PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have explored facilitators and barriers to research conducted by allied health professionals in general medical settings. Since the mental health system is acknowledged to be significantly under-funded and more poorly functioning than general medical services, it is unclear whether the published facilitators and barriers also apply to mental health settings. This study sought to explore the research-related knowledge, understanding and practices of allied mental health clinicians based in a large public mental health service.
METHODS: A mixed methods study recruited 59 occupational therapists and social workers working in a dedicated metropolitan public mental health service in Melbourne, Australia. Quantitative survey results are reported elsewhere. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 survey responder volunteers. Thematic analysis was conducted on the qualitative survey and interview data.
RESULTS: Four main themes were identified: research must connect with clinical practice; fragments of knowledge; research in practice; and research is not part of my professional identity. The third theme, research in practice, comprised four subthemes: no time for research in clinical roles, missing communication, lack of ownership, and what I need to do research.
CONCLUSIONS: This study found that research and research-related activities were not considered part of the mental health social workers and occupational therapists\' professional identities. Dealing with this issue may be instrumental to the realization of these clinicians\' professional peak-body associations\' code of practice and to government mandated practice standards. We provided several strategies to encourage both clinicians and services to view research-related activities as an everyday part of clinical roles. This is especially important if we think of allied health evidence-based practice requiring a reasonable level of research-related skills and/or competencies to appraise, practice, evaluate and adapt their evidence-based practice.
METHODS: A mixed methods study recruited 59 occupational therapists and social workers working in a dedicated metropolitan public mental health service in Melbourne, Australia. Quantitative survey results are reported elsewhere. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 survey responder volunteers. Thematic analysis was conducted on the qualitative survey and interview data.
RESULTS: Four main themes were identified: research must connect with clinical practice; fragments of knowledge; research in practice; and research is not part of my professional identity. The third theme, research in practice, comprised four subthemes: no time for research in clinical roles, missing communication, lack of ownership, and what I need to do research.
CONCLUSIONS: This study found that research and research-related activities were not considered part of the mental health social workers and occupational therapists\' professional identities. Dealing with this issue may be instrumental to the realization of these clinicians\' professional peak-body associations\' code of practice and to government mandated practice standards. We provided several strategies to encourage both clinicians and services to view research-related activities as an everyday part of clinical roles. This is especially important if we think of allied health evidence-based practice requiring a reasonable level of research-related skills and/or competencies to appraise, practice, evaluate and adapt their evidence-based practice.
摘要：
背景：以前的研究已经探索了一般医疗环境中由专职医疗专业人员进行研究的促进因素和障碍。由于精神卫生系统被公认为资金严重不足，并且比一般医疗服务功能更差，目前尚不清楚已公布的促进因素和障碍是否也适用于心理健康环境.本研究旨在探索与研究相关的知识，基于大型公共精神卫生服务的专职精神卫生临床医生的理解和实践。
方法：一项混合方法研究招募了59名职业治疗师和社会工作者，他们在墨尔本一家专门的大都市公共心理健康服务机构工作，澳大利亚。定量调查结果在其他地方报告。对16名调查响应者志愿者进行了半结构化访谈。对定性调查和访谈数据进行了专题分析。
结果：确定了四个主要主题：研究必须与临床实践联系；知识的碎片；实践中的研究；研究不是我专业身份的一部分。第三个主题,在实践中的研究，包括四个子主题：没有时间研究临床角色，缺少通信，缺乏所有权,以及我需要做什么研究。
结论：这项研究发现，研究和研究相关活动不被认为是心理健康社会工作者和职业治疗师职业身份的一部分。处理此问题可能有助于实现这些临床医生的“专业高峰身体协会”实践准则和政府规定的实践标准。我们提供了几种策略来鼓励临床医生和服务人员将与研究相关的活动视为临床角色的日常部分。这一点尤其重要，如果我们认为联合医疗循证实践需要合理水平的研究相关技能和/或能力来评估，实践,评估和调整他们的循证实践。
方法：一项混合方法研究招募了59名职业治疗师和社会工作者，他们在墨尔本一家专门的大都市公共心理健康服务机构工作，澳大利亚。定量调查结果在其他地方报告。对16名调查响应者志愿者进行了半结构化访谈。对定性调查和访谈数据进行了专题分析。
结果：确定了四个主要主题：研究必须与临床实践联系；知识的碎片；实践中的研究；研究不是我专业身份的一部分。第三个主题,在实践中的研究，包括四个子主题：没有时间研究临床角色，缺少通信，缺乏所有权,以及我需要做什么研究。
结论：这项研究发现，研究和研究相关活动不被认为是心理健康社会工作者和职业治疗师职业身份的一部分。处理此问题可能有助于实现这些临床医生的“专业高峰身体协会”实践准则和政府规定的实践标准。我们提供了几种策略来鼓励临床医生和服务人员将与研究相关的活动视为临床角色的日常部分。这一点尤其重要，如果我们认为联合医疗循证实践需要合理水平的研究相关技能和/或能力来评估，实践,评估和调整他们的循证实践。
