Involvement in research activities and factors influencing research capacity among dietitians

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: [email protected]

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


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



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



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



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



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



Documents

Involvement in research activities and factors influencing research capacity among dietitians