The embedded researcher is a healthcare-academic partnership model in which the researcher is engaged as a core member of the healthcare organisation. While this model has…
The embedded researcher is a healthcare-academic partnership model in which the researcher is engaged as a core member of the healthcare organisation. While this model has potential to support evidence translation, there is a paucity of evidence in relation to the specific challenges and strengths of the model. The aim of this study was to map the barriers and enablers of the model from the perspective of embedded researchers in Australian healthcare settings, and compare the responses of embedded researchers with a primary healthcare versus a primary academic affiliation.
104 embedded researchers from Australian healthcare organisations completed an online survey. Both purposive and snowball sampling strategies were used to identify current and former embedded researchers. This paper reports on responses to the open-ended questions in relation to barriers and enablers of the role, the available support, and recommendations for change. Thematic analysis was used to describe and interpret the breadth and depth of responses and common themes.
Key barriers to being an embedded researcher in a public hospital included a lack of research infrastructure and funding in the healthcare organisation, a culture that does not value research, a lack of leadership and support to undertake research, limited access to mentoring and career progression and issues associated with having a dual affiliation. Key enablers included supportive colleagues and executive leaders, personal commitment to research and research collaboration including formal health-academic partnerships.
To support the embedded researcher model, broader system changes are required, including greater investment in research infrastructure and healthcare-academic partnerships with formal agreements. Significant changes are required, so that healthcare organisations appreciate the value of research and support both clinicians and researchers to engage in research that is important to their local population.
This is the first study to systematically investigate the enablers and challenges of the embedded researcher model.
Previous research has provided limited evidence on whether and how demographic factors associate with sensory processing patterns (SPP) in adults. This paper aims to…
Previous research has provided limited evidence on whether and how demographic factors associate with sensory processing patterns (SPP) in adults. This paper aims to examine relationships between SPPs and sociodemographic factors of age, sex, education and ethnicity in healthy adults.
A cross-sectional study design was used. A total of 71 adult participants was recruited from the community, using convenience sampling. Each participant completed the Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile (AASP) and the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales – short version (DASS-21). Demographic information on age, sex, education and ethnicity was collected. Results were analysed using descriptive statistics and multivariate analyses of covariance (MANCOVA).
SPPs, as measured by the AASP, were significantly correlated to demographic factors of age and education after controlling for emotional distress using the DASS-21. A statistically significant multivariate effect was found across the four dependent variables (low registration, seeking, sensitivity and avoiding) for the age category, F = 6.922, p = 0.009, = 0.145, in the presence of a covariate DASS. The education category showed significance only in the seeking domain (p = 0.008, = 0.10) after controlling for DASS. There was no significant correlation between SPPs and gender or ethnicity. Results also indicated that mean scores of participants in this study were “similar to most people” as standardised in the AASP.
This was a cross-sectional study with limitations including that the study used a relatively small sample and was based on self-reported healthy participants.
SPPs may correlate with healthy adults’ age and to a lesser extent education. This suggests that it might be helpful to consider such demographic factors when interpreting SPPs in clinical populations, although further research in larger samples is needed to reach firmer conclusions about possible implications of demographic variables.
The findings in this paper add to the growing evidence that suggest that SPPs vary with sociodemographic factors.