Research report 01/64

Promoting research in nursing and the allied health professions

Technical annexe

Contents

Executive summary

1 Introduction
Terms of reference
Study methodology
Definitions
Structure of this annexe

2 The flow of funds to nursing and AHPs research in England
Funding from the NHS
Charities
HEFCE
Research councils
Professional bodies
Summary

3 Sector-wide trends and the research workforce
Research staff as a proportion of academic staff
Postgraduate student numbers
Higher degrees by HEIs
Census of the teaching workforce

4 The nature and extent of research outputs
Section A: Bibliometric analysis
Section B: Findings from the questionnaire survey

5 The nature and extent of collaborative links
Collaboration within institutions
Collaboration with other institutions
Comments on collaboration and areas for development
Summary

6 Institutional factors and case studies
Institutional factors
Shaping strategy
Case studies

Appendices
I Individuals interviewed 67
II The research questionnaire 68
III List of contractions used for organisations’ names in Tables 4.11 to 4.16
IV Potential benefits of further investment in research in nursing

Executive summary

1 This report presents mapping information on the research undertaken in nursing, midwifery, health visiting and the 12 allied health professions (AHPs). Because of the difficulties found in obtaining data in previous studies we adopted an approach of using several routes. This included a bibliometric analysis of publications held in the Wellcome Trust’s Research Outputs Database and a questionnaire survey of 121 departments in universities.

2 Unfortunately the response to the questionnaire was only 50% because its appearance coincided with the preparation of submissions for the Research Assessment Exercise, and for some departments with preparation for the re-tendering with the NHS for nursing education. Nonetheless the trend data and qualitative information it provided has proved very useful.

3 In general the AHPs are 'invisible' in most of the classifications and categories used by HESA, HEFCE and others. This means that data on them are aggregated with other disciplines, and it is difficult to determine accurate trends in many aspects of research. As soon as they come together into the Health Professions Council there must be a case for revisiting the designations and categories now used so as to obtain clearer operational and planning data.

4 We recorded the main sources of funding for nursing and AHPs, but found it very difficult to trace detailed information on funding by discipline. However, our bibliometric analysis shows that the Department of Health is the largest supporter of published nursing research, while the MRC and BBSRC are the biggest sources for dietetics and occupational therapy research respectively.

5 There is evidence that nursing, midwifery and AHPs departments are generating increasing research income, since the 50 departments responding to our survey showed an increase from £3m in 1996–97 to £9.7m in 1999–2000. HEFCE support for research has been £3m a year of QR funding to 11 departments in Unit of Assessment 10 (UOA), which covers nursing and midwifery. Some of the £7m a year which has gone to UOA 11 will have reached AHP departments, although we do not know the proportion.

6 The capacity to do research has been increasing: over the five-year period to 1998–99, nursing and AHPs research staff in universities have grown in number from 97 to 240; however, this represents only 3.9% of the total staff of 6,174. Comparable figures for other disciplines are education at 7.6% and social studies at 13.3%.

7 In the RAE submissions for 2001 the number in UOA 10 increased by 19%, the second highest of any discipline. In addition the number of Category A and A* staff increased by 50% over the 1996 figure; this is the second highest percentage of any discipline. However, the number of such staff at 623 is still low in comparison to the total of full-time teaching staff. In UOA 11 the submissions were 10% higher than in 1996 but the number of academic staff increased dramatically by 57% (the highest of any discipline) to 1,066. However, we do not know what part of this increase can be attributed to the AHPs disciplines.

8 Postgraduate student numbers in nursing have also grown over the same timescale by 94% and amounted to 3,700 in 1998–99; all but 435 of these are part-time.

9 The bibliometric analysis we commissioned has shown a matching increase in published papers over the last ten years, although the outputs for nursing and midwifery have not increased since 1995. Authors from hospitals and practice account for a substantial minority of the papers in all disciplines.

10 In dietetics, midwifery and speech and language therapy we found that one in six of the papers had a foreign author (as a sign of international collaboration) and the same disciplines had a high number of authors from different addresses, indicating inter-university collaboration within the UK.

11 A high proportion of papers revealed no funding source, implying they were self-funded: this percentage was 83% for occupational therapy, 73% for nursing, 57% for midwifery, 46% for speech and language therapy and 38% for dietetics. In the NHS as a whole 47% of funding of published papers is unacknowledged, which means largely unfunded. In biomedicine the UK government provides funding for the research behind 33% of publications.

12 Respondents to our questionnaire gave us information on their research outputs, which averaged out at only 1.8 papers over the whole of the last four years for 1900 staff. They also told us the present number of PhDs among their staff, which was an average of 16% of the total number.

13 Our survey enquired about the number and type of links which nursing and AHPs departments had with other departments or institutions. In nursing and midwifery it was usual to have two formal links with other disciplines, and two with other institutions, but to have more than five collaborative arrangements with NHS-related organisations. These figures were lower for all the AHP disciplines.

14 Part of our study involved visits to ten institutions as a result of which we commissioned three case studies. These helped us to identify the different institutional strategies in building research capacity and the key factors which can help it to grow. The three main drivers of this change are: the attitude of the NHS region to research; the institution’s central strategy to funding capacity development; and the financial arrangements with the then Education and Training Consortia, which funded the teaching contract.

15 One case study reports on how a network of collaborative links was established, and two others show how it is possible to reach practitioners in a region which does not fund much research – and how research capacity can be rapidly developed, given a benevolent central strategy from the university.

16 Although the quantitative evidence is patchy and incomplete, we can draw some conclusions:

1. We have seen an increase in the capacity for research, the numbers of postgraduates and the research outputs in the period since the last RAE.
   
2. This growth is recognisable in nursing and midwifery, but less so in the AHPs, many of which have still a long way to go to develop their capacity.
   
3. The Department of Health and the NHS regions are the biggest funders of research and their support has been growing over the period, although it is not given to all the AHP disciplines.