Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Introduction

The aim of this study was to investigate nurse and allied health professional experiences and attitudes toward critical care research in Wales.

Methods

Data were collected related to demographic characteristics, involvement in and understanding of research, perceived influences and attitudes towards research. We calculated means (ranges) for continuous variable and frequencies (proportions) for discrete variables and performed an exploratory factor analysis.

Results

Response rate was 55% (n = 575). Most respondents (84%) had participated in research less than five times in the previous 12 months, yet 91% believed research led to improved care patients. Only 32% respondents felt they were encouraged by managers to participate in research. Only 25% respondents had undertaken research training. Few respondents (29%) reported receiving adequate information regarding study progress or results (25%). Linear regression models indicate that a higher level of formal education was associated with a more positive view of research across all attitude factors. Promotion of research by colleagues and recognition/ opportunities for involvement in critical care research, were positively associated with the acceptability and experience of research.

Discussion

A number of factors have been identified that could be targeted to improve recruitment to critical care research, including identification of staff to promote research, improved communication of study progress and findings and management encouragement to attend research training. Staff attitudes were positive towards the benefit of research on patient care in Wales.

Keywords

Critical care research questionnaire

Background

Evidence suggests that healthcare systems that actively engage in clinical research report better patient outcomes.^1–3 High quality clinical research builds institutional reputation, attracts and retains staff. It provides access to novel or expensive therapies that might otherwise be unavailable.^4,5 Effective critical care research requires collaborative working between engaged enthusiastic clinicians, research teams and patients and their families, with adequate time, research infrastructure, governance, institutional and academic support.⁶ A key action of the Welsh Government’s Critically Ill Delivery Plan (2018) was to increase the number of critical care healthcare professionals engaged in clinical research.⁷ The evaluation of interventions designed to improve outcomes for critically ill patients is a key international priority.⁸

The critical care environment presents some unique challenges to researchers, especially when the research is related to end-of-life care. Challenges include recruitment barriers such as gaining access to a clinical site or patients, prognostic uncertainty and the time-sensitive nature of interventions in emergency situations. Additional barriers include challenges related to ethical considerations, informed consent, data collection and the research infrastructure at a hospital such as available personnel and funding.^7,9

The nurse and AHP role in critical care research may include identification of eligible patients, involvement in the consent process, caring for the patient according to a study protocol, delivering specific study interventions, recording study data and monitoring for adverse events.¹⁰ A recent survey reported that UK critical care physiotherapists are skilled, experienced and motivated to participate in research, including pursuing defined academic research pathways.¹¹ The study concluded that wide-ranging training needs and notable barriers preclude further involvement of physiotherapists in critical care research.¹¹ In a similar Canadian study investigating attitudes of nurses to critical care research, results demonstrated that respondents both endorse and participate in research.¹²

Limited other evidence exists regarding both nursing and AHP understanding of the critical care research process, and their perceptions of such research in general. Understanding these attitudes and experiences is an important research priority, as the successful delivery and completion of research in a critical care environment is dependent on engagement of nurse and AHP staff.¹¹

The aims of this study were to: (a) investigate nurse and AHP personal experiences of working in critical care research; (b) describe environmental characteristics that influence the research culture on critical care units; (c) describe nurse and AHP attitudes towards research and (d) compare differences between nurse and AHP attitudes.

Methods

Design and study population

Ethical approval was not needed for the study due to the involvement of NHS staff as research participants. This was confirmed by the study sponsor. The Research and Development Department of each participating site confirmed local approval for the study.

This study used a cross-sectional questionnaire design, in which all nurses and AHPs working in the general intensive care units in Wales were invited to complete either a paper-based or online questionnaire. Figure 1 illustrates the geographical location of the critical care units in Wales.¹³ Participation was voluntary and consent implied by questionnaire return. Of the 14 ICUs in Wales, one was unable to participate in the study due to lack of available principal investigator. Nurses and AHPs (physiotherapists, dietitians, pharmacists, speech therapists and psychologists) working in adult, general ICUs in Wales were invited to participate in the study.

Figure 1.

Map of critical care units in Wales. Permission to re-use figure granted from Welsh Deanery for Dentists.

Questionnaire

A previously developed questionnaire was used for this study, with the permission of the authors.¹² The questionnaire consists of four sections; research experience, ICU/hospital characteristics, attitudes about research and demographic data. Respondents are required to complete 64 closed-ended questions and a free-text, open-ended comment section. The questionnaire can be found in Additional file 1 (Supplementary Material). Likert-scale response options (strongly disagree, disagree, unsure, agree and strongly disagree) were used to describe ICU/hospital characteristics and personal attitudes about research.

Paper-based questionnaires were distributed by a principal investigator at each site over a two-month period, to ensure staff on annual/sick leave were included. In some units, posters were used to advertise the study to the staff, which included a link to the online questionnaire. The online questionnaire was developed using SurveyMonkey.¹⁴ Each principal investigator completed a unit data questionnaire, providing details on local demographics including the number of nurses and AHP staff employed.

Statistical analysis

The Likert-scale was scored as 1 for strongly disagree, through to 5 for strongly agree. For the descriptive purposes, the 5-point Likert-scale scores were collapsed into three categories; disagree (1, 2), unsure (3) and agree (4, 5).¹² Responses were analysed using means and ranges for continuous variables and frequencies and proportions for discrete variables. Free text box responses were collated and presented using simple thematic analysis.

Factor analysis was performed using Stata SE version 16.0 on the original Likert-scale scores. Scores were reversed for negatively phrased items. The number of potential factors was identified using a scree plot and parallel analysis. Factors were then rotated obliquely; items that did not load at a threshold of 0.3, or loaded onto more than one factor, were excluded from analysis. The consistency of questionnaire items associated with each factor was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. A value of 0.7 or greater was considered acceptable. Mean Likert scores were calculated for each factor by averaging the component items (using the reversed scales where appropriate) for each record where at least half the items were completed.

A linear regression analysis accounting for clustering by hospital was performed to examine the relationship between each attitude factor and the three environmental factors, as well as length of time working as a critical care nurse/allied health practitioner, frequency of caring for patients on a research study, experience of developing a research proposal, or analysing research findings and highest qualification level.

Results

Respondent and site characteristics

The overall response rate was 55% (n = 575/1042), with 91% of total respondents nurses and 9% AHPs. The response rate of nurses was 523/989 (53%) compared to AHPs which was 52/53 (98%) The response rate across the 13 sites varied from 5% to 89%. Table 1 highlights the demographic characteristics of the respondents.

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics of respondents.

Respondent characteristic	N	%
Gender (n = 574)
Female	507	88
Male	62	11
Prefer not to say	5	1
Profession (n = 575)
Nurse	523	91
Physiotherapist	37	6
Speech therapist	5	1
Pharmacist	4	1
Dietitian	6	1
Psychologist	0	0
Years of ICU experience (n = 573)
Less than 2 years	144	25
2–5 years	126	22
6–10 years	97	17
11–20 years	121	21
More than 20 years	85	15
Highest qualification (n = 573)
Diploma	69	12
Degree	440	77
Post-graduate	46	8
Other	17	3
Employment status (n = 574)
Part time	123	21
Full time	451	79
Primary shift pattern (n = 574)
Days only	102	18
Nights only	23	4
Days and nights	449	78

Free text responses to the question “what would facilitate the conduct of research studies in your ICU?” included; more protected time to undertake research (n = 42), more dedicated research staff (n = 49), improved communication/information (n = 77), improved collaborative working between whole multi-disciplinary team (n = 15), more funding for staff and/or training (n = 30) and managerial support (n = 2). A number of methods for improving communication were suggested. These included use of posters, a Facebook page, an annual report and a research notice board. The use of plain language was identified as key to improved communication.

Table 2 highlights the research training undertaken by the respondents, with only a quarter having completed a course in research design. The majority of respondents had participated in any of the listed research activities fewer than five times in the last 12 months. Overall level of understanding of research activities by the respondents was none to minimal in around half of the respondents, for most of the variables included in the questionnaire. Research study design and consent procedures were the best understood activities.

Table 2.

Research training, experience and understanding of research activities.

Research training and experience	n	%
Development of a research protocol	70	12
Analysis of study findings	69	12
Poster/presentation/publication of study findings	72	13
Member of a research-related committee	21	4
Completed a course in research design	141	25
Completed a course in statistics	77	13
Research activity	<5 times in 12 months (n/%)	>5 times in last 12 months (n/%)
Introduced study to patient or family member	478 (86)	77 (14)
Administered study intervention	343 (61)	221 (39%)
Completed research forms	457 (82)	99 (18)
Obtained study informed consent	531 (96)	25 (4)
Performed randomisation	527 (95)	29 (5)
Research procedures	None to minimal understanding (n/%)	Average, good or excellent understanding (n/%)
Research study design	204 (37)	347 (63)
Consent procedures	190 (34)	361 (66)
Screening and randomisation	276 (50)	274 (50)
Blinding	350 (64)	201 (36)
Ethics review and approval	300 (54)	251 (46)
Analysis of study results	300 (54)	251 (46)

A total of 89/575 (15%) respondents had taken part in a study as a participant and 65 /89 (73%) of these had reported the experience to be either positive or very positive. A total of 86/89 (97%) stated that they would participate in another research study.

Environmental characteristics influencing critical care research

Table 3 shows the environmental characteristics within the ICU and hospital, with a potential influence on research culture. A third of respondents agreed that they were actively encouraged by their managers to participate in research and 41% felt that opportunities did exist in their hospital to gain research knowledge. Over half of respondents reported that a collaborative relationship exists between their research team and clinicians at their ICUs. It appears that provision of information regarding studies decreases throughout the study duration, as 40% of respondents reported receiving adequate information prior to study commencement, falling to 29% during the study and to 25% on study completion. Physicians were most commonly reported to promote research in the respondents ICUs, followed by nurses, then AHPs.

Table 3.

Perceived ICU and hospital characteristics influencing research culture.

Item	Disagree (n/%)	Unsure (n/%)	Agree (n/%)
Service managers encourage nurses and AHPs to participate in the conduct of ICU research studies (n = 515)	197 (38)	153 (30)	165 (32)
Opportunities are available through my hospital to gain research knowledge (n = 543)	143 (26)	179 (33)	221 (41)
One of the reasons I sought employment at my hospital was the potential to be involved in research (n = 543)	384 (71)	75 (14)	84 (15)
My ICU/hospital recognises and rewards my contribution to the conduct of research studies (n = 532)	168 (32)	209 (39)	155 (29)
My help in caring for patients participating in research is acknowledged by the research team (n = 530)	116 (22)	160 (30)	254 (48)
A collaborative relationship exists between research and clinical personnel at my ICU (n = 535)	111 (21)	145 (27)	279 (52)
Research expectations are clearly reflected in nursing/ AHP job descriptions at my hospital (n = 539)	167 (31)	202 (37)	170 (32)
I am given sufficient information about research studies prior to its implementation (n = 534)	174 (33)	146 (27)	214 (40)
I get all the information and assistance I need from study staff when caring for a patient on a research study (n = 529)	124 (23)	165 (31)	240 (45)
I am given sufficient information about the progress of research studies (n = 535)	226 (42)	156 (29)	153 (29)
I am given sufficient information about findings on study completion (n = 533)	219 (41)	183 (34)	131 (25)
Educational in-services or rounds at my ICU regularly cover newly current research findings (n = 536)	214 (40)	194 (36)	128 (24)
Physicians promote the conduct of research at my ICU (n = 535)	125 (23)	157 (29)	253 (47)
Nurses promote the conduct of research at my ICU (n = 537)	151 (28)	162 (30)	224 (42)
Allied health professionals promote the conduct of research at my ICU (n = 528)	156 (30)	200 (38)	182 (34)

Respondent attitudes towards research

The nurse and AHP attitudes to critical care research are summarised in Table 4. Nearly all respondents believed that improved care is facilitated through research in their ICU and that keeping up to date with research findings is an important part of their professional role. The majority believed that patients should be approached for participation in research studies and that research protocols do not interfere with clinical care. The majority of respondents believed there should be a forum to generate practice change, based on research findings.

Table 4.

Respondent attitudes to critical care research.

Item	Disagree (n/%)	Unsure (n/%)	Agree (n/%)
Improved care of the critically-ill patient is facilitated through research (n = 535)	6 (1)	43 (8)	486 (91)
When there is evidence available clinical care should be based on research findings (n = 536)	3 (1)	24 (4)	509 (95)
All patients in the ICU should be approached for research studies if meeting study entry criteria (n = 535)	43 (8)	97 (18)	395 (74)
Patients in the ICU should be approached for research studies only when there is minimal risk to them (n = 535)	69 (13)	97 (18)	369 (69)
When a patient is unable to make decisions substitute decision makers should have the opportunity to consider research participation for their next-of-kin (n = 532)	20 (4)	87 (16)	425 (80)
ICU patients are too sick to participate in research (n = 532)	433 (81)	61 (11)	38 (7)
Critical care research primarily benefits study investigators (e.g. benefits their professional profile) (n = 530)	286 (54)	144 (27)	100 (19)
Researchers consider the practicalities of multi-professional care when designing studies (n = 526)	55 (10)	271 (52)	200 (38)
Research protocols inhibit my ability to deliver patient care (n = 528)	343 (65)	126 (24)	59 (11)
Patient enrolment in more than one research study inhibits my ability to deliver patient care (n = 529)	260 (49)	197 (37)	72 (14)
Caring for patients on research studies increases my workload substantially (n = 528)	270 (51)	180 (34)	78 (15)
The majority of critical care research that is conducted at my ICU is relevant to clinical practice in my profession (n = 525)	36 (7)	168 (32)	321 (61)
The majority of critical care research conducted at my ICU is physician-driven (n = 525)	127 (24)	184 (35)	214 (41)
Keeping up with new information arising from research is an important part of my professional role (n = 526)	9 (2)	42 (8)	475 (90)
My profession’s involvement in research studies will help to develop knowledge and skills related to the research process (n = 524)	6 (1)	50 (10)	468 (89)
My profession should have the skills to critique research publications so that research can be incorporated into practice (n = 527)	11 (2)	67 (13)	449 (85)
My profession should have a forum to discuss and generate practice change based on research findings (n = 527)	7 (1)	67 (13)	453 (86)
Adherence to a research study protocol has sometimes conflicted with my view of appropriate clinical care (n = 524)	183 (35)	208 (40)	133 (25)
I enjoy providing care for patients enrolled on a research study (n = 526)	15 (3)	206 (39)	305 (58)

Variables associated with environmental factors influencing research

Exploratory factor analysis (see Additional file 2, Supplementary Material) found three environmental factors. Environmental factor E1 was related to the opportunity and recognition to get involved in research (questionnaire items 12 b-12 g and 12 n); factor E2 concerned information about studies (questionnaire items 12i-12 k); and factor E3 concerned promotion of research by managers and other health professionals (questionnaire items 12 a, 12 l, 12 m, 12o). One item (12 h) loaded onto two factors and was excluded. Cronbach’s alpha was acceptable for each factor (α = 0.86, 0.87 and 0.76). Mean scores (and standard deviations) for each factor were 3.04 (0.77), 2.92 (0.91) and 3.00 (0.78).

Variables associated with respondent attitudes towards research

Examination of the scree plot indicated three to six attitudinal factors. For each model, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated and potential underlying concepts considered for all models. The 3-factor model gave the best fit, and is presented here. Attitudinal factor 1 related to research acceptability (items 13a-c and 13 e); factor A2 related to engagement and the impact/importance of research findings on nursing practice (items 13 n-13q); and factor A3 related to the experience of supporting research projects (items 13 d, 13f-g, 13i-k, 13 m and 13 r-s). Cronbach’s alpha was acceptable (α = 0.72, 0.82 and 0.72 respectively). Mean scores (and standard deviations) for each factor were 4.15 (0.56), 4.11 (0.52) and 3.32 (0.50).

Table 5 shows the results of the linear regression model examining associations between the attitudinal factors and the three environmental factors, years working as a critical care nurse/allied health professional, experience of caring for a patient requiring a study intervention, participation in protocol development or analysis of findings, or highest qualification level.

Table 5.

Linear regression models.

Variable	Attitude factor A1: Acceptability	Attitude factor A2: Impact	Attitude factor A3: Experience
Environmental factors
Factor E1: opportunity	0.28 (0.02–0.54)*	0.26 (– 0.01 – 0.52)	0.38 (0.15–0.62)**
Factor E2: information	0.11 (0.02–0.20)*	0.03 (−0.10 – 0.16)	0.19 (0.10–0.28)**
Factor E3: promotion	−0.10 (−0.19–0.01)*	−0.11 (−0.27 – 0.05)	−0.30 (−0.40 – 0.21)**
Years worked
<2 years	0 (reference category)	0 (reference category)	0 (reference category)
2–5 years	0.10 (−0.03 – 0.22)	−0.11 (−0.21 – 0.00)*	0.07 (−0.06 – 0.21)
6–10 years	0.20 (−0.09 – 0.50)	0.02 (−0.25 – 0.28)	−0.08 (−0.31 – 0.16)
11–20 years	−0.06 (−0.29 – 0.17)	−0.04 (−0.32 – 0.23)	−0.16 (−0.36 – 0.04)
>20 years	0.22 (−0.08 – 0.52)	0.09 (−0.20 – 0.39)	0.15 (−0.03 – 0.32)
Times cared for a patient requiring study intervention
Never	0 (reference category)	0 (reference category)	0 (reference category)
Infrequent	0.20 (−0.01 – 0.41)	0.00 (−0.22 – 0.23)	0.18 (0.03–0.34)*
Sometimes	0.27 (0.01 – 0.52)*	0.01 (−0.19 – 0.22)	0.41 (0.30–0.52)**
Often	0.13 (−0.09 – 0.36)	−0.14 (−0.37 – 0.09)	0.27 (0.15–0.38)**
Very often	0.52 (0.25 – 0.77)**	0.21 (−0.20 – 0.63)	0.40 (−0.05 – 0.84)
Participated in protocol development
No	0 (reference category)	0 (reference category)	0 (reference category)
Yes	0.17 (−0.10 – 0.44)	0.34 (0.03–0.65)*	−0.14 (−0.47 – 0.19)
Participated in analysis of findings
No	0 (reference category)	0 (reference category)	0 (reference category)
Yes	0.15 (−0.11 – 0.41)	0.38 (−0.04 – 0.80)	0.14 (−0.07 – 0.35)
Highest qualification
Diploma	0 (reference category)	0 (reference category)	0 (reference category)
Degree	0.30 (−0.00 – 0.60)	0.20 (-0.11– 0.51)	−0.03 (-0.31–0.23)
Masters	0.49 (0.24– 0.76)**	0.46 (0.01–0.91)*	0.34 (0.03–0.65)*
PhD	1.31 (0.70– 1.92)**	1.00 (0.25–1.75)*	0.78 (0.29–1.25)**
Other	−0.73 (−0.51– 0.36)	0.23 (−0.29 – 0.74)	−0.25 (−0.54 – 0.04)

p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

Note: Positive values indicate a more favourable attitude towards research compared to the reference category; negative values indicate less favourable attitudes.

Research acceptability (Attitude factor A1) was found to be associated with environmental factors opportunity (E1) (p = 0.035) and information (E2) (p = 0.026). It was negatively associated with environmental factor promotion (E3) (p = 0.039). Research acceptability (Attitude factor A1) was also associated with having cared for patients on study procedures (p = 0.044).

Impact of research findings (Attitude factor A2) was associated with two to five years working (p = 0.042), and having helped to develop a research protocol (p = 0.034).

Research experience (Attitude factor A3), was strongly positively associated with environment factors opportunity (E1) (p = 0.004), and information (E2) (p = 0.001), and strongly negatively associated with environmental factor promotion (E3) (p < 0.001). Research experience was also positively associated with caring for a patient needing study procedures; infrequently (p = 0.025), sometimes (p < 0.001), or Often (p < 0.001).

All three attitude factors were positively associated with having a Master’s degree (p(A1) = 0.001, p(A2) = 0.045, p(A3) = 0.034) or a PhD (p(A1) = 0.001, p(A2) = 0.013, p(A3) = 0.004).

Discussion

This is the first study that investigates the attitudes and experiences of both nurses and AHPs towards research, working in critical care. Previous studies have investigated one single profession.^11,12 As in previous studies, the results demonstrate that critical care nurses and AHPs believe that research is an important part of patient care and leads to improved patient outcomes.^11,12 They also demonstrate an understanding of the importance of research to their own professional role. The results support the findings of recent studies which demonstrated an enthusiasm and motivation of UK-based physiotherapists¹¹ and Canada-based nurses,¹² to participate in critical care research.

Our study demonstrated that low levels of research training had been undertaken by participants. Furthermore, only a third of respondents reported being actively encouraged to participate in research by their management, even though opportunities were available in their hospitals. These are two areas which could be addressed in order to improve involvement in critical care research in Wales.

A collaborative relationship between research teams and clinicians was reported in this study; however, communication regarding study progression and findings needs improvement. Therefore, one potential method of improving staff research engagement in critical care across Wales would be to improve communication. Previous studies have reported strategies that could be employed to address this, such as the use of research champions and attendance at local research meetings.^15,16 A key aim of the Welsh Government’s Critically Ill Delivery Plan (2018) was to develop clinical leaders in research and support them with appropriate academic infrastructure.⁷ Achieving this aim could improve communication on individual ICUs.

Linear regression models indicate that a higher level of formal education was associated with a more positive view of research across all attitude factors. This could be explained by the inclusion of research methods modules within postgraduate courses, undertaken by the respondents. The different proportion of nurse and AHP respondents, however, may have influenced the study findings, as the undergraduate course contents differ across the professions.

The recognition and opportunities for involvement and information environmental factors were positively associated with the acceptability of research and experience of caring attitude factors, and the attitude of other research staff environmental factor was negatively associated with them. The use of research champions on each unit and encouraging attendance at research meetings could address this on a national level.

A number of differences were found in this study, compared to the Canadian study, primarily related to the involvement and understanding in research procedures. The respondents in this study had participated markedly fewer times in the last 12 months in any research-related activity, compared to the Canadian study.¹² This suggests that at present, there is less opportunity to participate in critical care research in Wales. This was evident when comparing the mean number of active research studies at each site, which was 12 in the Canadian study, compared to two active research studies per site in Wales. The difference could also be explained by the fact that in Wales most research-related activities are currently undertaken by the dedicated research nurses. The number of dedicated research nurses in the largest hospital in Wales was seven, as compared to 1.75 in the Canadian study, and almost one-third of respondents in this study were employed at that hospital.

Twice as many respondents in the Canadian study, had completed a course in research design, compared to this study, even though understanding of research-related activities was similar.¹² Furthermore, twice as many respondents reported being actively encouraged by their managers to participate in research in the Canadian study as in this study, which may suggest a change in culture, or education of managerial staff is required in Wales. Physicians were most frequently reported to lead research activity, so it may be necessary to target nurses and AHPs, when developing strategies for promoting new principal investigators. This could include releasing nursing and AHP staff from clinical duties, in order to work alongside the research-active physicians for a period of time, prior to becoming independent leads of studies. Similarly, attendance at research-related meetings was very low, so making meetings more accessible to clinical staff could be a straightforward strategy, to improve knowledge of research and communication regarding studies.

Strengths of our study include the inclusion of 13 of the 14 ICUs in Wales, the response rate achieved and the inclusion of nursing and all AHP professions. The inclusion of all ICUs ensured that the views of both research-active and non-research active sites were considered, thus facilitating more generalisable strategies for improved engagement. The questionnaire used in the study had been previously designed and implemented and was specific to the research question we were attempting to address. Our results are not generalisable to specialty-specific units, however, as we only included general ICUs and excluded paediatric, burns and cardiothoracic units. Finally, as with any self-reported questionnaire study, the results may be influenced by a number of forms of bias and this should be considered when interpreting the study findings. Another limitation was the lack of involvement of one of the units in Wales due to lack of Principal Investigator engagement. As this site is less research active, the omission of their clinicians’ survey responses will have impacted the results of our study.

Our study demonstrates that nurses and AHPs in Wales are generally supportive of critical care research, and there is a need for improved research-related education at undergraduate level for these professions. Communication between research teams and clinicians is a key area of potential improvement in engagement, and the development of local strategies such as the introduction of research champions and attendance at research meetings could prove beneficial. Critical care managers in Wales should actively encourage nurse and AHP participation in research activity.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-inc-10.1177_1751143720968659 - Supplemental material for Nurse and allied health professional experiences and attitudes toward critical care research: A national questionnaire study

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-inc-10.1177_1751143720968659 for Nurse and allied health professional experiences and attitudes toward critical care research: A national questionnaire study by Ceri Battle, Ceri Lynch, Timothy Discroll, Chris Thorpe, Bryony Hatchley, Sara Biggs, Rebecca Phillips, Alice Roberts, Sian Roberts, Jade Cole, Rhys Davies, Maria Hobrok, David Canning, Christopher Littler, Anwen Williams and Richard Pugh in Journal of the Intensive Care Society

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-2-inc-10.1177_1751143720968659 - Supplemental material for Nurse and allied health professional experiences and attitudes toward critical care research: A national questionnaire study

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-2-inc-10.1177_1751143720968659 for Nurse and allied health professional experiences and attitudes toward critical care research: A national questionnaire study by Ceri Battle, Ceri Lynch, Timothy Discroll, Chris Thorpe, Bryony Hatchley, Sara Biggs, Rebecca Phillips, Alice Roberts, Sian Roberts, Jade Cole, Rhys Davies, Maria Hobrok, David Canning, Christopher Littler, Anwen Williams and Richard Pugh in Journal of the Intensive Care Society

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

Individual members of WICSARG Chris Thorpe, Department of Anaesthetics and Intensive Care Medicine, Ysbyty Gwynedd, Bangor, UK; Bryony Hatchley, Physiotherapy Dept, Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport, UK; Sara Biggs, Physiotherapy Dept, Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport, UK; Rebecca Phillips, Physiotherapy Dept, Nevill Hall Hospital, Abergavenny, UK; Alice Roberts, Physiotherapy Dept, Glangwili General Hospital, Carmarthen, UK; Sian Roberts, Physiotherapy Dept, Princess of Wales Hospital, Bridgend, UK; Jade Cole, Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital Wales, Cardiff, UK; Rhys Davies, Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital Wales, Cardiff, UK; Maria Hobrok, Intensive Care Unit, Bronglais General Hospital, Aberystwyth, UK; David Canning, Physiotherapy Dept, Withybush General Hospital, Haverfordwest, Wales, UK; Chris Littler, Department of Anaesthetics, Wrexham Maelor Hospital, Wrexham, Wales, UK; Anwen Williams, Wrexham Maelor Hospital, Wrexham, Wales, UK.

Availability of data statement

Research data are available from the corresponding author on request.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Ceri Battle

Timothy Discroll

References

Jonker

Fisher

. The correlation between National Health Service trusts’ clinical trial activity and both mortality rates and care quality commission ratings: a retrospective cross-sectional study. Public Health 2018; 187: 1–6.

Downing

Morris

Corrigan

, et al. High hospital research participation and improved colorectal cancer survival outcomes: a population-based study. Gut 2017; 66: 89–96.

Selby

Kaplan

Cameron

, et al. Clinical research networks and the benefits of intensive healthcare systems. Clin Med 2012; 12: 446–52.

Krzyzanowska

Kaplan

Sullivan

. How may clinical research improve healthcare outcomes? Ann Oncol 2011; 22: vii10–vii15.

Downing

Morris

Corrigan

, et al. High hospital research participation and improved colorectal cancer survival outcomes: a population-based study. Gut 2017; 66: 89–96.

Luce

Cook

Martin

. The ethical conduct of clinical research involving critically ill patients in the United States and Canada. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2004; 170: 1375–1384.

Wales Critical Care and Trauma Network and the Critically ill Implementation Group. 2018. Delivery Plan for the critically ill to 2020, https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2018-12/critically-ill-delivery-plan-2017-to-2020.pdf (accessed 3 January 2020).

Deutschmann

Ahrens

Cairns

, et al. for the Critical Care Societies Collaborative/USCIITG Task Force on Critical Care Research Task Force on Critical Care Research. Multi-society taskforce for critical care research: key issues and recommendations. Am J Crit Care 2012; 21: 15–23.

Wiegand

Norton

Gedney Baggs

. Challenges in conducting end-of-life research in critical care. AACN Adv Crit Care 2008; 19: 170–177.

10.

Alt-White

Pranulis

. Addressing nurses’ ethical concerns about research in critical care settings. Nurs Adm Q 2006; 30: 67–75.

11.

Connolly

Allum

Shaw

, et al. Characterising the research profile of the critical care physiotherapy workforce and engagement with critical care research: a UK national survey. BMJ Open 2018; 8: e020350.

12.

Smith

Dale

Mehta

, et al. Nurse research experiences and attitudes toward the conduct of intensive care research: a questionnaire study. Crit Care Med 2016; 44: 153–161.

13.

Wales Deanery. Map of Welsh Hospitals, https://corporateservices.walesdeanery.org/sites/default/files/WD-Wales%20Map.jpg (2019, accessed 11 February 2020.

14.

SurveyMonkey. San Mateo, California, USA, www.surveymonkey.com (accessed 13 October 2020).

15.

Dale

Fowler

Adhikari

, et al. Implementation of a research awareness program in the critical care unit. Effects on families and clinicians. Int Crit Care Nurs 2010; 26: 69–74.

16.

Roxburgh

. An exploration of factors which constrain nurses from research participation. J Clin Nurs 2006; 15: 535–545.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.18 MB

0.22 MB