Back

Understanding research readiness in psychological services: mixed method findings from a cross-sectional survey pilot.

Saunders, K. R.; Campbell, P.; Lamph, G.; Rydon-Grange, M.; Murphy, G.; Rogers, B.; Bradley, E.; Grange, J.; Lambley-Burke, R.; Kingstone, T.

2025-10-29 health systems and quality improvement
10.1101/2025.10.28.25338875 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundHealthcare organisations that have a research culture within their practice (e.g. evidenced based and evidence informed practice) report better outcomes for their service users. There are however reported barriers to embedding research into practice. This includes time, knowledge, motivation, ability, resources, and access to organisational support. Psychological Services within the NHS regularly embed evidence-based practice as part of the care provision for their service users. However, at present little is known of the extent, capacity, and research readiness of those that practice within this sector. AimTo understand capacity, engagement and research readiness within the psychological services team at an NHS trust within the UK. MethodsMixed methods pilot study using cross sectional survey. Collecting both quantitative and qualitative data. 35 people were recruited from a pool of 89 people who attended a psychological services webinar in April 2024. Quantitative data was analysed on a descriptive level; qualitative data was analysed using thematic analysis. Findings and discussionResults indicate the value in the use of a mixed method survey to assess research readiness and capacity to those within psychological services practice. Overall response rate was good (39%) with a 100% completion rate of all questions. Both the quantitative and qualitative data revealed that participants wish to engage in research but encounter barriers such as capacity and time. Respondents were also unsure on the level or organisational support for research engagement and activity, unsure on the pathways to secure research time (e.g. funding opportunities), and findings also illustrate issues around practitioner confidence in applying research skills. Our findings show the acceptability of assessing research readiness within psychological practice and highlight several areas of need for practitioners to facilitate full research engagement. These findings will now seed a larger more ambitious assessment of research readiness.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMJ Open Quality
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.7%
2
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
18.8%
3
Health Expectations
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.5%
50% of probability mass above
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 18%
10.2%
5
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.9%
6
BJPsych Open
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.7%
7
BJGP Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.8%
8
Emergency Medicine Journal
20 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.4%
9
Palliative Medicine
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.4%
10
Journal of Public Health
23 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
11
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
12
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
13
JMIR Research Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
14
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
15
BMC Psychiatry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
16
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
17
Archives of Public Health
12 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
18
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
19
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.6%
20
British Journal of General Practice
22 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.6%
21
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.6%
22
JMIRx Med
31 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
23
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
18 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.6%
24
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
25
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
26
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%