Search

This article describes approaches to assessing rehabilitation research capacity and measuring capacity growth within the context of basic science, clinical research, health services research, and engineering and technology development. Related metrics are also described, including the selectiveness of research training programs, ways of measuring research productivity, the impact on education, clinical practice and policy, increasing and tracking retention, and measurement requirements.

This commentary responds to Dr. Allen Heinemann's paper on "Metrics of Rehabilitation Research Capacity." We follow his outline. Because Dr. Heinemann focuses primarily on training capacity, we take a panoramic view addressing the balance between training new researchers and the support of established investigators. We explore challenges, barriers, and solutions to enhancing research capacity in rehabilitation within contexts of the larger scientific enterprise. Our main premise is that the best way to build a strong and sustainable research capacity in the United States is to study and adopt component strategies developed by other medical disciplines and other nations. We propose a model referred to as the "dynamic cycle of research capacity-building" by adapting a framework for studying the eradication of infectious diseases in developing countries to concepts of disability recovery. The concept of career mapping is proposed as a means to measure research productivity among faculty according to "standardized" academic tracks with different balance among research, educational, and clinical activities. The first and most important step in building rehabilitation capacity is developing an understanding of and belief in the mission and the need for research to support it.

The rapid development of new drugs, therapies, and devices has created a dramatic increase in the number of trials needed to properly evaluate them. The majority of patients treated today, many of whom could be eligible for participation in these studies, are seen in community hospitals and medical practices that are not affiliated with an academic medical center. Thus, there is a demonstrable need for physicians in private practice to enlist as investigators in these trials. This article is intended to encourage those physicians by describing the need and providing the rationale for their participation. It covers basic requirements for participating in clinical trials and outlines ethical, regulatory, financial, and other logistical issues of importance for the potential investigator and provides an algorithm for selecting a study for participation. Finally, the appendices review basic elements of study design and statistical principles, which may be of interest to a potential investigator.

The development of a cardiac research program in the current health care setting can bring many challenges. The myriad of changing regulations involving research with vulnerable populations combined with the need to protect patient confidentiality is an issue that must be addressed in the initial stages of development. Also, the lack of an experienced workforce can often make the search for research staffing difficult at best. In 2001, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta initiated a cardiac research program. Over the last year, many obstacles have been overcome, and this experience has led to the appreciation of the challenges ahead.

This article describes the characteristics of unit-based nursing research, highlighting the experiences of staff nurses on two critical care units. On both units, study findings facilitated changes in practice. The authors evaluate their experience and offer suggestions to critical care nurses interested in unit-based research.

A hospital-based nursing research program should improve patient care by producing data critical to administrative and clinical decisions. This article describes one successful nursing research program from conception to implementation. It provides nursing administrators with insight into the practical aspects of building a research program and emphasizes that such a program is essential to any hospital committed to a belief in the value of research to nursing practice.

In 1978, the Panel on Health Services Research Training of the Committee on a Study of National Needs for Biomedical and Behavioral Research Personnel surveyed former health services research trainees and principal investigators to get information about the supply, employment, research, and teaching activities of people in these two groups. The survey shows that federal support for the training of health services research personnel has generated a cadre of investigators who remain active in health services research. Former trainees represent a cohort of largely younger investigators who are doing research of a type once done by older principal investigators who today engage in more administration and do less research. Most health services researchers are employed in academic settings and do research in their field.