Table 5 - uploaded by Gillian Stockwell-Smith
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
This paper focuses on the benefits and limitations of collaborative research in community-based service settings explored through the implementation of a psychosocial intervention. The study aimed to establish the effectiveness of working with dementia dyads (person with dementia and family caregiver) in the early stages of dementia and to recruit...
Context in source publication
Similar publications
This article presents the results of an empirical/qualitative study that aimed to identify some of the factors capable of enabling or inhibiting creativity in music, as well as verifying whether
factors considered to be inhibiting to the creative agency are likely to be re-signified through certain pedagogical propositions. The study was carried o...
Citations
... Their skillset, personal characteristics, and existing relationships can support patients in the process of choosing to take part (Cronin et al., 2019;Lavender et al., 2019;Mann et al., 2014). Practitioners' clinical roles also make them well placed to deliver study interventions as part of routine care (Boase et al., 2012;Stockwell-Smith et al., 2015). ...
... Events that are necessary before the concept occurring Outcomes brought about by the concept 1. Engagement in study activities varies in level and type dependent on study need (Brown et al., 2003;Bullen et al., 2014;Norris et al., 2017) 2. Values the contribution of researchers' and practitioners' perspectives, skills, and knowledge (Brown et al., 2003;Campbell et al., 2015;Deverka et al., 2012;Norris et al., 2017;Patterson et al., 2011) 3. Reciprocal relationship (Brown et al., 2003;Campbell et al., 2015;Norris et al., 2017;Patterson et al., 2011) 4. Shared decision-making in relation to study activities (Brown et al., 2001;Campbell et al., 2015;Concannon et al., 2012;Deverka et al., 2012;Eriksson et al., 2013;Norris et al., 2017) 1. Influences the research process (Bullen et al., 2014;Campbell et al., 2015) 2. Integrates research and practice • Positive changes to practice (Boase et al., 2012;Roll et al., 2013;Stockwell-Smith et al., 2015) • Practitioner contribution to the production of knowledge (Albers & Sedler, 2004;Di Bona et al., 2017;Roll et al., 2013) • Implementation of research • Evidence into practice (Roll et al., 2013) 3. Practitioner professional development • Gained knowledge (Campbell et al., 2015) • Developed research skills (Campbell et al., 2015;Di Bona et al., 2017;Roll et al., 2013) • Improved criticality and reflection in practice (Boase et al., 2012;Eriksson et al., 2013) ...
... Two-way, ongoing, and responsive communication(Brown et al., 2001;Bullen et al., 2014;Campbell et al., 2015;Deverka et al., 2012;Eriksson et al., 2013;Norris et al., 2017;Roll et al., 2013;Stockwell- Smith et al., 2015) 1. Identify appropriate practitioner with a positive attitude toward study, skills, and knowledge relevant to the research topic and shared goals with the researcher(Bullen et al., 2014;Campbell et al., 2015;Di Bona et al., 2017;Eriksson et al., 2013;Finlayson et al., 2005;Norris et al., 2017;Roll et al., 2013;Stockwell-Smith et al., 2015) 2. Development of a collaborative relationship(Albers & Sedler, 2004;Campbell et al., 2015;Stockwell-Smith et al., 2015) 3. Organizational support (institutional, managerial, peer) (Stockwell-Smith et al., 2015) 4. Diagnose and address potential barriers to engagement(Albers & Sedler, 2004;Bullen et al., 2014;Campbell et al., 2015;Di Bona et al., 2017;Roll et al., 2013) 5. Dedicated practitioner time(Albers & Sedler, 2004;Boase et al., 2012;Bullen et al., 2014;Di Bona et al., 2017;Roll et al., 2013;Stockwell-Smith et al., 2015) ...
The engagement of frontline practitioners in the production of research-derived knowledge is often advocated. Doing so can address perceived gaps between what is known from research and what happens in clinical practice. Engagement practices span a continuum, from co-production approaches underpinned by principles of equality and power sharing to those which can minimalize practitioners' contributions to the knowledge production process. We observed a conceptual gap in published healthcare literature that labels or defines practitioners' meaningful contribution to the research process. We, therefore, aimed to develop the concept of "Researcher Practitioner Engagement" in the context of academically initiated healthcare research in the professions of nursing, midwifery, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, and speech and language therapy. Guided by Schwartz-Barcott et al.'s hybrid model of concept development, published examples were analyzed to establish the attributes, antecedents, and consequences of this type of engagement. Academic researchers (n = 17) and frontline practitioners (n = 8) with relevant experience took part in online focus groups to confirm, eliminate, or elaborate on these proposed concept components. Combined analysis of theoretical and focus group data showed that the essence of this form of engagement is that practi-tioners' clinical knowledge is valued from a study's formative stages. The practitioner's clinical perspectives inform problem-solving and decision-making in study activities and enhance the professional and practice relevance of a study. The conceptual model produced from the study findings forms a basis to guide engagement practices, future concept testing, and empirical evaluation of engagement practices. K E Y W O R D S concept formation, focus groups, practitioner engagement, research personnel
... Furthermore, acceptability and decision-making processes are enhanced by the provision of clear information, pitched at the right level for potential participants' needs and lifestyle. 37 While all interviewees reported they had received enough information to consider the VALID RCT, it remains unknown whether decisions were fully informed with most interviewees reporting unfavourable aspects associated with the more demanding trial arm. This may mean that the randomisation processes and the complex personalised intervention being researched were not fully understood. ...
Objectives
There is currently little known about why people decline to participate in dyadic, psychosocial dementia research. This interview study aims to explore the reasons why people declined to participate in the Valuing Active Life in Dementia research trial.
Methods
Ten family carers of people with dementia, who were part of a dyad that had declined to take part in the randomised controlled trial, participated in qualitative telephone interviews to explore their reasons for declining. Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify themes.
Findings
Two themes with related sub-themes were identified: (1) Protectiveness – protecting the person with dementia, themselves as carers and their current lifestyle; (2) ‘It’s not for us’ – the time commitment, and the possible unsuitability of the intervention, was seen to outweigh the perceived benefit of taking part. People with dementia were not always involved in the decision-making process, with carers stating the decision not to participate was made in the usual way as all their decisions. No apparent differences between the spousal and the child carers were apparent in the small sample.
Conclusion
Recruitment to randomised controlled trials can be considered difficult or unfair because some participants will miss out on the desired intervention. However, this study shows that concern about the time and inconvenience of being involved in the trial can put people off research participation. Identifying possible reasons for declining research participation contributes to the design of future trials and recruitment strategies, so that the potential benefit is considered relative to the time and effort involved. Offering research opportunities to people with dementia and their families at the right stage of the dementia trajectory for their needs, facilitating personalised recruitment strategies with finely tailored researcher communication skills should help maximise recruitment, reduce attrition and deliver a more successful trial.
... Theories used included IKT, coproduction principles, and participatory methodologies. The term "collaborative research" was used in different ways; within a particular collaborative model (Dufault & Sullivan, 2000), to refer to a collaborative research team (Fitzgerald et al., 2003) in relation to an action research approach (Reed & Hocking, 2013) and with no definition (Stockwell-Smith et al., 2015). Some authors explicitly presented models which had guided practices such as the Collaborative Research Utilization (CRU) approach (Dufault & Sullivan, 2000), Framework of Interaction and Research Utilization (Kothari et al., 2005), and Practice-Research Engagement (PRE; Khresheh & Barclay, 2007). ...
Background:
Engagement of frontline practitioners by academic researchers in the research process is believed to afford benefits toward closing the research practice gap. However, little is known about if and how academic researchers engage nurses, midwives, or therapists in research activities or if evidence supports these claims of positive impact.
Method:
A scoping review was undertaken using the Arksey and O'Malley (2005) framework to identify the extent to which this phenomenon has been considered in the literature.
Results:
An iterative search carried out in CINAHL, Pubmed, Medline, and Embase retrieved 32 relevant papers published 2000 to 2017, with the majority from the last 2-years. Retained papers described or evaluated active engagement of a practitioner from nursing, midwifery, and therapy disciplines in at least one stage of a research project other than as a study participant. Engagement most often took place in one research activity with few examples of engagement throughout the research process. Limited use of theory and variations in terms used to describe practitioner engagement by researchers was observed. Subjective perspectives of practitioners' experiences and a focus on challenges and benefits were the most prominently reported outcomes. Few attempts were found to establish effects which could support claims that practitioner engagement can enhance the use of findings or impact health outcomes.
Conclusion:
It is recommended that a culture of practitioner engagement is cultivated by developing guiding theory, establishing consistent terminology, and building an evidence base through empirical evaluations which provide objective data to support claims that this activity can positively influence the research practice gap.
... Theories used included IKT, coproduction principles, and participatory methodologies. The term "collaborative research" was used in different ways; within a particular collaborative model (Dufault & Sullivan, 2000), to refer to a collaborative research team (Fitzgerald et al., 2003) in relation to an action research approach (Reed & Hocking, 2013) and with no definition (Stockwell-Smith et al., 2015). Some authors explicitly presented models which had guided practices such as the Collaborative Research Utilization (CRU) approach (Dufault & Sullivan, 2000), Framework of Interaction and Research Utilization (Kothari et al., 2005), and Practice-Research Engagement (PRE; Khresheh & Barclay, 2007). ...
Background
Engagement of frontline practitioners by academic researchers in the research process is believed to afford benefits toward closing the research practice gap. However, little is known about if and how academic researchers engage nurses, midwives, or therapists in research activities or if evidence supports these claims of positive impact.
Method
A scoping review was undertaken using the Arksey and O'Malley (2005) framework to identify the extent to which this phenomenon has been considered in the literature.
Results
An iterative search carried out in CINAHL, Pubmed, Medline, and Embase retrieved 32 relevant papers published 2000 to 2017, with the majority from the last 2-years. Retained papers described or evaluated active engagement of a practitioner from nursing, midwifery, and therapy disciplines in at least one stage of a research project other than as a study participant. Engagement most often took place in one research activity with few examples of engagement throughout the research process. Limited use of theory and variations in terms used to describe practitioner engagement by researchers was observed. Subjective perspectives of practitioners' experiences and a focus on challenges and benefits were the most prominently reported outcomes. Few attempts were found to establish effects which could support claims that practitioner engagement can enhance the use of findings or impact health outcomes.
Conclusion
It is recommended that a culture of practitioner engagement is cultivated by developing guiding theory, establishing consistent terminology, and building an evidence base through empirical evaluations which provide objective data to support claims that this activity can positively influence the research practice gap.
... Dyad members worked together and individually with a facilitator to identify their current and future care needs, discuss preferences for care providers (formal and informal) and consider suitable care settings (home and/or LTC) (see Table 3). Intervention sessions were facilitated by community practitioners (n=16) recruited from two Queensland based not-for-profit community service providers and trained in the intervention protocol (Stockwell-Smith, Moyle, Kellett, & Brodaty, 2015). Consistency in intervention delivery (treatment fidelity) was emphasised during initial training (the key elements or 'active ingredients' of EDDI) and monitored during weekly supervision meetings between the Project Lead and intervention staff. ...
Aim
To evaluate the effect of a targeted community‐based psychosocial intervention on self‐efficacy outcomes for care recipient/carer dyads living with early‐stage dementia.
Background
There is increasing interest in the role of self‐efficacy and self‐management structures in determining positive outcomes for people with dementia. The assumption is that care recipient/carer dyads who receive early support to identify and adjust to dementia related changes will cope better in the long‐term.
Design
An explanatory sequential mixed‐method design was employed. Primarily quantitative with qualitative data providing a supportive secondary role to expand on and illuminate the quantitative findings.
Methods
88 dyads were recruited and allocated on a regional basis to an intervention or control group. Intervention group dyads received the Early Diagnosis Dyadic Intervention. Control group dyads received two information manuals. Quantitative data were collected at three time‐points. Qualitative data were collected via evaluation questionnaires and semi‐structured interviews.
Results
Intervention structure, content and delivery were acceptable to the dyads but few quantitative self‐efficacy findings reached statistical significance. Improvements in self‐efficacy were evident in the post‐intervention evaluation qualitative responses where dyads expressed greater confidence in identifying and accessing community support.
Conclusion
There is an urgent need for effective psychosocial interventions to help reduce the impact of dementia symptoms on patients, carers and society. This study makes an important contribution to our understanding of the capacity of psychosocial interventions to improve self‐efficacy outcomes for care recipient/carer dyads with early‐stage dementia while also illustrating the challenges associated with measuring self‐efficacy in the early stages of the condition.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
... For researchers entering practice settings for any sort of intervention research, the organisational context and its culture will have an influence on the research in a number of significant ways and can be critical to the success of the research. Stockwell-Smith et al. (2015) identify four learning points for other researchers to include in planning their research: ...
Patient 'engagement' or 'involvement' in health research broadly refers to including people with lived experience (i.e. individuals with personal experience of a health issue and their friends, family and caregivers or carers) in the research process. Although previous reviews have systematically summarized approaches to patient engagement in research, it is unclear whether and how engagement activities have been implemented or adapted for research related to dementia. We conducted a scoping review to describe the extent and nature of patient engagement approaches that have been used to involve persons with dementia and their care partners in research. We then summarized the reported barriers, enablers, and impacts of this engagement. Fifty-four research articles were included in the review and almost all were published after 2010. Persons with dementia and their care partners have been engaged in diverse phases of the research process. The majority of engagement involved both persons with dementia and care partners. Barriers and enablers to engagement included those identified for general patient engagement in research, but some more specific to engaging persons with dementia and their care partners were also reported. Very few studies assessed the impact of patient engagement. While the arguments for patient engagement in research are compelling, research to demonstrate the impact - on the research process and outcomes as well as on persons with dementia, care partners, researchers, research institutions and society - is still needed.
