Search

Aim: To explore and summarise published literature with regards to secondments to clinical research and to identify the gaps in research to inform further work. Design: Systematic scoping review. Method: A scoping review was undertaken in accordance with the Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence and Research framework. Databases searched included CINAHL, PubMed, Medline and Embase. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied by two independent reviewers. Two reviewers independently retrieved full‐text studies for inclusion and applied the framework as a tool for synthesising Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence and Research recommendations. Results: Six papers and one abstract published between 2003 and 2018 were included. All secondees (n = 34) were released from NHS posts, with secondments (where specified) ranging in duration from 0.25 to 2 years and for 40%–100% of their working hours. All seven papers reported benefits for personal and professional development, predominantly in the form of personal reflections. Few described involvement with research delivery teams. Conclusion: Published initiatives vary in nature and lack standardised reporting and measurement of impact. Further research is required to identify benefits at a departmental or organisational level, the facilitators for setting up secondments and the application of knowledge gained from secondment opportunities. Implications for the Profession: Undertaking a research secondment is reported to offer professional and personal benefit for clinical staff. Research secondments are one way in which a research culture can practically be embedded within clinical settings. Impact: This scoping review identified a lack of published empirical research seeking to understand research secondments as a tool to enhance research and evidence engagement. Although there is a suggestion that secondments could positively impact staff retention, there is limited evidence about the benefit for the organisation or for patient care. These findings have implications for staff, managers and their organisations. Reporting Method: The PRISMA‐ScR guidelines were used to guide reporting. No Patient or Public Contribution: This was not relevant to the research design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Co‐production is a collaborative way of working which emphasises the exchange of diverse forms of knowledge in an equal partnership for equal benefits. Co‐produced research is a key strategic aim of the UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) Transforming UK Food Systems (TUKFS) Strategic Priorities Fund; this research programme brings together researchers, policymakers, industry and communities to create positive change in the way food is produced, accessed and consumed. However, more generally, there are diverse understandings of co‐production and a lack of consensus on what 'good practice' looks like. Therefore, this study aimed to identify and map examples of co‐production methods employed across the TUKFS programme. Two creative workshops (n = 15 participants), conversations with TUKFS researchers and stakeholders (n = 15), and systematic analysis of project documents were used to critically explore co‐production activities within six TUKFS projects. A range of co‐production activities were identified. Findings highlighted areas of 'messiness' and complexity, challenges associated with applying co‐production approaches and practical solutions. Four key shared principles for co‐production were identified: (1) Relationships: developing and maintaining reciprocity‐based partnerships; (2) Knowledge: recognising the contribution of diverse forms of expertise; (3) Power: considering power dynamics and addressing imbalances; and (4) Inclusivity: ensuring research is accessible to all who wish to participate. Opportunities for reflection and reflexivity were considered crucial across all these areas. Findings contribute important insights towards a shared conceptual understanding of co‐production for food system transformation research. This paper makes recommendations for researchers, practitioners, academic institutions and funders working in this area of research and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Treatment fidelity refers to the degree to which an intervention is implemented as intended. Promoting treatment fidelity is important to achieve a valid comparison in intervention research. However, it is often underreported: few studies detail the use and development of fidelity measures. This study aims to promote the treatment fidelity of a modified version of the Derbyshire Language Scheme (M‐DLS), a manualised intervention for children with language difficulties, by exploring participants' opinions on training and intervention delivery. Results inform development of a checklist and scoring system to monitor and promote treatment fidelity in a comparison trial. Method: Ten student speech and language therapists (SLTs) and two research assistants (RAs) participated in the study. All received training on the M‐DLS, and 10 were video‐recorded completing role‐plays of an M‐DLS session in small groups. Feedback was gathered after training and role‐plays in focus groups and interviews. Feedback was interpreted using the constructs of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). A treatment fidelity checklist was then developed using the feedback. The first author and two RAs rated role‐play videos using the checklist to trial it to inform amendments and to promote interrater reliability. Interrater agreement was calculated using Spearman's test of correlation. Results: Participants discussed the importance of having clear materials and time to practise sessions. They suggested amendments to the materials and training to promote treatment fidelity. The checklist and scoring system accounted for participants' suggestions, with amendments detailed in a log. Spearman's correlation results suggested agreement between the raters was strong. Conclusions: Results emphasise the importance of training quality, practice and reflective opportunities and clear materials to promote treatment fidelity. The construction of the checklist and scoring system was described in detail, informing the development of future checklists. After further trialling, the checklist can be used to ensure the M‐DLS is delivered with high treatment fidelity in the comparison trial. What this paper adds: What is already known on this subject: Treatment fidelity is an essential component of intervention effectiveness and efficacy studies, ensuring the intervention is delivered as intended. It is also an essential component of evidence-based clinical practice. However, few research studies report the treatment fidelity process or publish the checklists used, depriving clinicians of useful information for implementation. What this study adds: This study describes in detail the iterative process of treatment fidelity checklist development, engaging those implementing the intervention in development. This ensured clarity and interrater reliability of the checklist. Furthermore, a novel scoring system was developed so that accuracy of implementation can be easily compared across users and across practice attempts. What are the clinical implications of this work?: The importance of treatment fidelity when implementing effective and efficacious interventions cannot be overstated. The treatment fidelity checklist developed for research can be easily adopted to support accurate implementation in clinical practice through an audit process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Very young children from lower socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds often show poorer language development. Whilst there have been attempts to provide early intervention programmes, these sometimes miss the most disadvantaged groups. Aims: This report presents preliminary feasibility and effectiveness data for a novel language intervention designed for parents of toddlers in the United Kingdom. Methods and Procedures: In total, 43 UK families of 2–4‐year‐olds were recruited to the study, half of whom completed an 8‐week course (Tots Talking) focussed on parent interaction, and half of whom acted as wait‐list controls. Results and Outcomes: Results suggest that such programmes are feasible for families with 86% staying in the intervention. In addition, greater changes in underlying communication skills such as joint attention and gesture were evident compared to wait‐list controls. Conclusions and Implications: We conclude that pre‐verbal skills may be more important to measure as initial outcomes than language or vocabulary change in this population. What This Paper Adds: What is already known on the subject: Children from lower socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds are at higher risk of communication difficulties and there is a need for community intervention programmes for very young children. What this study adds: This study suggests that such programmes can be feasible and effective, but that very early/basic communicative skills (such as joint attention) may be boosted first rather than language or vocabulary. What are the clinical implications of this work?: Children's centres and other community services could feasibly run short parent facing courses emphasising contingent communication in low SES families and other diverse groups. These may be more successful run with younger preschoolers. Joint attention may be a better focus of intervention before expecting vocabulary or language change. Community health professionals may find this information useful in referring and supporting families in need. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]