Farlie M.K.1,2, Bowles K.1, Weightman J.2, Saber K.2, Neave B.2, Yamin J.2, Keating J.L.1, Molloy E.1, Haines T.P.1,2
1Monash University, Faculty Medicine Nursing & Health Science, Melbourne, Australia, 2Monash Health, Allied Health Research Unit, Melbourne, Australia
Background: The lag between clinical research outcomes and translation into clinical practice is as great as 17-years. Clinicians are highly motivated to be involved in research, however little is known about how research can be prioritised concurrent with clinical care, or how consumer involvement in research can be improved to accelerate translation of research outcomes. Currently there is no validated scale to rate the intensity of balance exercise. This examination of clinician engagement in research was conducted in the context of a clinical study developing a scale to measure balance exercise intensity in clinical practice.
Purpose: We engaged clinicians and health care consumers in a clinical study developing two balance exercise intensity scales. Clinicians and consumers were strategically involved in the research design and study implementation to maximize engagement in study recruitment and data collection.
Methods: Information sessions to engage clinicians in the study were provided to any health professional who prescribed balance exercises. Targeted education strategies, including visual cues and peer-support, reinforced clinician understanding of the study protocol, including methods to incorporate study recruitment into clinical practice. A clinician driven recruitment model was utilized in a cohort study of two prototype Balance Intensity Scales, one for clinicians (BIS-Therapist), and the other for consumers (BIS-Exerciser). Recruitment methods targeted health service leaders and clinicians across a large health service in Australia. Consumers (exercisers) from a broad range of diagnostic groups and health service programs were subsequently recruited by study clinicians.
Results: Following study information sessions, 59 of 74 eligible clinicians consented to participate
(79%, physiotherapists n=53, exercise physiologists n=6). Exerciser recruitment increased exponentially as more therapist education interventions were completed. Over a 20-week period, the target number of exercisers (n=110) were recruited. Clinicians were supported by regular electronic updates and site visits provided by the lead investigator. Clinicians were highly motivated and engaged in this research project and demonstrated high levels of interest in the final study outcome (scale validation results).
Conclusion(s): Engagement of therapists and healthcare consumers in the research design of a scale development project was a key strategy for recruitment to this study and resulted in achieving study targets and aims. Clinicians have the reach and opportunity to engage with potential consumer participants when recruiting for large clinical research studies, and when guided through education, are willing and capable participants. Both peer support strategies and research team presence in the clinical setting throughout the recruitment phase were key mechanisms that aided reaching recruitment targets in this study.
Implications: This model, characterised by an upfront educational component for research participants, could be replicated in other health settings. This study demonstrates that it is possible for clinicians in a large tertiary health service network in Australia to incorporate recruitment and data collection for a large cohort study alongside usual clinical care. Consideration needs to be given to the education and training needs of clinicians to understand and engage in routine research activities, as well as practical assistance, support and reminders to maintain attention to research activities while juggling demanding clinical loads.
Funding acknowledgements: MKF: Monash University Maxwell King PhD Scholarship 2016.
TPH: NHMRC Career Development Fellowships (Population Health: 2010-17).
TPH: NHMRC Career Development Fellowships (Population Health: 2010-17).
Topic: Research methodology & knowledge translation
Ethics approval: Monash Health and Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee approval number 11030B.
All authors, affiliations and abstracts have been published as submitted.
