Quantitative findings
Attendance
Over the 12-month evaluation period, a total of 18 half-day workshops were delivered, six from the research in clinical practice pathway; four from the research delivery pathway; eight from the research leader pathway (refer to Fig. 1); and 11 seminars to support the development of key skills. In total, 165 (2% of total staff at MPFT) staff members booked one or more teaching session. 128 (77%) attended one or more teaching session. On average, sessions in the research in practice pathway were attended by 25 staff; 12 in research delivery pathway; 21 in the research leader pathway; and 17 in seminars.
Qualifications, backgrounds and expectations
According to the booking form, attenders represented a range of professional groups.
-
Nursing registered − 29 (23%).
-
AHPs − 23 (17%).
-
Additional clinical services (all healthcare services) − 21 (16%).
-
Additional professional scientific and technical (such as pharmacist, qualified psychological therapist, social worker etc.) -15 (12%).
-
Medical profession − 14 (11%).
-
Other (e.g. research staff) − 26 (20%).
Approximately 85% of staff had reported prior educational qualifications, the majority included: 20% (n = 33) bachelor’s, 19% (n = 31) master’s, 3% (n = 5) doctoral degrees, 6% (n = 10) diplomas and nearly 2% (n = 3) MBBS (Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery); remaining attenders did not provide information on their educational background.
Explanations for booking the training and number of staff
At the time of booking the course, staff were asked to provide reasons and expectations from STARS sessions using an open text box. Descriptive analysis of responses is presented in Table 1:
A better understanding of research in practice, additional support for academic work and the development of research in trust were the most common reasons provided (Table 1).
Post session evaluation feedback
Learners demonstrated their learning from the sessions in a variety of ways and more often using the session specific feedback. In total, 195 feedback forms were completed and covered 24 sessions. The number of ratings completed per session ranged from 1 to 25. 136 (70%) learners rated the session they attended as ‘very good’, 52 (27%) rated as ‘good’, 4 (2%) rated ‘adequate’ and 2 (1%) rated ‘poor’. Qualitative findings, presented below, help us to make sense of the session ratings.
Qualitative findings
The main themes and sub-themes from the analysis of qualitative data from interviews are summarised in Table 2 and described with illustrative quotes in the following sections.
Engagement with teaching sessions
The reasons given by staff attending the training in booking forms (Table 1) and discussed in interviews were reflected to a large extent in the way participants chose the teaching sessions they attended. Eight interviewees had received research training as part of their degree-level qualifications; one was currently involved in conducting research at work.
Factors considered while selecting teaching sessions
Some staff were much focused on what they wanted to take from teaching sessions and booked selectively; however, some wanted to attend all, indiscriminately, due to unequal access in such training opportunities in the past and/or in their departments:
“I wanted to do them all because my concern is that they might not be offered again because we’ve never had them in social care… we’ve never had researchers come and talk to us in social care and social work unless you go to Uni.” P 4.
Some staff described their learning as focused on intrinsic factors such as:
“It’s always good to update because I think you find your own way in doing things like informed consent. P 11.
For other staff, learning on the programme was driven by extrinsic factors like:
“Social work and social care does have a huge gap in terms of research participation. We are trying to develop that within the organization and regionally” P 13.
Relevance of a teaching session to the current role was considered before booking by staff who either had knowledge or were currently involved in doing research but the staff without previous opportunities like this booked relatively indiscriminately. Intrinsic factors such as personal interest and career progressions and extrinsic factors such as organisational development were additional reasons to attend the teaching sessions.
Barriers to attendance
Getting data from those who did not attend after booking proved difficult. Four staff declined to take part in evaluation interviews because of work pressure or illnesses; this may reflect some of the reasons for non-attendance. Another five agreed to take part in short interviews to discuss their lack of attendance with the programme. All interviewees pointed towards time pressure as the main issue.
Qualitative data from the interviews with the regular attenders about barriers to attending some of the training after booking revealed similarities in reasons as the non-attenders. A general lack of time due to staff shortages highlighted the role of the line manager’s approval in attending the training as discussed by two staff members:
“some sessions that I could not attend as my manager didn’t think I should attend so many sessions, because of the pressures of the service following the covid backlogs etc” P 5.
One staff member briefly raised the issues of empowerment where some staff might find it difficult to get the line manager’s approval to attend such training:
“And perhaps you need to get the buy in from the managers, because there’s an awful, awful lot of staff that aren’t really empowered to be able to go off and do this and then influence their work” P 7.
Communication and marketing of the new training was highlighted as a barrier to attendance by staff from one of the departments:
“I think one was probably in the promotion, I came across it by chance…that’s something to do with our organization because it kind of sits slightly outside of MPFT, so I think sometimes that messaging doesn’t always get through” P3.
Prioritising paid training over STARS training was also a reason for one of the staff to miss some of the teaching sessions:
“I’ve missed some STARS trainings because of attending other trainings which are paid training or conferences that have cost money. So obviously I’ve prioritized them over some of the STARS training” P 9.
Barriers to engagement
Providing training across different professional groups highlighted difficulties in understanding respective languages. Two respondents reported that some content used clinical language that was difficult to understand:
“There’s also an element of understanding research and how it can be applied there’s probably an element of language as well, so it’s not just clinical…or health orientated, it’s also care. So it is just understanding that language barrier so that social work and social care staff know that it’s appropriate for everybody in the organization” P 13.
For one staff member the pace of delivering the graphic and statistical information teaching was very fast and difficult to understand:
“Sometimes it felt like the presenters for some statistical information went too fast when that was the area that most people are weaker on, so perhaps some courses tried to fit too much into one session” P 5.
A couple of staff discussed the workshops as disengaging due to long presentations and less interaction:
“the ones where you will just kind of like listening for three hours. They were really hard to stay engaged with” P 9.
For two staff the breakout rooms were not as helpful as explained by one:
“it can be awkward when you’re with people you don’t know and haven’t got a full grasp of the subject, and trying to think of contributions” P 5.
One staff also highlighted how attending the training from a shared office space can be problematic compared to a private space:
“As when doing it in the office, it’s harder to engage in group discussions due to fear of disrupting other colleagues” P 2.
Other ways of delivering the training were also suggested due to long commitments for the workshops. Two participants suggested that three-hour workshops were too long when delivered online; face-to-face learning was preferred:
“it would be nice to have it when we can to have some classroom based stuff because again, it just feels more natural to ask questions and you get to have those conversations in breaks” P 1.
And according to one participant, the training could be delivered using pre-recorded content:
“If there was a way to like the website on the Internet, all these links that you could click on to watch re-watch everything so you know where to go to one place to see all” P 6.
However, for two participants the recordings of teaching sessions were not as good as attending in real-time, as explained by one:
“You’re not the one engaging in it like because obviously you’re just watching it after the fact, so I don’t sit through the whole thing…If you’ve got questions, there’s nowhere to ask those questions” P 9.
Facilitators to engagement
Online synchronous delivery of the teaching sessions was valued by all interview participants, in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. Use of breakout rooms for small group discussion and interaction was considered useful by most of the interview participants, for example:
“that was quite nice that you’d catch up with people that you were in the breakout rooms and could get to know a bit more about what they were doing and so I found that quite helpful from like a networking perspective” P 10.
Most of the staff members discussed keeping the recorded videos for future reference as very helpful:
“I know I’m not going to have time to apply myself to do in any sort of research at the moment with how things are at work, but I’ve got all the recordings and so could go back to those” P 10.
To summarise, barriers to attend the training included a lack of time on the participants’ end and lack of promotion. Perceived value due to no direct cost associated with the training was also revealed as a reason to miss a session after booking. Pace, professional-specific language, length of teaching and shared office space were highlighted as some of the barriers to engagement. Regarding facilitators to attend and maintain engagement, all staff were happy with online delivery and the availability of recordings was useful. However, mixed opinions were shared about the usefulness of breakout rooms given the range of professional groups that the staff belonged to.
Relevance and impact of training
Staff described various benefits to their research practice since attending STARS sessions, such as, writing and publishing a short report; working on a literature review; signing on to a university course; successfully receiving regulatory research approvals; and completing preliminary work to attend a professional doctorate or equivalent.
Training content relevance and suitability
All interview participants commented on the programme content and described it as comprehensive and well-balanced in terms of topics and delivery:
“I think it was really well balanced. The presenters came from diverse backgrounds and research was treated holistically by all, so everything felt relevant” P 12.
Impact on knowledge, skills and attributes
One participant described how learning was helpful to understand key areas in greater depth:
“I have an understanding of some critical appraisal and things like that, but it was probably more surface level and the STARS programme helped me to develop that quite significantly” P 1.
For another staff it helped with attending and presenting at different teaching sessions:
“So I’ve attended the regional teaching partnership programs we’ve presented our [name] project across [organisation] who are now looking at setting up a regional program. We’ve presented at NIHR events so yeah, definitely useful” P 13.
The teaching sessions had a prompt impact on the knowledge and skills of those staff who already had some knowledge of research and also those who had identified specific opportunities to put into practice.
Applying new learning
Some learning on the training had wider applications that went beyond research, topics such as informed consent:
“Things like the informed consent training because for all our new staff that’s a major part of research. So from that we’ve drafted kind of a memoirs and processes formally based on sort of training materials on how an informed consent should be conducted so that we know that everybody starting at the same level” P 11.
Learning on one particular workshop helped to build a participant’s confidence in reading, making sense, and talking about research followed by conducting their own literature review:
“I used the literature review knowledge that I gained to do a very comprehensive literature review. Very rapid, quite comprehensive and then presented it. So I was able to put it into practice straight away” P 3.
Overall, most of the participants mentioned using the new learning in practice but only a few staff members were able to provide practical examples.
Promoting a research-active environment
Staff discussed how they were using more resources from the organisation such as websites, the local research department, and library services in creating a research identity for themselves and contributing towards a research-active environment within and across their respective departments.
Research career pathways
The STARS programme helped to awaken ambitions for research and staff showed how keen they were on getting involved in doing research. Participants described doing their own research as a better option when other routes for progression were limited in their department:
“where I’m at in my role, there isn’t really anywhere to go unless you want to be a team leader, which isn’t really what I want to do. I really enjoy the patient facing side of things, and so I’ve always kind of said I’d be more interested in more specialized role or doing some research” P 10.
STARS was also useful in the stages of career development and for some it was helpful in starting the new paths as discussed by one:
“It’s either doing a feasibility or that sort of level today as part of a master’s course or doing their pre doctoral the NIHR sort of work to get a project effectively ready” P 6.
However, there was also a sense of being unfulfilled among some of the participants:
“I’d like to progress in it, but it’s where do I take it because I don’t know what opportunities are out there and how to apply for anything really” P 4.
“I’m really interested in doing some research in the area that I work in because I feel like there’s lots of improvements and things that could be made with how we do things and for the clients to get the most out of the service…I think with the STARS stuff I’ve sort of parked it so I’ve got it all saved together in a folder like ready so I can go and access it” P 10.
STARS opened up different routes for career progression for some staff. On the other hand, staff without immediate opportunities to get involved in research reported experiencing frustration because of the fact that there were no obvious opportunities for them to put their improved skills into practice. Success stories (going on a pre-doctoral path; progression for those who were already doing their master’s/doctorate etc.) of those who had some research base highlights the initiation of research identities.
Workforce satisfaction
In addition to feeling motivated to complete their academic qualifications, two staff members discussed how much they valued the STARS training and one participant described staying in their job, in order to access the training:
“I’ve not come across any other type of research training that is like is what the STARS programme offered. I purposely stayed within my role to access this stars training” P 9.
Improving awareness about research support services
The staff interviewees appreciated the associations to other support and resources that they had found out about while attending the STARS training. This included the library services and the R&I team:
“And the fact that our library helps us is phenomenal…So it’s given me a lot of knowledge about the wide organization and just how invested we are in research and that there are people [R&I] to help” P 7.
The STARS programme has been developed with contributions from different departments in order to make it suitable for all staff members to access and understand. This was reflected in the discussion where the interviewees appreciated the other links and resources.
