Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Allied to who?
- Barbara E GIbson (18 April 2003)
-
Conflict, money, and our endangered professions
- Natasha A Lannin (24 April 2003)
-
Why not nursing research?
- Daniel Kelly, Louise Boden (25 April 2003)
-
More than investment required
- Claire M Goodman, Professor Dame Jenifer WIlson Barnett, Professor Paul Wallace, Sarah Andrews, Toity Deave (1 May 2003)
-
Allied to anyone?
- Elizabeth A White (10 May 2003)
-
Quantum leap for nursing and other health professions urgent, not only in Britain.
- Maria H. F. Grypdonck (11 May 2003)
|
|
|||
|
Barbara E GIbson, Lecturer Department of Physical Therapy, University of Toronto, M5G 1V7
Send response to journal:
|
Bravo to Rafferty and colleagues for calling for increased funding and capacity building for non-physician related health services. This support is long overdue. At the same time, can we get rid of the term "allied health"? This term contribrutes to the perpetuation of the physician-in-charge model, rather than a model of a well functioning team of health care experts working in collaboration. Either "health professionals" or "professional health services" should cover it. Let's drop the "allied" and recognize the unique contributions of all members of the team. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Natasha A Lannin, Accredited Occupational Therapist, PhD Candidate University of Western Sydney, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith South DC, NSW 1797, Australia
Send response to journal:
|
Thank you to Rafferty and colleagues for raising the plight of "non- physician" health professions. In times that call on our professions to be evidence-based, such underfunding significantly impacts on our ability to deliver best care to our patients. As a non-physician trialist, I would add that the difficulties in securing competitive monies for studies within a system that favours physician research is adding to this detrimental situation. Underfunding of non-physician trials also leads trialists to source alternative funding, which has the potential to place study findings at risk of conflict of interest since such sources are usually private companies with invested interests. As pointed out by the authors, action from the government, professional bodies and education councils is required to provide sustainable funding for non-physician research. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Daniel Kelly, Research Fellow in Cancer Nursing UCL Hospitals NHS Trust, London W1N 8AA, Louise Boden
Send response to journal:
|
It was heartening to read Rafferty, Traynor et al supporting the case for more research in nursing, midwifery and the allied health professions. (1) A recent survey of lead R&D nursing roles highlighted the gap between the expectations placed on these individuals, and the resources available to them to conduct meaningful research 'in the real world.' Achieving an evidence-led health service will rely on the availability of a new generation of researchers, from all diciplines, who can focus on the needs of the service as well as clinical science. The best medicine in the world is meaningless without innovative nursing and supportive care. Talented individuals need to be recruited into nursing and the allied professions in the knowledge that a career in health care research is a realistic option for them. At present this is not the case. Whilst the PPP Foundation and other benefactors are to be applauded for their current support, should not the Government be matching such funds? This would effectively double the number of trained researchers who understand the service and the needs of those using it, as well as the barriers facing those trying to improve it. Reference 1. Brown N, Harris R, Hunt J, Kelly D et al (2002) An assessment of lead R&D nursing roles in acute trusts and an evaluation of their status within the NHS research agenda. NT Research 7 (4): 274-287. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Claire M Goodman, Director Primary Care Nursing Research Unit University College London, Professor Dame Jenifer WIlson Barnett, Professor Paul Wallace, Sarah Andrews, Toity Deave
Send response to journal:
|
We strongly support Rafferty and colleagues’ argument that nursing, midwifery and the allied professions should receive research investment that reflects the scale of contribution these professions make to health care. The need for investment in research capacity building needs to be at government and HEFCE level but it also needs to be reflected in the organisation and research infrastructure of academic departments and NHS trusts. Health care is a complex and multi professional activity. Although a significant proportion of medical research relies on the project management and data collection skills of nurses, less evident is the kind of collaborative research, that reflects the realities of practice and is co-led and co-authored by researchers from the different disciplines. The reasons are many and reflect deeply held assumptions about the primacy of different types of knowledge, disciplinary divides, policy priorities and of course funding sources. We suggest that the academic, NHS and charitable organisations that engage in health care research also need to review how they allocate their existing and future resources and whether their structures reflect the realities of practice. One example of our attempt to move towards a research collaboration that represents in its organisation the world of health care is the newly established Primary Care Nursing Research Unit. This is funded through a unique partnership between two academic departments of nursing and medicine, a research network and a Primary Care Trust. It aims to build research capacity in nursing within a collaborative framework that links its research to service needs and medical research in areas of common interest.. It is not just a question of increasing research funding for an overlooked but key section of the workforce. It is also important to consider what is needed to ensure that the development of research in nursing, medicine, midwifery and the allied health professionals does not develop in parallel to each other. Each health professional group needs its own evidence base but it also needs to know what is significant and relevant for the other professionals they work with and the service they work within.. Once there is greater equity of funding between the professions the debate needs to be expanded to consider what kinds of research collaboration works with what effect for health care? Dr Claire Goodman
Professor Dame Jenifer Wilson Barnett Professor Paul Wallace Dr Toity Deave Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Elizabeth A White, Group Head, Research and Development College of Occupational Therapists, 106-114 Borough High Street, London SE1 1LB
Send response to journal:
|
It is no surprise to learn from the published rapid responses that obtaining research funding for nursing and the allied health professions is a global problem. In response to Gibson's observation regarding the term "allied health professions", which currently encompasses a group of 12 separate health professions numbering some 137,000 practitioners in the United Kingdom, her comment is well-founded. Despite being an improvement on the former "professions allied to medicine", such terminology does little to acknowledge the increasingly extended and autonomous role of this group of workers across health and social care, and in public, private and voluntary sectors. Competing interests: Employed by College of Occupational Therapists |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Maria H. F. Grypdonck, Professor of nursing science University of Utrecht Utrecht (the Netherlands)
Send response to journal:
|
To the positive comments on the editorial of Dr Raffety, I want to add mine. The situation is similar in many countries. Also in the Netherlands, and Belgium, where I work. The National Council for Research in Health (RGO) has issued a report in which very similar position is taken with regard to nursing research: there is a paucity of nursing research to achieve Evidence Based Practice, more money should be devoted to nursing research, and the possibilities to form senior researchers should be considered a priority. The Dutch minister of the previous cabinet had allocated 2.000.000 euro as a first go. The following government however, resigned in the mean time, did not continue the programme, because of budget restrictions. In Belgium, the minister of heath decided to allocate one project of one year each year to nursing. A quantum leap certainly will not result from this. Decisions about money for nursing research seems to have to come from the government. In all organizations deciding about allocation of money nurses and other health professionals are in minority. Deceasing budgets for health (including medical) research do not increase the willingness of our medical colleagues to share the pie. M.H.F. Grypdonck
Competing interests: None declared |
|||