Evaluating the research capacity and culture of an urban Mental Health and Wellbeing Program.

Stanley Innes, David Taylor, Judith Hope
{"title":"Evaluating the research capacity and culture of an urban Mental Health and Wellbeing Program.","authors":"Stanley Innes, David Taylor, Judith Hope","doi":"10.1071/AH24223","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ObjectiveResearch capacity in health care involves the ability to conduct, access, evaluate, and apply research evidence and results in elevated quality of care. Despite its significance, mental health organisations face challenges in assessing and enhancing their research capacity. This study aimed to evaluate the research capacity and culture within a large metropolitan health service's Mental Health and Wellbeing Program (MHWP).MethodsA cross-sectional, observational study using the Research Capacity and Culture (RCC) tool was conducted among approximately 1081 MHWP employees. An online survey recorded staff views on research readiness, interest, motivators, and barriers.ResultsOf 220 survey entries, 100 were completed. The majority were female (n=68), under 40years old (n=51), and employed full-time (n=54). The highest RCC domain score was for organisational culture. Half of the respondents thought research was not part of their role, yet 70% wanted more involvement. Motivators included skill development, while barriers included a lack of time and funds.ConclusionsThe findings emphasise the need for targeted strategies to enhance research culture at the individual level. However, opportunities also exist at the team and organisational levels. The study provided insights that can guide future interventions and capacity-building initiatives.</p>","PeriodicalId":93891,"journal":{"name":"Australian health review : a publication of the Australian Hospital Association","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian health review : a publication of the Australian Hospital Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1071/AH24223","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ObjectiveResearch capacity in health care involves the ability to conduct, access, evaluate, and apply research evidence and results in elevated quality of care. Despite its significance, mental health organisations face challenges in assessing and enhancing their research capacity. This study aimed to evaluate the research capacity and culture within a large metropolitan health service's Mental Health and Wellbeing Program (MHWP).MethodsA cross-sectional, observational study using the Research Capacity and Culture (RCC) tool was conducted among approximately 1081 MHWP employees. An online survey recorded staff views on research readiness, interest, motivators, and barriers.ResultsOf 220 survey entries, 100 were completed. The majority were female (n=68), under 40years old (n=51), and employed full-time (n=54). The highest RCC domain score was for organisational culture. Half of the respondents thought research was not part of their role, yet 70% wanted more involvement. Motivators included skill development, while barriers included a lack of time and funds.ConclusionsThe findings emphasise the need for targeted strategies to enhance research culture at the individual level. However, opportunities also exist at the team and organisational levels. The study provided insights that can guide future interventions and capacity-building initiatives.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估城市心理健康与幸福计划的研究能力和文化。
目标:医疗保健领域的研究能力包括开展、获取、评估和应用研究证据的能力,以及提高医疗保健质量的结果。尽管研究能力非常重要,但精神卫生机构在评估和提高研究能力方面仍面临挑战。本研究旨在评估一个大都市医疗服务机构的心理健康与幸福计划(MHWP)的研究能力和文化。研究方法:本研究使用研究能力和文化(RCC)工具,对大约 1081 名 MHWP 员工进行了横断面观察研究。在线调查记录了员工对研究准备程度、兴趣、动机和障碍的看法。大多数为女性(68 人)、40 岁以下(51 人)和全职员工(54 人)。RCC 领域得分最高的是组织文化。半数受访者认为研究不是他们职责的一部分,但 70% 的受访者希望更多地参与研究。激励因素包括技能发展,而障碍则包括缺乏时间和资金。然而,在团队和组织层面也存在机会。研究提供的见解可以指导未来的干预措施和能力建设活动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Evaluating the outcomes of Australia's first all-age public hospital Sport and Exercise Medicine Outpatient Clinic: a retrospective cross-sectional study. Trajectories of hospital service use in the last 12months of life by people with chronic kidney disease: a retrospective cohort study. Can I record this? A scoping review of Australian hospital policies governing consultation recording. Patients' reasons for leaving an emergency department without being seen: results from a survey-based cohort study during the COVID-19 pandemic. What's in a name? Why the proposed title change for podiatric surgeons is a step backward.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1