Research interest, experience and confidence of allied health professionals working in medical imaging: a cross-sectional survey

Research interest, experience and confidence of allied health professionals working in medical imaging: a cross-sectional survey

REVIEWED BY |Ling Lee ASA SIG: Research

REFERENCE | Authors: Dennett AM, Cauchi T, Harding KE, Kelly P, Ashby G, Taylor NF. Journal: J Med Radiat Sci 2021; 68:121–130

WHY THE STUDY WAS PERFORMED

The authors first acknowledged the importance of a strong research culture in health services by stating the benefits of a positive research culture, such as improved health services using evidence-based practices, staff satisfaction within the organisation and better patient care, which led to the growing interest and investment in research capacity in allied health professions, including medical imaging.

The article stated the strategies to increase research capacity specific to medical imaging are i) the implementation of a ‘research radiographer’; and ii) the introduction of ‘pop up’ research centres. Both strategies have successfully contributed to the appointment of two research fellows in two metropolitan health services within the Allied Health Clinical Research Office, an initiative by the Victorian Department of Health, to assist medical imaging allied health professionals in performing research.

There has been little research performed to measure the research skills and experience of medical imaging allied health professionals (hereby referred to as MI), including radiographers, sonographers and nuclear medicine technologists when compared to other allied health therapy professionals (hereby referred to as AHT), such as physiotherapists, occupational therapists, psychologists, speech pathologists, and so on.

The aim of the study was to identify the self-reported research participation of MI, more specifically in the areas of research interest, experience, and confidence, and compare the findings to AHT.

HOW THE STUDY WAS PERFORMED

A quantitative, cross-sectional survey (paper and online formats) was distributed to medical imaging allied health professionals working at a large metropolitan health network in Melbourne, Australia. The health network consists of three acute hospitals, two subacute sites, a small regional hospital, and several small community-based sites.

The inclusion criteria for the survey were radiographers, sonographers, and nuclear medicine technologists. The exclusion criteria were nurses, radiologists, and non-allied health professionals. No radiation therapists were included as none were employed by the health network.

The data was collected over a period of three months from August to October 2019. The result was compared to the survey results collected from allied health therapy professionals in 2015 from the same health network.

The research SPIDER tool was used to report the data collected towards i) research interest; ii) research experience; and iii) research confidence, respectively. These three aspects were rated against ten categories as below:

1. writing research proposal/protocol

2. using quantitative methods

3. publishing research

4. writing and presenting research report

5. analysing and interpreting results

6. using qualitative methods

7. critically reviewing literature

8. finding relevant literature

9. generating research ideas

10. applying for research funding.

Each category was measured by a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (none) to 5 (very).

WHAT THE STUDY FOUND

There was a total of 126 medical imaging allied health professionals working at the health network at the time of the study but only 65% (82) of the surveys were completed. Most of the participants were radiographers (59), while the remaining were 13 sonographers and 9 nuclear medicine technologists. Overall, the research participation and awareness towards existing research promotions and training initiatives were significantly lower among MI when compared to AHT.

When using the research SPIDER tool to report results on the three aspects (research interest, experience and confidence), MI and AHT had very similar findings which were ‘some research interest’ (median 3, IQR 2 to 4); ‘little research experience’ (median 2, IQR 1 to 3); and ‘little research confidence’ (median 2, IQR 1 to 3). MI reported the highest level of interest, experience, and confidence in the category of finding relevant literature and the lowest level of interest, experience, and confidence in the category of applying for research funding.

For research interest, AHT had significantly higher interest in four categories when compared to MI, which were using qualitative methods, critically reviewing literature, finding relevant literature and generating research ideas. The finding showed research interest and confidence were moderately correlated with research experience. According to the survey result, there was no difference in interest, experience, and confidence between different medical imaging professions, which were radiography, sonography, and nuclear medicine.

“The first step is to view research as part of our clinical role, instead of a separate entity.”

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

A small sample size, moderate response rate and data collected from a single health network were the limitations of the study. It was recognised that the comparison from the two surveys collected from different time frames (years 2015 and 2019) might not be a true reflection; however, the authors mentioned that there were no changes over time in the research interest and experience in the cohort of AHT based on previous research conducted in the same health network.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Given that all health practitioners are required to deliver evidence-based practice, various efforts and strategies are required to grow the research capacity within the health professions, including medical imaging allied health professionals.

This was the first study conducted in Australia to evaluate the research interest, experience, and confidence among MI as an initiative to gain understanding on how to further develop a research culture. MI was traditionally perceived to evince a lack of interest in research participation due to the nature of the workflow, workplace hierarchy and disassociation of research responsibility from the clinical workload. The study successfully demonstrated that research interest among MI was similar to AHT, a cohort that traditionally has been provided with more research support. Thus the authors suggested a better research culture is feasible among MI by applying successful strategies adopted by other allied health professions.

The study mentioned the Allied Health Clinical Research Office within the health network has been focusing on providing support and training to allied health professionals. The strategies offered by the research office include a research training scheme, quarterly newsletter, monthly research clinics, an annual research forum, leadership of major externally funded projects, onsite higher degree research supervision and consultancy.

The above strategies and initiatives could be incorporated into our clinical practice to grow a strong research culture in our field. The first step is to view research as part of our clinical role instead of a separate entity.