Research translation mentoring for emerging clinician researchers in rural and regional health settings: a qualitative study

Abstract Background Building clinician and organisation-level research translation capacity and capability is fundamental for increasing the implementation of research into health practice and policy and improving health outcomes. Research translation capacity and capability building is particularly crucial in rural and regional settings to address complex problems impacting these socially and economically disadvantaged communities. Programs to build clinicians’ research translation capability typically involve training and mentoring. Little is known about the features of and influences on mentorships in the context of training for emerging clinician-researchers working in rural and regional healthcare settings. Research translation mentorships were established as part of the Supporting Translation Research in Rural and Regional settings (STaRR) program developed and delivered in Victoria, Australia from 2020 to 2021. The study sought to address the following research questions: 1) What context-specific types of support do research translation mentors provide to emerging researchers?. 2) How does the mentoring element of a rural research translational training program influence research translation capacity and capability development in rural emerging researchers and mentors, if at all?. 3) How does the mentoring element of the program influence translation capacity and capability at the organisational and regional level, if at all? Methods We conducted a qualitative descriptive study. Interviews with individuals involved in the STaRR program took place approximately 12 months after the program and explored participants’ experiences of the mentored training. Interviews were undertaken via telephone, audio-recorded, and transcribed. Data were analysed using a team-based five-stage framework approach. Results Participants included emerging researchers (n = 9), mentors (n = 5), and managers (n = 4), from five health services and two universities. We identified four themes in the interview data: (1) Mentors play an educative role; (2) Mentoring enhanced by a collaborative environment; (3) Organisational challenges can influence mentorships, and (4) Mentorships help develop research networks and collective research and translation capacity. Conclusions Mentorships contributed to the development of research translation capabilities. The capabilities were developed through mentors’ deepened understanding of the rural and regional healthcare contexts in which their emerging researchers worked, the broadening and strengthening of rural and regional research networks, and building and sharing research translation knowledge and skills

Translating research into rural health practice: a qualitative study of perceived capability building needs

Translating research into rural health practice: a qualitative study of perceived capability building need

Design and implementation characteristics of research training for rural health professionals: a qualitative descriptive study

Abstract Background Research capacity and capability of rural health professionals is essential to the delivery of evidence-based care and for informing strategies to address rural health inequities. Effective implementation of research education and training is fundamental to building rural health professional research capacity and capability. A lack of overarching guidance to inform the delivery of research education and training in rural health services can contribute to gaps in capacity-building approaches. The aim of this study was to identify characteristics of the design and implementation of current research training for rural health professionals in Victoria, Australia, to inform a future model for rural health professional research capacity and capability building. Methods A qualitative descriptive study was undertaken. Key informants, with extensive knowledge of research education and training in rural health services in Victoria, were invited to participate in semi-structured telephone interviews via snowballing recruitment methods. Interview transcripts were analysed inductively, with themes and codes mapped to the domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Results Of the 40 key informants approached, 20 agreed to participate including 11 regional health service managers, five rural health academics and four university managers. Participants suggested that research training varied in quality and relevance to rural health professionals. Training costs and lack of tailoring to the rural context were key barriers, whereas experiential learning and flexible modes of delivery enabled training uptake. Health service and government policies, structures, and processes both enabled or stifled implementation opportunities, with rural health professional networks from different regions offering capacity for research training development, and government departmental structures hampering training coordination. Tension between research activities and clinical practice, and health professional knowledge and beliefs, shaped the delivery of training programs. Strategically planned and evaluated research training programs and education via co-design with rural health professionals and use of research champions were strongly recommended by participants. Conclusions To optimise research training for rural health professionals and increase the quality and quantity of relevant rural health research, a systematically planned, implemented, and resourced region-wide research training model is required