View
212
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
DIETETIC PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE
Involvement in research activities and factors influencingresearch capacity among dietitiansA. J. Howard,* M. Ferguson,*† P. Wilkinson‡ & K. L. Campbell*†
*Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Queensland, Australia
†School of Human Movement Studies, University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia
‡Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Bundaberg Hospital, Queensland, Australia
Keywords
dietitians, evidence-based practice, health
professionals, research capacity, research
involvement.
Correspondence
K. L. Campbell, Nutrition and Dietetics
Department, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Ipswich
Road, Woolloongabba, Queensland 4102,
Australia.
Tel.: +617 3176 5252
Fax: +617 3176 5619
E-mail: katrina_campbell@health.qld.gov.au
How to cite this article
Howard A.J., Ferguson M., Wilkinson P. &
Campbell K.L. (2013) Involvement in research
activities and factors influencing research capacity
among dietitians. J Hum Nutr Diet. 26 (Suppl. 1),
180–187
doi:10.1111/jhn.12053
Abstract
Background: A healthcare professional’s aptitude to develop research skills
and actively engage in research is necessary to optimise healthcare efficacy.
The present study investigated the factors that contribute to research capac-
ity within the Australian dietetic workforce.
Methods: Queensland-based dietitians scored their department and individ-
ual skill or success in research on a 10-point scale using an anonymous online
survey that incorporated the validated Research Capacity in Context tool.
Descriptive statistics were assessed against geographical setting, dietetic expe-
rience and the proportion of role (Full Time Equivalent; FTE) designated to
research. Research activities were defined by the number of items currently
involved in or completed in the past 6 months (n = 11). Factors associated
with research activities were assessed by multivariable linear regression.
Results: Dietitians (n = 130) identified having a moderate skill or success in
14 research items [mean (SD) 5.1 (1.7)] and perceived that their depart-
ments provided a moderate level of research support in 19 research items
[mean (SD) 6.1 (2.5)]. Geographical setting, the proportion of role desig-
nated to research (FTE) and participation in research activities were associ-
ated with individual and department ratings of research skill or success.
Research involvement was predicted by the proportion of role (FTE) desig-
nated to research (b = 0.34, t = 4.16, P < 0.001) and years of experience in
dietetics (b = 0.32, t = 2.67, P < 0.009).
Conclusions: A dietitian’s capacity for research is related to professional
experience and the designation of research in the role description. The find-
ings of the present study will provide a baseline of research capacity and
expertise among dietitians, and also inform the strategic development of
building research capacity.
Introduction
In the current climate of outcomes-focused healthcare,
the application of evidence-based practice from research is
crucial for achieving cost savings and the subsequent fund-
ing of healthcare services (Pirkis et al., 2005). However, as
identified in the literature, research involvement among the
clinicians from medicine, nursing and allied health
disciplines is considerably low (Farmer & Weston, 2002;
Cooke, 2005; Pickstone et al., 2008; Pager et al., 2012a).
Involvement in research can be measured against a con-
tinuum of four stages, ranging in activities from critically
analysing literature and applying to practice (level one),
to leading or supervising large research projects (level
four; Wylie-Rosett et al., 1990). Comparatively, research
capacity encapsulates the ability to learn, develop and
execute the skills that are necessary to engage in research
activities, and thus there is a progressive shift in complex-
ity along the research continuum (Wylie-Rosett et al.,
1990).
ª 2013 The Authors
180 Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics ª 2013 The British Dietetic Association Ltd.
Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics
Of the studies that assess research capacity among
health disciplines, investigations have largely focused on
identifying barriers, attitudes and predictors of involve-
ment in research among clinicians (Barr, 1990; Peach,
2003; Whelan et al., 2007; Pager et al., 2012b). The major
barriers identified include a lack of time, competing work
priorities, limited skill in research, as well as limited sup-
port and infrastructure to conduct research activities
(Wyse, 1987; Morley-Hauchecorne & Lepatourel, 2000;
Harrison et al., 2001; Albert & Mickan, 2003; Byham-
Gray et al., 2006; Pager et al., 2012b). In a recent qualita-
tive study (Whelan & Markless, 2012), it emerged that
the barriers described by dietitians had a complex interac-
tion, and that overcoming these barriers was likely to
increase involvement in research. Suggested enablers
include protected time for research, funding for backfill
and participation in a higher research degree (Shah et al.,
2002; Bateman et al., 2004; Byham-Gray et al., 2006).
Within dietetics, research is referred to as the ‘backbone’
of the profession, and forms the basis of evidence-based
guidelines (Wyse, 1987; Morley-Hauchecorne & Lepatou-
rel, 2000; Harrison et al., 2001; Byham-Gray et al., 2006).
However, studies in the USA, Australia, Canada and the
UK indicate that actual participation is low, highlighting
the limited integration of research into practice (Daniels,
2002; Whelan, 2007; Pager et al., 2012b). In university, stu-
dent dietitians generally feel confident that they have the
capacity to carry out critical appraisal and apply research
to practice in their future workplace (Whelan, 2007; Whe-
lan et al., 2007). However, evidence suggests that this con-
fidence is not easily retained by dietitians once in practice
(Harrison et al., 2001). To address this issue, studies have
investigated opportunities to build research capacity in the
workplace and among individual clinicians. The factors
that have been investigated include predictors for research,
research competence and the types of research activity con-
ducted, with each study employing different tools for mea-
surement and comparison (Morley-Hauchecorne &
Lepatourel, 2000; Myers et al., 2003; Byham-Gray et al.,
2006). There remains a paucity of studies in the literature
describing the current state and distribution of research
capacity among dietitians, using consistent and validated
measures. Accordingly, the present study aimed to investi-
gate research capacity at the individual and department
level among the nutrition and dietetics workforce in
Queensland, Australia, using the validated Research Capac-
ity in Context (RCC) tool (Holden et al., 2011).
Materials and methods
Survey
A questionnaire was developed from the validated RCC
tool (Holden et al., 2011). The RCC tool is validated for
investigating research capacity according to organisation-
al, team and individual domains. Each domain contains
robust scale items, with a total of 51 questions (18 organ-
isational, 19 team and 14 individual), strong internal
consistency (organisational a = 0.97; team a = 0.97; indi-
vidual a = 0.95) and good reliability (intraclass correla-
tions of 0.80, 0.81 and 0.81; Holden et al., 2011). The
questions posed in the present study were predominantly
quantitative, with an option for respondents to provide
written comments for further clarification. Research
capacity was defined as the perceived skill or success in
research of individuals and departments, and was scored
on a 10-point Likert scale (1 = no skill/success; 10 = high
skill/success). Research activities were defined by the
number of research items that respondents were currently
involved in or had completed in the past 6 months
(Table 1). The survey comprised five sections: (i) skill or
success of research among organisation, department and
individual domains; (ii) barriers and motivators to con-
duct research; (iii) research activities currently involved
in or completed in the last 6 months; (iv) Full Time
Equivalent (FTE) of Employment and proportion of FTE
dedicated to research activities; and (v) participant demo-
graphics. Demographic questions such as sex, professional
level, geographical setting and workplace type were
included to inform analysis. Data pertaining to perceived
skill or success of research at an organisational level, and
barriers and enablers to research, were omitted from the
analysis because the study was intended to build upon
pre-existing data of barriers and enablers to research.
Table 1 Distribution of research activities among respondents
Question 6
Describe any research activity you are currently doing or have
completed in the past 6 months. Please choose all that apply
Activities Frequency (n = 130) (%)
1. Writing a research protocol 28 (22)
2. Submitting an ethics application 37 (28)
3. Collecting data (e.g. surveys,
interviews)
54 (42)
4. Analysing qualitative
research data
29 (22)
5. Analysing quantitative
research data
38 (29)
6. Writing a literature review 40 (31)
7. Assisted in applying for
research funding
32 (25)
8. Secured research funding 8 (6)
9. Co-authored a paper
for publication
25 (19)
10. Presented research findings
at a conference
22 (17)
11. Other 4 (3)
ª 2013 The Authors
Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics ª 2013 The British Dietetic Association Ltd. 181
A. J. Howard et al. Research capacity among dietitians
Study sample
The target group of dietitians and nutritionists across
Queensland were approached via an existing e-mail circu-
lation list (Dietitians and Nutritionists Strategic Coalition:
a Queensland-wide collaborative group representing hos-
pital, community, public health and university settings)
inviting them to take part in the survey and to forward
to their dietitian and nutritionist networks (estimated
circulation, n = 400). Within the e-mail invitation, par-
ticipants were directed to Survey Monkey (http://www.
surveymonkey.com/) and instructed to acknowledge a
consent form before commencing the survey. The survey
was open for a 1-month period. Responses from partici-
pants were anonymised with the use of numerical coding.
Ethics approval was issued by The Prince Charles HREC,
Queensland Health.
Statistical analysis
Descriptive statistics [mean (SD) and percentages] were
generated to categorise the sample population. Ordinal
variables were collapsed to contain two categories: geo-
graphical setting (metropolitan and regional, rural or
remote) and the distribution of research activities among
participants. Regional, rural and remote geographical set-
tings were grouped together to achieve normal data dis-
tribution at the same time as enabling considerations for
socioeconomic differences observed between metropolitan
and regional/rural/remoter regions (Wylie-Rosett et al.,
1990). Continuous data were analysed using a Mann–Whitney U-test. Pairwise correlation coefficient analyses
was performed for the continuous variables: nutrition
and dietetic experience, professional level, proportion of
role (FTE) designated to research, and the number of
research activities that respondents were involved in.
Multivariable linear regression analysis was conducted
to determine predictors of research capacity among par-
ticipants. Statistical tests, including R2, R2change and
Fchange of the model, are described. All statistical analyses
were conducted using STATA/IC, version 11 (StataCorp.,
College Station, TX, USA). P < 0.05 was considered sta-
tistically significant.
Results
Out of an approximate distribution to 400 dietitians and
nutritionists, 160 (40%) subjects participated in the survey.
Of these, 130 (81.3%) survey responses had complete data
for each domain and were used in the analysis. Missing
data included nonresponses for consecutive survey ques-
tions belonging to the organisational (17 questions), team
(19 questions) and individual (14 questions) domains.
Table 2 defines the respondent characteristics. Partici-
pants were predominantly female (n = 122, 93.8%),
resided in Metropolitan regions (n = 89, 68.5%) and were
employed at a hospital (n = 78, 60.9%). Fifty-four
respondents (41.9%) had completed post-graduate quali-
fications. Of the sample, just over one quarter of partici-
pants (n = 35, 26.9%) had 6–10 years of experience in
nutrition and dietetics, and held entry level/consolidating
(HP3) or senior (HP4) health practitioner level positions
[n = 43 (33.1%) and n = 46 (35.4%), respectively].
Health professional level, proportion of role (FTE) des-
ignated to research and years of experience in nutrition
and dietetics were significantly and positively associated
with the number of research activities involved in
(r = 0.25, 0.37 and 0.38, respectively; P < 0.05).
Department-level research capacity
Table 3 details the research capacity of departments by
skill or success of research support offered according to
geographical location, role description and the number of
research activities involved in, all of which were signifi-
cantly related with department-level research capacity.
Overall, research support offered at a department level
was found to be higher in metropolitan regions and
towards respondents with a larger proportion of their role
(FTE) designated to research.
Individual research capacity
Table 4 details the ratings for individual research skill or
success by geographical location, role description and
level of research engagement. Overall, individuals rated
their own skill or success in research at a mean (SD) of
5.1 (1.7). Skill or success in research was rated higher if
participants had � 10% of their role designated to
research or were engaged in a greater number of research
activities (5+ activities). Research skill or success was
equally rated by participants from metropolitan and
regional, rural and remote settings.
Predictors of research engagement
The level of research engagement was independently pre-
dicted by the proportion of role (FTE) designated to
research, such that participants with a greater proportion
of research allocated within their role description were
typically involved in a larger number of research activities
(B = 1.96, b = 0.34, t = 4.16, P < 0.001). The number of
years of experience in nutrition and dietetics was also
associated with the level of research engagement, indicat-
ing that participants with more years of experience had
a higher level of research engagement (B = 0.489,
ª 2013 The Authors
182 Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics ª 2013 The British Dietetic Association Ltd.
Research capacity among dietitians A. J. Howard et al.
b = 0.318, t = 2.67, P < 0.009). Independent variables,
including the number of years of experience with respect
to working within an organisation and professional level,
were not significant in predicting the level of research
engagement among participants (P > 0.05). Similarly,
workplace setting (metropolitan versus rural/remote/
other), sex and current FTE of position were not associ-
ated with research participation (P > 0.05).
Discussion
The results of the present study contribute to the under-
standing of involvement in and factors influencing the
research capacity of dietitians. In the present study, con-
ducted in Queensland, Australia, respondents scored
comparably on a relative scale in individual research skill
or success [mean (SD) 5.1 (1.7); 10-point scale] to dieti-
tians in the USA [mean (SD) 26.9 (9.5); 60-point scale]
and higher than their Canadian colleagues [mean (SD)
4.7 (2.8); 14-point scale]. This finding is notable because
individual capacity for research among Australian dieti-
tians is on a par with other dietitians in the international
research arena (Morley-Hauchecorne & Lepatourel, 2000;
Byham-Gray et al., 2006).
When asked to describe current involvement in research
activities, more than one-third of respondents identified
participating in data collection (e.g. surveys and inter-
views) and writing a literature review. Given that level one
research is translated into the very foundation of evidence-
based dietetic practice, involvement in these research
activities suggests the active progression of dietitians
along the research continuum (Wylie-Rosett et al., 1990).
Table 2 Descriptive variables by distribution of
research activities among respondentsDescriptives of respondents
in survey (n = 130) Whole sample, n (%)
Involvement in
0–4 activities
(n = 106) (%)
Involvement in
5+ activities
(n = 24) (%)
Sex (n = 130)
Male 8 (6) 6 (6) 2 (8)
Female 122 (94) 100 (94) 22 (92)
Geographical locale
Metropolitan 89 (68) 70 (66) 19 (79)
Rural and remote 41 (32) 36 (34) 5 (21)
Highest qualification
level (n = 131) (%)
Undergraduate 50 (39) 45 (42) 4 (17)
Post-graduate 54 (42) 45 (42) 9 (38)
Masters research 13 (10) 10 (9) 3 (13)
PhD 9 (7) 3 (3) 6 (25)
Other 5 (4) 3 (3) 2 (8)
Nutrition and dietetics
experience (n = 130) (%)
<2 years 22 (17) 21 (20) 1 (4)
2–5 years 31 (24) 30 (28) 1 (4)
6–10 years 35 (27) 27 (25) 8 (33)
11–15 years 15 (12) 12 (11) 3 (13)
16–20 years 9 (7) 2 (2) 7 (29)
20+ years 18 (14) 14 (13) 4 (17)
Professional level
(n = 130) (%)
HP3 43 (33) 42 (40) 1 (4)
HP4 47 (36) 35 (33) 12 (50)
HP5 20 (15) 14 (13) 6 (25)
HP6 & HP7 13 (10) 10 (9) 3 (13)
Academic level A–E 2 (2) 0 (0) 2 (8)
Other 5 (4) 5 (5) 0 (0)
Proportion (%) role is
research (n = 128) (%)*
<10 98 (76) 88 (69) 10 (42)
10–50 25 (20) 15 (14) 10 (42)
>50 5 (4) 1 (1) 4 (17)
*Full Time Equivalent workload dedicated to research activities.
ª 2013 The Authors
Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics ª 2013 The British Dietetic Association Ltd. 183
A. J. Howard et al. Research capacity among dietitians
However, consistent with the findings of Stephens et al.
(2009) regarding Victorian healthcare professionals
(n = 122), participation in higher level research, such as
securing funding or co-authoring a paper for publication,
was lower, indicative of the additional commitment and
resources required to complete these tasks.
When considering factors that influence research capac-
ity among the sample, the designation of research to a die-
titian’s role (FTE) and number of years of experience in
nutrition and dietetics was found to predict research
engagement. Respondents who identified having 10% or
more of their role (FTE) designated to research rated their
skill or success in research higher on all items than respon-
dents who did not consider research as part of their role.
Similarly, when asked to score their perceived skill
and success of research aspects at an individual level,
Table 3 Department research capacity (scale: 1 = no skill/success to 10 = high skill/success)
Question: Please rate your team/
department/unit’s skill or
success level for each of the following
aspects selection a score on a 1–10
scale (1 = no skill/success and 10 =
high skill/success): with respect to
research, my department:
Overall, mean (SD)
Geographical location,
mean (SD)
Research in role
description, mean
(SD)
Participation in
research activities,
mean (SD)
(n = 130)
Metropolitan
(n = 89)
Regional/rural/
remote
(n = 41)
None
(n = 98)
� 10% of
position
(n = 30)
0–4
activities
(n = 107)
5+ activities
(n = 24)
(i) Has adequate resources to
support staff research training
5.0 (3.0) 5.7 (3.0) 3.8 (2.4)* 4.6 (2.9) 6.1 (2.6)* 4.9 (2.9) 5.5 (3.1)
(ii) Has funds, equipment or admin to
support research activities
4.5 (2.8) 5.0 (2.8) 3.3 (2.3)* 4.1 (2.8) 5.6 (2.5)* 4.4 (2.7) 4.8 (3.0)
(iii) Has a plan or policy for
research development
5.4 (3.0) 6.0 (2.9) 4.1 (2.7)** 5.0 (3.0) 6.5 (2.8)* 5.2 (2.9) 6.2 (3.3)
(iv) Has senior managers that
support research
6.7 (3.0) 6.0 (2.9) 4.9 (3.0)*** 5.4 (3.0) 6.4 (2.8) 5.5 (2.9) 6.2 (3.3)
(v) Ensures staff career pathways
are available in research
6.9 (2.8) 7.3 (2.6) 6.1 (3.1)*** 6.5 (2.9) 8.0 (2.2)* 6.8 (2.8) 7.2 (3.0)
(vi) Ensures organisational planning
is guided by evidence
6.1 (2.9) 6.9 (2.7) 4.6 (2.6)** 5.7 (2.9) 7.4 (2.3)** 5.9 (2.8) 6.8 (3.0)***
(vii) Has consumers involved
in research
7.4 (2.4) 7.8 (2.0) 6.6 (3.0) 7.2 (2.5) 7.8 (2.1) 7.4 (2.4) 7.2 (2.7)
(viii) Accesses external funding
for research
5.2 (2.7) 5.7 (2.6) 4.0 (2.4)* 4.9 (2.7) 6.0 (2.5)*** 5.1 (2.6) 5.5 (2.9)
(ix) Promotes clinical practice
based on evidence
6.2 (3.2) 7.1 (2.9) 4.4 (3.0)** 5.9 (3.2) 7.0 (2.8) 6.0 (3.1) 7.0 (3.2)
(x) Encourages research activities
relevant to practice
6.8 (3.0) 7.5 (2.7) 5.3 (3.1)** 6.4 (3.1) 7.9 (2.4)* 6.6 (3.0) 7.5 (3.2)
(xi) Has software for analysing
research data
6.8 (2.8) 7.4 (2.7) 5.7 (2.9)** 6.5 (2.9) 7.9 (2.3)* 6.6 (2.8) 7.6 (2.9)
(xii) Has mechanisms to monitor
research quality
5.6 (3.0) 6.3 (2.9) 4.1 (2.5)** 5.2 (3.0) 6.8 (2.4)* 5.5 (3.0) 6.2 (3.0)
(xiii) Has identified experts accessible
for research advice
6.6 (2.9) 7.1 (2.8) 5.7 (2.9)* 6.4 (3.0) 7.4 (2.5)*** 6.6 (2.9) 7.0 (3.0)
(xiv) Supports a multi-disciplinary
approach to research
6.6 (3.1) 7.3 (2.7) 5.0 (3.2)** 6.1 (3.2) 7.9 (2.3)* 6.4 (3.1) 7.3 (3.1)
(xv) Has regular forums/bulletins to
present research findings
6.5 (2.7) 7.0 (2.4) 5.4 (2.9)* 6.2 (2.7) 7.4 (2.7)* 6.5 (2.6) 6.5 (3.2)
(xvi) Engages external partners
(e.g. universities) in research
6.0 (2.8) 6.4 (2.7) 5.0 (2.9)*** 5.6 (2.9) 6.9 (2.4)* 6.0 (2.8) 5.8 (3.1)
(xvii) Supports applications for
research scholarships/degrees
6.6 (2.9) 7.3 (2.7) 5.1 (2.9)** 6.3 (3.0) 7.5 (2.5)*** 6.4 (2.9) 7.4 (3.0)***
(xviii) Supports the peer-reviewed
publication of research
7.0 (2.8) 7.6 (2.5) 5.7 (3.1)* 6.7 (2.9) 7.8 (2.4)*** 6.8 (2.7) 7.6 (3.2)
(xix) Has software available to
support research activities
5.0 (3.1) 5.7 (3.1) 3.5 (2.6)** 4.6 (3.0) 6.3 (3.0)** 4.8 (3.0) 6.0(3.4)***
Mean 6.1 (2.5) 6.7 (2.7) 4.9 (2.8) 5.8 (2.9) 7.1 (2.5) 6.0 (2.8) 6.6 (3.1)
*P � 0.01; **P � 0.001; ***P � 0.05.
ª 2013 The Authors
184 Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics ª 2013 The British Dietetic Association Ltd.
Research capacity among dietitians A. J. Howard et al.
respondents who indicated involvement in five or more
research activities gave higher ratings overall, and were
more likely to rate individual research items at a higher
level (mean � 7.5 in skill or success) than respondents
who were involved in four or less activities.
The distinction between dietitians who identified that
research was part of their role (24%) and those who did
not (76%) is noteworthy given that research is fundamen-
tal to evidence-based practice and, second, research
participation is inherent in the job description of Queens-
land Health Practitioners. In a Canadian study investigat-
ing self-perceived competence of dietitians to participate
in research (n = 122), 31% of respondents felt that
research should be included in their workload, and indi-
cated overall that participation in research would improve
if it were a written requirement in their role description
(Morley-Hauchecorne & Lepatourel, 2000). Whether low
participation in research is founded at the individual level
or department level, the notion of how an individual
views their capacity for research may be pivotal to actual
research involvement.
At the department level, it was found that a moderate
level of research support was offered to respondents, with
greater support offered by Metropolitan-based dietetic
departments. This level of support, however, is higher
than that given by 134 Australian healthcare professionals
in a recent study (9% of whom were dietitians), who
rated their department’s at a mean (SD) of 4.3 (2.2)
(10-point scale) (Holden et al., 2011). Of note, items
including provides software to support research activities
(median 2, IQR = 4) and provides funds, equipment or
administration to support research activities (median 2,
IQR = 3) attracted the lowest median scores compared to
a mean (SD) of 5.0 (3.0) and 4.5 (2.8), respectively, in
the present study (Holden et al., 2011). Furthermore, in a
1988 study of US dietitians (n = 424) investigating
research involvement and interest, a significant portion of
respondents negatively scored their environment to con-
duct research on a 7-point continuum, indicating that
research was considered a low priority, unrewarded and
attracted limited support by their departments (Schiller,
1988). As noted in the present study, the improvement in
Table 4 Individual research capacity (scale: 1 = not existent to 10 = high level)
Question: With respect to
the following tasks, I rate
my skills in:
Overall, mean (SD)
Geographical location,
mean (SD)
Research in role
description, mean
(SD)
Level of research
engagement, mean
(SD)
(n = 130)
Metropolitan
(n = 89)
Regional/rural/
remote
(n = 41)
None
(n = 98)
�10% of
position
(n = 30)
0–4
activities
(n = 107)
5+ activities
(n = 24)
(i) Finding relevant literature 7.1 (1.5) 7.0 (1.8) 7.3 (2.0) 7.0 (1.8) 7.4 (1.9) 7.0 (1.8) 7.5 (2.0)
(ii) Critically reviewing
the literature
6.7 (1.9) 6.7 (1.8) 6.7 (2.3) 65 (1.9) 7.5 (1.8)* 6.5 (1.9) 7.8 (2.0)*
(iii) Using a computer referencing
system (e.g. endnote)
4.9 (2.7) 4.7 (2.7) 5.3 (2.7) 4.6 (2.6) 5.8 (3.0)*** 4.6 (2.5) 6.3 (3.2)*
(iv) Writing research protocol 5.0 (2.5) 5.1 (2.6) 4.8 (2.2) 4.6 (2.3) 6.3 (2.5)** 4.4 (2.3) 7.4 (1.9)**
(v) Securing research funding 3.9 (2.3) 4.0 (2.4) 3.8 (2.1) 3.5 (2.1) 5.1 (2.5)** 3.4 (2.1) 5.9 (2.3)**
(vi) Submitting an ethics application 4.9 (2.8) 5.1 (2.8) 4.5 (2.8) 4.4 (2.6) 6.4 (2.9)** 4.3 (2.6) 7.4 (2.2)**
(vii) Designing questionnaires 5.4 (2.2) 5.4 (2.2) 5.4 (2.3) 5.2 (2.1) 6.2 (2.3)* 5.1 (2.2) 6.8 (2.0)*
(viii) Collecting data
(e.g. surveys, interviews)
6.4 (2.1) 6.4 (1.9) 6.3 (2.5) 6.3 (2.0) 6.8 (2.4)*** 6.1 (2.1) 7.7 (1.5)**
(ix) Using computer data
management systems
5.1 (2.6) 5.1 (2.5) 5.0 (2.8) 4.7 (2.4) 6.1 (2.7)* 4.7 (2.4) 6.8 (2.6)**
(x) Analysing qualitative
research data
4.6 (2.5) 4.4 (2.4) 4.9 (2.7) 4.3 (2.4) 5.2 (2.6) 4.3 (2.4) 5.7 (2.5)***
(xi) Analysing quantitative
research data
4.8 (2.5) 4.8 (2.5) 4.8 (2.5) 4.4 (2.3) 5.9 (2.7)* 4.3 (2.3) 6.8 (2.3)**
(xii) Writing a research report 5.5 (2.6) 5.4 (2.6) 5.8 (2.7) 5.2 (2.5) 6.7(2.5)** 5.0 (2.5) 7.8 (1.7)**
(xiii) Writing for publication
in peer-reviewed journals
4.7 (2.7) 4.7 (2.7) 4.7 (2.7) 4.4 (2.5) 5.6 (2.9)*** 4.1 (2.5) 7.0 (2.1)**
(xiv) Providing advice to less
experienced researchers
4.1 (2.6) 4.1 (2.6) 4.1 (2.7) 3.6 (2.4) 5.5 (2.7)** 3.5 (2.4) 6.6 (2.2)**
Mean 5.1 (1.7) 5.2 (2.4) 5.2 (2.5) 4.9 (2.3) 6.2 (2.5) 4.8 (3.3) 7.0 (2.2)
*P � 0.01; **P � 0.001; ***P � 0.05.
ª 2013 The Authors
Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics ª 2013 The British Dietetic Association Ltd. 185
A. J. Howard et al. Research capacity among dietitians
scoring of research support offered at a department level
may be reflective of the evolving research culture in die-
tetics and among other health disciplines.
Although quantitative studies provide a snapshot of
research participation among dietitians, it must be noted
that the use of qualitative studies is likely to provide poi-
gnant insight into the changing culture of research. In a
recent qualitative study by Whelan & Markless (2012),
registered dietetics (n = 13) working at university facul-
ties reflected on the effect that organisation type and size,
faculty commitments and individual influence had on
their involvement in research. Through thematic group-
ing, limiting factors to research involvement were identi-
fied, thereby enabling these limiters to be systematically
addressed. To obtain valuable data pertaining to beliefs,
attitudes and behaviours surrounding research capacity
within the dietetic profession, it is recommended that
greater efforts are made to include a sound qualitative
focus.
The results of the present study are likely to reflect the
traditional culture of research practice, whereby academ-
ics have been previously commissioned to conduct
research to inform health policy and practice (Cooke,
2005). Cooke (2005) describes this concept as research
for practice, and highlights the traditional distinction
between researcher and clinician. However, as noted by
Whitford et al. (2000), clinical dietitians are in a unique
position to identify gaps in evidence of day-to-day prac-
tice, and lead research in areas relevant to the discipline.
By actively conducting research by practice, whereby
research activities are directed by clinicians, the transfer
of research findings into clinical practice has the potential
to affect patient health outcomes with greater efficacy
(Whitford et al., 2000; Cooke, 2005). As such, by actively
implementing research activities in daily dietetic practice,
a dominant research culture can be established (Harrison
et al., 2001).
There are a number of identified limitations to the
present study. First, although respondents represent a
range of health professional levels and dietetic experience
as a result of the small sample size (n = 130) and a lack
of representation from dietetic sectors including private
practice, foodservice and other industry, the responses
collected are unlikely to be a true reflection of the
research capacity of the total Australian dietetic profes-
sion (DAA, 2010). In addition, sample participants are
likely to have a personal interest in research, be actively
participating in research activities or belong to depart-
ments that have a strong research focus, and were there-
fore motivated to participate in the survey. Accordingly,
interpretations of the data should be made with caution.
Second, as a result of the use of different tools for mea-
suring research attributes, the findings from the present
study cannot be immediately compared with other studies
investigating research capacity. It is for this reason that
the RCC tool was selected because it is a validated mea-
sure and includes components that are universal indica-
tors of research capacity and culture. It is anticipated that
the quantitative results provided by this tool will be used
to evaluate future research capacity building programmes
(Holden et al., 2011). Nonetheless, given that interna-
tional literature investigating research capacity among
dietitians reveals consistent themes as cited in the present
study, it is anticipated that the results of the present
study are likely to be generalisable to the dietetic work-
force of other developed nations (Daniels, 2002; Whelan,
2007; Pager et al., 2012b).
The present study is one of the first to measure
research capacity among Australian dietitians at a state-
wide level. The findings from the study will provide a
baseline of research capacity and expertise among dieti-
tians and inform the strategic development of building
research capacity. By establishing a strong research culture
within dietetics, it is anticipated that the profession will
be positioned in this current economic climate as an inte-
gral component to quality patient care, further validating
the nutritionist and dietitian’s role among medical and
scientific communities.
Conclusions
The findings obtained in the present study are consistent
with the literature indicating that, as with other health-
care professions, research involvement within dietetics is
low. At an individual level, a dietitian’s capacity for (and
involvement in) research is related to years of experience
in the profession and the designation of research duties
in their role description. By using the RCC tool, skill or
success in individual research items were scored and anal-
ysed, thereby highlighting potential avenues for building
research capacity within the dietetic profession. Future
benchmarking surveys could be planned to measure
changes in capacity and research experience over time
and across health disciplines.
Acknowledgments
We thank Griffith University and Queensland Health
Metro South for use of the RCC tool (Holden et al.,
2011); Sue Pager, Research Workforce Development Offi-
cer, Eight Mile Plains; and DSNC Research Group mem-
bers: Meg Adam, Robert Anderson, Susan Ash, Katrina
Campbell, Maree Ferguson (chair), Penny Love, Kylie
Newberry (nee Quigg), Marina Reeves, Elissa Robins,
Lynda Ross, Alan Spencer, Melinda White (secretary),
Paul Wilkinson and Shelley Wilkinson.
ª 2013 The Authors
186 Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics ª 2013 The British Dietetic Association Ltd.
Research capacity among dietitians A. J. Howard et al.
Conflict of interests, source of funding andauthorship
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest
No funding is declared.
PW, MF and KC conceptualised the study. AH analysed
and interpreted the data and drafted the manuscript. All
authors critically reviewed the manuscript and approved
the final version submitted for publication.
References
Albert, E. & Mickan, S. (2003) Closing the gap and widening
the scope. New directions for research capacity building in
primary health care. Aust. Fam. Physician 32, 1038–1040.
Barr, S.I. (1990) Attitudes toward research of British Columbia
dietitians/nutritionists. J. Can. Diet. Assoc. 51, 340–345.
Bateman, H., Walter, F. & Elliott, J. (2004) What happens
next? Evaluation of a scheme to support primary care
practitioners with a fledging interest in research. Fam. Prac.
21, 83–86.
Byham-Gray, L.D., Gilbride, J.A., Dixon, L.B. & Stage, F.K.
(2006) Predictors for research involvement among registered
dietitians. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 106, 2008–2015.
Cooke, J. (2005) A framework to evaluate research capacity
building in health care. BMC Fam. Prac. 6, 44.
DAA. (2010) State and National Data: Work Areas of DAA
Membership. Available at: http://daa.asn.au/wp-content/
uploads/2011/03/Work-Area-Statistics.2011.pdf (accessed on
14 May 2012).
Daniels, L.A. (2002) A bright future for dietitans–where is the
evidence. Nutr. Diet. 59, 29–37.
Farmer, E. & Weston, K. (2002) A conceptual model for
capacity building in Australian primary health care research.
Aust. Fam. Physician 31, 1139–1142.
Harrison, J.A., Brady, A.M. & Kulinskaya, E. (2001) The
involvement, understanding and attitudes of dietitians
towards research and audit. J. Hum. Nutr. Diet. 14, 319–330.
Holden, L., Pager, S., Golenko, X. & Ware, R.S. (2011)
Validation of the research capacity and culture (RCC) tool:
measuring RCC at individual, team and organisation levels.
Aust. J. Prim. Health 18, 62–67.
Morley-Hauchecorne, C. & Lepatourel, J.A. (2000) Self-perceived
competence of clinical dietitians to participate in research: a
needs assessment. Can. J. Diet. Pract. Res. 61, 6–12.
Myers, E.F., Beyer, P.L. & Geiger, C.J. (2003) Research
activities and perspectives of research members of the
American Dietetic Association. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 103,
1235–1243.
Pager, S., Holden, L. & Golenko, X. (2012a) Motivators,
enablers, and barriers to building allied health research
capacity. J. Multidiscip. Healthc. 5, 53–59.
Pager, S., Holden, L. & Golenko, X. (2012b) Motivators,
enablers, and barriers to building allied health research
capacity. J Multidis Healthcare 5, 53–59.
Peach, H. (2003) Should Australia’s hospitals be reviewing the
use of research in patient care by nurses, managers and
allied health professionals? A systematic review of recent
evidence. Aust. Health Rev. 26, 49–62.
Pickstone, C. , Nancarrow, S., Cooke, J., Vernon, W.,
Mountain, G., Boyce, R.A. & Campbell, J. (2008) Building
research capacity in the allied health professions. Evidence &
Policy 4, 53–68.
Pirkis, J., Goldfeld, S., Peacock, S., Dodson, S., Haas, M.,
Cumming, J., Hall, J. & Boulton, A. (2005) Assessing
the capacity of the health services research community
in Australia and New Zealand. Aust. N. Z. Health Policy 2, 4.
Schiller, M.R. (1988) Research activities and interests of
dietitians. JPEN J. Parenter. Enteral. Nutr. 12, 1–7.
Shah, N.C., Pond, D. & Heaney, S. (2002) Research capacity
building in general practice. The new Australian scene. Aust.
Fam. Physician 31, 201–204.
Stephens, D., Taylor, N.F. & Leggat, S.G. (2009) Research
experience and research interests of allied health
professionals. J. Allied Health 38, e107–e111.
Whelan, K. (2007) Knowledge and skills to encourage
comprehensive research involvement among dietitians.
J. Hum. Nutr. Diet. 20, 291–293.
Whelan, K. & Markless, S. (2012) Factors that influence
research involvement among registered dietitians working as
university faculty: a qualitative interview study. J. Acad.
Nutr. Diet. 112, 1021–1028.
Whelan, K., Madden, A.M. & Thomas, J.E. (2007) Student
dietitians’ attitudes towards research and audit: a
comparison with registered dietitians. J. Hum. Nutr. Diet.
20, 121–125.
Whitford, D.L., Jelley, D., Gandy, S., Southern, A. & van
Zwanenberg, T. (2000) Making research relevant to the
primary health care team. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 50, 573–576.
Wylie-Rosett, J., Wheeler, M., Krueger, K. & Halford, B.
(1990) Opportunities for research-oriented dietitians. J. Am.
Diet. Assoc. 90, 1531–1534.
Wyse, B.W. (1987) The backbone of our profession. J. Am.
Diet. Assoc. 87, 1394–1396.
ª 2013 The Authors
Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics ª 2013 The British Dietetic Association Ltd. 187
A. J. Howard et al. Research capacity among dietitians
Recommended