoring is viewed as instrumental in shaping nursing infrastructure and capacity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMentoring and financial support are important to the program’s success.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEdwards, N., \u0026amp; MacDonald, J-A. 2009.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCanada\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNurses working across areas such as community health, acute care, complex and continuing care, mental health and children’s.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCase review of a three-month internship in research capacity building\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNursing Chairs- with the Canadian Health Services Research Foundations\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePostdoctoral fellow and career scientists provided mentoring to the interns. This supported their research understanding, but also supported the interns to be mentors to others.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMentors led education sessions and provided hands on experiential learning\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe inclusion of mentors was essential to the success of the program.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMentoring also offered the opportunity for creative writing and debate sessions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFlenady, T., Dwyer, T., Kahl, J., Sobolewska, A., Reid-Searl, K., \u0026amp; Signal, T. 2022.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAustralia\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClinicians working across a Regional Australian Health Service\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQualitative thematic review\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch Ready Grant Program (RRGP)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis article explores the role of the research facilitator in the delivery of the research capacity building program. The facilitator also provided mentoring and advice to novice researchers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe facilitator/mentor provided support and expertise. Participants felt greater support through the structured program, and they valued the program\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFriesen, E.L., Comino, E.J., Reath, J., Derrett, A., Jonson, M., Powell Davies, G., Teng-Liaw, S., \u0026amp; Kemp, L. 2014.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAustralia\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePublic health clinicians in speech pathology, physiotherapy, counselling (sexual assault), community nursing, dietetics and paediatric psychology.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCase review of the PCHRU Program\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrimary and Community Health Research Unit (PCHRU)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEach clinician team was linked with a university-based mentor. Four research workshops were hosted, and mentoring was provided face-to-face, via email and telephone.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Workload was a challenge for clinicians,\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFlexible mentoring was viewed favourably and led to the development of research skills.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGullick, J.G., \u0026amp; West, S.H. 2015.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAustralia\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdvanced practice nurses\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQualitative descriptive design\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunity of Practice (CoP) framework.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunity of practice model offered different levels of participation, allowing for research capacity building. Each group was mentored through a research project by a university based academic.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants applied the value of research to care for their patients and families. Onsite mentorship was highly regarded and viewed as key to success.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHanlon, M-C., Ludbrook, J., Jovamovic, K., Greer, P., \u0026amp;\u0026nbsp; Martin, J. M. 2018.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAustralian\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDirector of research and research coordinator and explores the impact on clinician oncology departments\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCase review\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDirector of Research and Research Coordinator roles created.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe director and coordinator roles provided education, newsletters, and ongoing mentoring to clinicians, along with coaching and project management skills.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBarriers to becoming involved in research included insufficient time and lack of mentoring, with varied support from leadership. This model mitigated some barriers by being visible and accessible to staff.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePloeg, J., de Witt, L., Hutchinson, B., Hayward, L., Grayson, K. 2008.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCanada\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunity care staff from public private and not for profit organisations\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQualitative study\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch mentorship through Communicate Care Research Centre (CCRC).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch mentorship was implemented, by university mentors. The mentoring program allowed the participants to ‘take hold’ of research skills and knowledge, and to apply this to their community and beyond.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn most cases, mentoring was seen as positive, however where university systems did not recognise and support mentoring activities, workload hindered the relationship. Benefits to the individual were easier to articulate than benefits to the organisation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRosenberg, A., Uwitonze, J.M., Dworkin, M., Kabagema, I., Dushime, T., Nkeshimana, M., Riviello, R., \u0026amp; Jayaraman, S. 2020.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRwanda\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClinicians providing emergency/first responder care\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCase Review\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eService d’Aide Medicale Urgente (SAMU) Research Group\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEducation, training, and support was provided, and success measures included conference presentations and publications about clinician-led problems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne-on-one mentorship programs were provided. Mentoring fostered collaboration and research capacity and planted the seed for future projects.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUsher, K., Redman-MacLaren, M.L., Mills, J., West, C., Casella, E., Hapsari, E.D., Bonita, S., Rosaldo, R., Liswar, A.K., \u0026amp; Zang, U. 2015.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAustralia\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNurses from the Asia-pacific emergency disaster nursing network\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCase review\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch capacity building for the Asia Pacific Emergency and Disaster Nursing Network (APEDNN).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA course was delivered using an action research framework to guide learning. Formal mentoring relationships were established, and the program led to research outcomes across 19 countries.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMentoring helped to develop critical thinking and develop research skill. Mentoring is ongoing. Mentoring requires mutually respectful relationships.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWebster, E., Thomas, M., Ong, N., \u0026amp; Cutler, L. 2011.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAustralia\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural and remote based clinicians\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCase review\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural Research Capacity Building Program.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeaching, mentoring, and networking led to the development of research capability, which translated into enhanced workforce development and organisational change. Resources such as backfill were important in the rural context.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMentoring and regular contact improves motivation and understanding. Mentors reported a positive experience. Mentoring often extended beyond the program. Mentors supported the development of skills and the dissemination of research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWilkes, L., Cummings, J., McKay, N. 2013.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAustralia\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClinical nurse consultants in general children’s practice\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCase review\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClinical Nurse Consultant group.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe research program was viewed as a way of bridging leadership development, patient care and translating research findings into practice.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Mentors were available via phone and face-to-face.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMentoring is viewed as essential to success. Mentoring must be sustained. Mentoring facilitated research capacity in nursing and translation of knowledge into practice.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWright, D., Fry, M., Adams, J., \u0026amp; Bowen, C. 2020.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnited Kingdom\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNurses and allied health professionals working in musculoskeletal/ rheumatology\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQualitative interviews\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Nurse and Allied Health Professional musculoskeletal research internship.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterns demonstrated early research capability in the form of publications and conference abstracts. The internship improved intentions to work in research.\u0026nbsp;Mentors and interns viewed the program favourably.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMentors helped to build a peer support network. Mentors expressed that time was needed to successful mentor interns. Over time, interns themselves became mentors to others.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eInsert\u003c/em\u003e Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e \u003cem\u003ehere.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eAfter duplicates were removed, 261 records met the criteria for level one (abstract and title) screening. One hundred and forty-five records were excluded after level one screening, leaving 116 articles for level two screening (full text). Level two screening resulted in 91 articles being removed, with 25 records eligible to be included in the review. Of these 25, 19 used qualitative methods, four employed quantitative methods and two studies used mixed methods. Many countries were represented, with 11 articles from Australia, four from the United Kingdom and the United States of America respectively, two from Canada and one each from Guatemala, Rwanda, Fiji, and Spain. Publication dates varied from 2007 to 2022. Each of the included articles were reviewed for the purpose of answering two distinct research questions:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow do mentors perceive their role when supporting clinicians participating in research capacity building programs?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow do participants of research capacity building programs perceive the role of the mentor?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings are summarised in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e and demonstrate a novel framework for the role of the mentor in RCBPs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eInsert\u003c/em\u003e Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e \u003cem\u003ehere.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReview question A\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnalysis of the data revealed two main themes related to the \u003cb\u003eMentors\u003c/b\u003e\u0026rsquo; perception of their role when supporting clinicians participating in RCBPs: Measures of Success and Operational Factors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeasures of Success\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeasures of success pertain to the ideal outcomes of their mentorship according to the mentors themselves. Three distinct measures of success were identified; facilitating opportunities, supporting the clinicians to understand the research process, and embedding research into routine practice.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFacilitate Opportunities\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTwenty of the included 25 studies referred to one or more measures of success (\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR28 CR29 CR30 CR31 CR32 CR33 CR34 CR35 CR36 CR37 CR38 CR39 CR40 CR41 CR42 CR43 CR44 CR45 CR46 CR47 CR48 CR49 CR50\" citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e). Mentors felt an important aspect of their role was to facilitate opportunities for clinicians to develop research networks, collaborate with other researchers and stimulate multidisciplinary and intersectoral collaboration (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR31 CR32 CR33 CR34\" citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e). Mentors believed that fostering these opportunities led to the development of rural research networks (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e), new research opportunities (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e) and novel ways of discussing, thinking about and approaching clinical practice changes (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e). Developing sustainable research networks was identified as another positive outcome of mentor-facilitated collaboration opportunities (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e) and facilitating opportunities for engagement with research higher degree programs was a highly valued measure of success (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e). Facilitating opportunities for dissemination occurred when mentors supported clinicians to disseminate their research via publications (\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR31\" citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e), conference presentations (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e) and by informing local policy (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnderstand the Research Process\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupporting the clinicians to develop an understanding of the research process was seen as a measure of success by nine of the included studies (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e). This was largely achieved by aiding clinicians to develop their research protocols, and to develop their research question, and guided them on the most effective way to collect and analyse their data (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e). Mentors also felt it was important to support the clinicians throughout the ethics process (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e) as well as outlining the requirements of conducting literature reviews (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e). When specific needs arose, for example, help understanding statistical or thematic analysis for example, mentors either provided it themselves, or arranged for assistance from experts, to ensure clinicians were supported (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmbed Research into Routine Practice\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverwhelmingly, mentors considered it a measure of success when clinicians embedded research activities into their routine practice (\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR28 CR29\" citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR33\" citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e). This was evidenced when clinicians operationalised the projects their mentors helped them to develop (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e) applied findings from research into their practice (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e) or used their findings to inform policy (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e). Mentors encouraged clinicians to choose a project topic that was close to the clinician\u0026rsquo;s practice to aid in the translation of evidence in their local context (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e). Mentors who maintained contact with clinicians reported a sense of satisfaction when the clinicians\u0026rsquo; projects remained on track (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e), when the clinicians were observed looking for evidence to inform their clinical practice (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e) and when clinicians provided support to their peers who were interested in conducting research (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e). By supporting clinicians to embed research into practice, mentors felt that both the mentors and the clinicians were contributing to an improved research culture (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOperational Factors\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhen focusing on review question A, analysis of the included studies revealed two themes. The second theme related to how mentors perceived their role when supporting clinicians participating in research capacity building programs is Operational Factors. The operational factors mentors felt responsible for included Understanding Their Role, and the Importance of Multi-Modal Mentoring.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnderstanding Their Role\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNineteen of the 25 included studies mentioned the importance of understanding the mentor\u0026rsquo;s role when it comes to setting/context and managing mentoring expectations (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR30 CR31 CR32 CR33 CR34 CR35\" citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR39\" citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR48 CR49\" citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e). Depending on the setting, mentors were seen as educators (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e), research experts (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e), trainers (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e) or nurse scientists (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e). Regardless of these labels, nearly all mentors had some research qualification (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR30\" citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e) and mentors explicitly stated that they understood their role involved more than didactic delivery of information (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e). Mentors spoke about the importance of facilitating hands-on sessions to embed deeper learning (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e) and ensured their expertise aligned with any content they were delivering (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMulti-Modal Mentoring\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDelivery methods included face \u0026ndash;to-face (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e), virtual (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e) email (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e) or telephone platforms (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e). Various mentors acknowledged that the use of multiple communication modes was an optimal approach that provided alternatives for clinicians who may prefer different communication channels. However, some mentors stated that face \u0026ndash;to-face encounters were pivotal to successful outcomes, claiming that face-to-face support overcame language and cultural barriers and offered better opportunities for guidance and assistance (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e). Regardless of the mentoring mode, mentors and clinicians agreed it was integral that the mentors remain highly engaged to achieve optimal outcomes (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReview Question B\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhen it came to developing an understanding of the \u003cb\u003eclinicians\u0026rsquo;\u003c/b\u003e perception, analysis of the data revealed two overarching themes: Ideal Mentor Attributes and Desired Outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIdeal Mentor Attributes\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eClinicians had very clear ideas on the Ideal mentor attributes, including mentors having Appropriate experience, being Approachable and enthusiastic, and Maintaining regular contact.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAppropriately Experienced\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTen articles included clinicians\u0026rsquo; thoughts on the importance of mentors\u0026rsquo; research experience and or academic qualifications (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e). Whilst clinicians referred to mentors as academics, scientists or senior researchers, the clinicians appeared to value mentors\u0026rsquo; research experience rather than their title (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e). Despite this, it was also important to the clinicians that the mentors embraced effective adult learning strategies, for example providing formal mentoring support to some (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e) and ad hoc ongoing guidance to others (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegular Contact\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eClinicians expressed how important it was to have regular contact with the mentors (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e), which varied from weekly, monthly and quarterly meetings, depending on the research capacity building program in use. Regardless of the regularity, clinicians felt it was essential that the mentors remained engaged (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e) and that clear expectations were discussed and set early in the relationship (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eApproachable and Enthusiastic\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSix of the included articles discussed clinician\u0026rsquo;s perspectives on how approachable and enthusiastic the mentors were (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e). Clinicians felt that approachable mentors resulted in a positive experience (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e) that was pivotal to continued engagement in the research process (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e). Approachability was thought to increase clinicians\u0026rsquo; capacity for research through the development of trust (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e), whilst some clinicians claimed that approachable mentors facilitated greater and more meaningful learning experiences (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e). Enthusiasm is contagious and this proved to be true for clinicians who reported that an enthusiastic mentor kept them engaged in their projects and increased their enthusiasm for learning (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDesired Outcomes\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhen focusing on review question B, analysis of the included studies revealed two themes. The second theme related to how clinicians perceive the mentor role was identified as Desired Outcomes. The desired outcomes that clinician\u0026rsquo;s value include Increased confidence to do research, Facilitated collaboration and Support to do research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIncreased Confidence to do Research\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eClinicians stated that access to regular mentoring increased their confidence to do research, and that this was a highly regarded outcome (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e). Participants from one study claimed that their increased confidence to do research spilled over into their professional and personal life with a long-lasting positive effect (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e). Increasing clinicians\u0026rsquo; confidence to do research had various other impacts with clinicians developing the confidence to review practice guidelines (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e), share their findings with their workplace colleagues (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e) broaden their research networks (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e) and pursue a career in research (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e). Clinicians mentioned that gaining the confidence to do research inspired them to develop future funding proposals to explore research in areas related to their disciplines (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFacilitated Collaboration\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReview question A of this study revealed that mentors felt it was their responsibility to facilitate collaboration opportunities, and clinicians from six of the included studies reiterated how valuable this aspect of mentoring was personally (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e). Clinicians appreciated mentors\u0026rsquo; efforts to facilitate collaboration with internal and external researchers and believed it led to the development of research networks (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e) and their involvement in collaborative research projects (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e). Clinicians in one study said that the facilitated collaboration opportunities stimulated interagency and intersectoral networking and resource sharing (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupport to do Research\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUltimately, clinician support to undertake research is essential (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR37\" citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e). Ideally, this involved the mentors providing guidance in regard to developing a research proposal (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e) and then supporting the clinician to operationalise their project (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e). Being shown how to translate their findings into practice was a highly valued outcome (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e), as was exposure to the skills required to develop a project from inception through to dissemination (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e). Clinicians reported the positive impact that a mentor\u0026rsquo;s invaluable and encouraging support had on the clinician\u0026rsquo;s ability to \u0026lsquo;do\u0026rsquo; research (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003e Analysis from the included studies of this scoping review resulted in two major themes and several subthemes for each area of enquiry. For mentors themselves, the literature suggests that success comes in the form of facilitated opportunities, greater participant understanding of research processes and the integration of research into clinical practice.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition to these success factors, the scoping review found that mentors need clear role explanation, particularly around setting and managing mentoring expectations with participants. Mentors themselves are described as educators, research experts and trainers, and the importance of using diverse learning approaches was clear. Diverse ways of learning, partnered with multi-modal forms of connecting (face \u0026ndash;to-face, online, telephone and email) are required to ensure solid outcomes in relation to capacity building.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndeed, more recent studies have shown that mentoring not only supports individual capability but allows for translation of knowledge into practice (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e). For those working in the health sphere, this is a critical point. Research must drive practice, and to decrease the research to practice time gap, clinicians must be able to relate to knowledge in ways that they can reconcile (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e). Clinical education is one area we can support research engagement; however, an equally important element is culture creation (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e). Clinicians engaging with research do so with the knowledge that their outcomes may support safer care, and the cross pollination of research skills to clinicians within a health service footprint is key. Strengthening the clinical workforce in research not only supports quality care but builds a culture of evidence-based practice and excellence (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis scoping review has allowed for the development of a framework that depicts the role of the mentor in RCBPs (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). This framework demonstrates the relationship between the mentor and the mentee, providing tangible guidance for others seeking to embed mentors to facilitate RCB. The framework not only provides guidance on who a mentor should be, but what they should focus on, how they should be inducted into their role and how they can support reportable outcomes for the individual and the health service.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMentoring is undoubtedly an essential element of research capacity building. The role is mutually beneficial, as participants learn and engage with research processes, and mentors develop and refine essential mentoring skills (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e). In the clinical context, mentoring is an applied form of leadership. In this context, mentors drive individual and facility culture, by helping clinicians to engage with evidence and partake in research important to their practice, thereby facilitating future engagement with research (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e). Mentoring, while essential, can only be successful when appropriate time, support and collaboration are embedded within RCBPs, thus allowing clinicians the space to explore and interact with research in the clinical realm (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLimitations\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven the nature of research capacity building programs, research on outcomes is varied. Some articles included in this review had methodological limitations, including small sample sizes, and were more exploratory than descriptive. Standardised assessment tools and theoretical frameworks were not always used, particularly in the context of smaller research capacity building programs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e For this review the authors chose to include published literature only, thus grey, and unpublished literature has not been included, and therefore limits the collection of data from those sources.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis scoping review provides a comprehensive examination of the mentor's role in research capacity building programs for clinicians, highlighting both mentors' and participants' perceptions. Our findings underscore the pivotal role that mentors play in facilitating opportunities, enhancing participants\u0026rsquo; understanding of research processes, and integrating research into clinical practice. Success in mentoring is linked to clear role expectations and diverse engagement strategies. For the clinicians, an ideal mentor embodies experience, regular communication, enthusiasm, and approachability, aiming to bolster confidence in research and promote collaboration. Mentoring emerges as a critical component of research capacity building, serving as a form of leadership that can profoundly enhance the research culture within clinical settings. Moving forward, it is essential to ensure that mentoring programs are supported with adequate time, space, and resources to maximize their impact and sustainability. The outcomes of this review underscore the transformative potential of mentoring in fostering a robust and dynamic research environment in clinical practice.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eEthical approval\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthical approval for this evaluation was obtained through CQUniversity HREC approval number 0000023575, as well as the Hospital and Health Service HREC, approval number HREC/2022/QCQ/80422.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData availability\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCompeting interests\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no conflicts of interest. All authors consent to publication.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFunding\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe RRGP project is jointly funded by Central Queensland University, Australia, and Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAuthor contributions\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"50%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eContribution\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"50%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"50%\" valign=\"top\"\u003eConceptualisation of the article\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"50%\" valign=\"top\"\u003eTF, PC, LW, AS\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"50%\" valign=\"top\"\u003eSearching of databases\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"50%\" valign=\"top\"\u003eTF, PC, LW, AS\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"50%\" valign=\"top\"\u003eAppraisal of articles\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"50%\" valign=\"top\"\u003eTF, PC, LW, AS\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"50%\" valign=\"top\"\u003eData extraction\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"50%\" valign=\"top\"\u003eTF, PC, LW, AS, AB\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"50%\" valign=\"top\"\u003eWriting of manuscript draft\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"50%\" valign=\"top\"\u003eAB, TF,\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"50%\" valign=\"top\"\u003eEditing of manuscript\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"50%\" valign=\"top\"\u003eAB, TF, AS, PC, LW\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"50%\" valign=\"top\"\u003eFinalisation and approval of manuscript\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"50%\" valign=\"top\"\u003eTF, PC, LW, AS, AB\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthics statement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs a systematic review, ethics is not required for this article. No data was directly obtained participants.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAcknowledgements\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith thanks to Kathryn Ritchie, Senior Librarian, for their assistance with the search strategy and terms. \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTrostle J. Research capacity building in international health: definitions evaluations and strategies for success. Social Science and Medicine 1994;35(11), 1321-1324. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eScala E, Price C, Day J. An integrative review of engaging clinical nurses in nursing research. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 2016;48(4), 423-430. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGill SD, Gwini SM, Otmar R, Lane SE, Quirk F, Fuscaldo G. Assessing research capacity in Victoria\u0026apos;s south-west health service providers. Australian Journal of Rural Health,2019;27(6), 505-513. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcCarthy P, Bethune C, Fitzgerald S, Graham W, Asghari S, Heeley T, Godwin M. Curriculum development of 6for6. Canadian Family Physician, 2016;62(2), e89-95. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHendricks J, Cope V. Research is not a \u0026lsquo;scary\u0026rsquo; word: Registered nurses and the barriers to research utilisation. Nordic journal of nursing research, 2017;37(1), 44-50. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHiscock H, Ledgerwood K, Danchin M, Ekinci E, Johnson E, Wilson A. Clinical research potential in Victorian hospitals: the Victorian clinician researcher needs analysis survey. International Medicine Journal, 2014;44(5), 477-482. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePerry JJ, Snider CE, Artz JD, Stiell IG, Shaeri S, McLeod S, Le Sage N, Hohl C, Calder LA, Vailliancourt C, Holroyd B, Hollander JE, Morrison LJ. CAEP 2014 Academic Symposium: How to make research succeed in your emergency department: How to develop and train career researchers in emergency medicine. Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine, 2015; 17(3). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMorrison L, Johnston B, Cooper M. Mixed methods systematic review: Factors influencing research activity among nurses in clinical practice. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 2021;31, 17-18. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSiedlecki SL, Albert NM. Research‐active clinical nurses: against all odds. Journal of clinical nursing, 2017;26(5-6), 766-773. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArchibald D, Hogg W, Lemelin J, Dahrouge S, St Jean M, Boucher F. Building capacity for medical education research in family medicine: the Program for Innovation in Medical Education (PIME). Health Research Policy and Systems, 2017;15(1), 91. doi:10.1186/s12961-017-0256-y \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlison JA, Zafiropoulos B, Heard R. Key factors influencing allied health research capacity in a large Australian metropolitan health district. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 2017;9(10). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHiggins I, Parker V, Keatinge D, Giles M, Winskill R, Guest E, . . . Phelan C. Doing clinical research: the challenges and benefits. Contemporary Nurse, 2010;35(2), 171-181. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarbman P, Bryant-Lukosius D, Martin-Misener R, Carter N, Covell CL, Donald F, . . . Valaitis R. Partners in research: building academic-practice partnerships to educate and mentor advanced practice nurses. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 2017; 23(2), 382-390. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcKee G, Codd M, Dempsey O, Gallagher P, Comiskey C. Describing the implementation of an innovative intervention and evaluating its effectiveness in increasing research capacity of advanced clinical nurses: using the consolidated framework for implementation research. BMC nursing, 2017;16(1), 21. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchmidt DD, Webster E, Duncanson K. Building research experience: Impact of a novice researcher development program for rural health workers. Australian Journal of Rural Health, 2019;27(5), 392-397. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKing O, West E, Lee S, Glenister K, Quilliam C, Wong Shee A, Beks H. Research education and training for nurses and allied health professionals: A systematic scoping review. BMC Medical Education, 2022;22. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBerta W, Cranley L, Dearing J W, Dogherty E J, Squires JE, Estabrooks CA. Why (we think) facilitation works: insights from organizational learning theory. Implementation Science, 2015;10(1), 141. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCranley LA, Cummings GG, Profetto-McGrath J, Toth F, Estabrooks CA. Facilitation roles and characteristics associated with research use by healthcare professionals: a scoping review. BMJ Open, 2017;7(8), e014384. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eElledge C, Avworo A, Cochetti J, Carvalho C, Grota P. Characteristics of facilitators in knowledge translation: An integrative review. Collegian, 2017;26(1), 171-182. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoxham L, Taylor E, Dwyer T, Lauder W, Antonious C, Roxburgh M. Articulating expectations about post graduate supervision: Getting it right at the start of the journey. In: Fourie-Malherbe M, Albertyn R, Aitchison C, Bitzer E, editors. Postgraduate Supervision: Future foci for the knowledge society. African SUN 2016; MeDIA\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFlenady T, Dwyer T, Kahl J, Sobolewska A, Reid-Searl K, Signal T. Research capacity-building for clinicians: understanding how the research facilitator role fosters clinicians\u0026rsquo; engagement in the research process. Health Research Policy and Systems, 2022;20. 0:45\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArksey H, O\u0026rsquo;Malley L. Scoping studies: toward a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 2005;8(1). 19-32. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O\u0026apos;Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, . . . Weeks L. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of internal medicine, 2018;169(7), 467-473. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRichardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J, Hayward RS. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club, 1995;123(3). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHong QN, F\u0026agrave;bregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, Dagenais P, . . . O\u0026rsquo;Cathain A. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Education for Information, 2018; 34(4), 285-291.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBraun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2008;3(2), 77-101. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDavis KF, Harris MM, Boland MG. Ten Years and Counting: A Successful Academic-Practice Partnership to Develop Nursing Research Capacity. Journal of professional nursing: official journal of the American Association of Colleges of Nursing. 2019;35(6):473-9.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShepherd M, Endacott R, Quinn H. Bridging the gap between research and clinical care: strategies to increase staff awareness and engagement in clinical research. Journal of Research in Nursing. 2022;27(1-2):168-81.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHanlon MC, Ludbrook J, Jovanovic K, Greer P, Martin JM, Hanlon M-C. Fostering a culture of research within a clinical radiation oncology department. Journal of Medical Imaging \u0026amp; Radiation Oncology. 2018;62(1):102-8.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGullick JG, West SH. Building research capacity and productivity among advanced practice nurses: an evaluation of the Community of Practice model. Journal of Advanced Nursing (John Wiley \u0026amp; Sons, Inc). 2016;72(3):605-19.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBirden HH. The researcher development program: how to extend the involvement of Australian general practitioners in research? Rural Remote Health. 2007;7(3):776.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilkes L, Cummings J, McKay N. Developing a Culture to Facilitate Research Capacity Building for Clinical Nurse Consultants in Generalist Paediatric Practice. Nursing Research \u0026amp; Practice. 2013:1-8.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKing OA, Wong Shee A, Howlett O, Clapham R, Versace VL. Research training incorporating education and mentoring for rural and regional allied health professionals: An evaluation study. Aust J Rural Health. 2022;30(5):654-65.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePloeg J, de Witt L, Hutchison B, Hayward L, Grayson K. Evaluation of a research mentorship program in community care. Evaluation and Program Planning. 2008;31(1):22-33.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarter EJ, Cato KD, Rivera RR, Kulage KM, Liu J, Vose C, et al. Programmatic details and outcomes of an Academic-Practice Research Fellowship for clinical nurses. Applied nursing research : ANR. 2020;55:151296.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEdwards N, MacDonald J. Building nurses\u0026apos; capacity in community health services. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship. 2009;6(1):1-18.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\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 Multidiscip Healthc, 2018;11:269-77.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFriesen EL, Comino EJ, Reath J, Derrett A, Johnson M, Davies GP, et al. Building research capacity in south-west Sydney through a Primary and Community Health Research Unit. Australian Journal of Primary Health. 2014;20(1):4-8.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWebster E, Thomas M, Ong N, Cutler L. Rural research capacity building program: Capacity building outcomes. Australian Journal of Primary Health. 2011;17(1):107-13.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArnold LD, Barnoya J, Gharzouzi EN, Benson P, Colditz GA. A training programme to build cancer research capacity in low- and middle-income countries: findings from Guatemala. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2014;92(4):297-302.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOulton K, Wray J, Kelly P, Khair K, Sell D, Gibson F. Culture, cognisance, capacity and capability: The interrelationship of individual and organisational factors in developing a research hospital. J Clin Nurs. 2022;31(3-4):362-77.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCorchon S, Portillo MC, Watson R, Sarac\u0026iacute;bar M. Nursing research capacity building in a Spanish hospital: an intervention study. Journal of Clinical Nursing (John Wiley \u0026amp; Sons, Inc). 2011;20(17-18):2479-89.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWright D, Fry M, Adams J, Bowen C. Building research capacity in musculoskeletal health: qualitative evaluation of a graduate nurse and allied health professional internship programme. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):751.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRosenberg A, Uwitonze JM, Dworkin M, Kabagema I, Dushime T, Nkeshimana M, et al. Fostering Trauma and Emergency Research Capacity in Rwanda Through Collaboration. J Surg Educ. 2020;77(5):1018-23.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFlenady T, Dwyer T, Kahl J, Sobolewska A, Reid-Searl K, Signal T. Research capacity-building for clinicians: understanding how the research facilitator role fosters clinicians\u0026rsquo; engagement in the research process. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2022;20(1):45.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUsher K, Redman-MacLaren ML, Mills J, West C, Casella E, Hapsari ED, et al. Strengthening and preparing: Enhancing nursing research for disaster management. Nurse Education in Practice. 2015;15(1):68-74.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBirkhoff SD, Nair JM, Monturo C, Molyneaux D, Rochman MF, Sawyer AM, et al. Increasing nursing research capacity: The roles and contributions of nurse scientists within healthcare systems in the Greater Philadelphia region. Applied nursing research : ANR. 2020;55:151288.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eConnor JA, Mott S, DeGrazia M, Lajoie D, Dwyer P, Reed MP, et al. Nursing science fellowship at Boston Children\u0026apos;s Hospital. Applied nursing research : ANR. 2020;55:151292.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEkeroma AJ, Kenealy T, Shulruf B, McCowan LM, Hill A. Building reproductive health research and audit capacity and activity in the Pacific Islands (BRRACAP) study: methods, rationale and baseline results. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14:121.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNightingale J, Fowler-Davis S, Grafton K, Kelly S, Langham C, Lewis R, et al. The role of Allied Health Professions and Nursing Research Internships in developing a research culture: a mixed-methods exploration of stakeholder perspectives. Health Research Policy \u0026amp; Systems. 2020;18(1):1-17.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDonley E, Moon F. Building Social Work Research Capacity in a Busy Metropolitan Hospital. Research on Social Work Practice. 2021;31(1):101-7.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAsampong E, Mberu Kamau E, Tabong K T-N, Glozah F, Swameme A, Opoku-Mensah K, Amankwa B, Dako-Gyeke P. Capacity building through comprehensive implementation research training and mentorship: an approach for translating knowledge into practice. Globalization and Health. 2003; 19. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbdullahi KO, Ghiyasvandian S, Hasanpour M. Theory-Practice Gap: The Knowledge and Perception of Nigerian Nurses. Iran Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Research. 2022; 27(1), 30-34. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSaifan A, Devadas B, Daradkeh F, Abdel-Fattah H, Aljabery M, Michael L.M. Solutions to bridge the theory-practice gap in nursing education in the UAE: a qualitative study. BMC Medical Education. 2021; 21. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrown GV, Sorrell TC. (2009). Building quality in health \u0026mdash; the need for clinical researchers. Medical Journal of Australia, 2009; 190(11). 627-629.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"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":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Research capacity building, mentoring, research capability, health service research, support","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4578511/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4578511/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch capacity building programs are in facilitating clinicians\u0026rsquo; engagement with best-practice research. Benefits of research capacity in healthcare locations have far reaching benefits including individuals, communities, and health services. Commonly, research capacity building programs include an element of mentoring, to facilitate experiential learning. The role of the mentor is diverse, thus this review aimed to uncover the role and perceptions of mentors, from both mentees and mentors.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA systematic copsing review was conducted, using the five-stage framework of Arksey and O\u0026rsquo;Malley (2005). CINAHL, Embase, PubMed and Scopus databases were searched. Thematic analysis was conducted to reconcile the data against the aims and objectives.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA total of 25 articles were included for analysis. Analysis of data related to the mentor perception found two main themes and associated subthemes; Measures of success (Facilitate opportunities, understand the research process and embed research into routine practice) and Operational Factors (understanding their role and multi-modal delivery) For the mentees, analysis uncovered two main themes and associated subthemes; Ideal mentor attributes (appropriately experienced, regular contact, approachable and enthusiastic ), and Desired outcomes (increased confidence in research, facilitate collaboration, and support to do research).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe value and importance of the mentor in research capacity building is clear. This article provides a framework for the role of the mentor in research capacity building programs.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Perceptions and characteristics of the mentor role in research capacity building programs for clinicians: A scoping review","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-07-15 17:52:15","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4578511/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"64a1a090-61a6-4f4f-b738-df8070672501","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 15th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-09-23T07:46:44+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-07-15 17:52:15","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-4578511","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-4578511","identity":"rs-4578511","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}