Review aim

To identify and describe how success is currently conceptualised in research capacity building in nurses, midwives and allied health professionals in the UK.

Framework stage 1: Identifying the research question

To address the stated aim of the review, the following research question has been identified.

How is success currently conceptualised in research capacity building in nurses, midwives and allied health professionals in the UK?

Framework stage 2: Identifying relevant studies

The search strategy will aim to identify both published and unpublished articles. A three-step search strategy will be utilized in this review. First, a limited initial search of MEDLINE (PubMed) and CINAHL (EBSCO) has been undertaken which identified 3 key papers [8,9,14]. Key words in titles and abstracts as well as index terms and review search terms were used to develop a search strategy. Search strategies, where available, were screened for further terms. This search strategy was adapted for each database or information source and checked by a librarian. After implementing this search strategy as outlined, reference lists of included articles will be reviewed for possible further appropriate papers.

A full search strategy for sources can be found in S1 Appendix.

Information sources will include

Inclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria follow the “Participant”, “Concept”, “Context” and “Type of evidence sources” framework described in the JBI methodology [12]. This is summerised in Table 1.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Table illustrating inclusion criteria.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0329264.t001

Participants

Populations described should include one or all of Nurses, Midwives and the 14 Allied Health Professions as described by the NHS in the UK. These are: Art therapists, dietitians, drama therapists, music therapists, occupational therapists, operating department practitioners, orthoptists, osteopaths, paramedics, physiotherapists, podiatrists, prosthetists and orthotists, radiographers, and speech and language therapists.

Concept

Research capacity building or development covers a broad range of activities at the individual and organisational level [16]. A generally accepted definition is that described by Trostle, of “a process of individual and institutional development which leads to higher levels of skills and greater ability to perform useful research”(13 p1321). Activities can include education, funding, advocacy and development of policy amongst others. In this context, we will explore definitions of success or stated aims of activities which:

• Conform to Trostle’s definition given above
• Are described as research capacity building or development or similar

Context

The RCB landscape within the UK is unique but shares concepts with other countries. For literature in peer-reviewed journals any healthcare context in the UK will be included. Concept papers or reviews may not state the context and will therefore be included if they do not exclude the UK. Grey literature which does not aim to be universally generalisable, including documents such as funders’ reports will be included if they relate to the UK. There will be no restriction on time since publication as there is no obvious cut-off to make.

Types of evidence sources

This scoping review will consider articles published in peer-reviewed journals of any sort, including, but not limited to, conference abstracts, reviews, opinion pieces or primary research. It will also incorporate grey literature including funders’ reports, professional bodies and policy documents.

Framework stage 3: Study selection

Following the search, all identified information sources will be collated and uploaded into the Rayyan review management software (www.rayyan.ai) and duplicates removed by reviewers. Titles and abstracts will then be screened by one reviewer with an independent reviewer checking a random 20% sample for assessment against the inclusion criteria. Any disagreements that arise between the reviewers will be resolved through discussion; if no resolution is possible then a third reviewer will arbitrate. Numbers of disagreements will be recorded, and a Kappa statistic will be calculated. If this score is less than 0.61 indicating less than a substantial agreement [17], then secondary reviewers will check all articles.

The full text of selected items will be assessed against the inclusion criteria by one reviewer with a random 20% checked by a second independent reviewer. Reasons for exclusion will be recorded. Any disagreements that arise between the reviewers will be resolved through discussion; if no resolution is possible then a third reviewer will arbitrate. Numbers of disagreements will be recorded and a Kappa statistic will be calculated. If this score is less than 0.61 indicating less than a substantial agreement [17], then secondary reviewers will check all articles. The results of the search and the study inclusion process will be reported and presented in a PRISMA flow diagram S1 Checklist.

Framework stage 4: Charting the data

Data will be extracted from included papers by one reviewer using a bespoke data extraction tool (S2 Appendix) developed for this review. A random 20% of entries will be checked by a second reviewer. The data extracted will include: title; year of publication; participants; context; study methods (if appropriate); author or publishing body (if appropriate); and description of aims or success.

The draft data extraction form was piloted on two papers that were found in the initial limited search. The data extraction tool may be modified during the review if needed from each included source. Modifications will be recorded and reported. Authors will be contacted for missing information or clarification if appropriate.

Framework stage 5: Collating, summarizing and reporting the results

In the first instance data will be presented in tabular form with key elements of each included paper shown. This will include (but not be limited to) author, date, type of paper (journal article, policy document, conference abstract etc), population and aim/description of success. A narrative summary will be produced to discuss the results and link them to the review objective.

It is presumed that aims of programmes or descriptions of success will have commonalities. If this is apparent then an inductive qualitative content analysis will be undertaken to understand any commonalities [18]. Two authors will gain deep familiarity with the data by reading and re-reading sources, then perform open coding. Following this, the two reviewers will meet to build a coding framework. Data will be extracted and organised using this framework. The coding framework will be revised, as necessary, to develop over-arching categories that address the review question and objectives. There are no planned subgroup analyses.

The final article will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. A written report will also be made available to the organisations identified in the grey literature search, including: The NIHR, all charities that form the Association of Medical Research Charities and the recognised professional bodies for Nurses, Midwives and AHPs.