Research is Care: A collaborative approach to building research awareness in clinical settings at CW
Keywords
Summary
166 words
Critical Evaluation
Value of the Information & Strength of the Argument
The value of the information lies in its practical, evidence-based approach to addressing a real gap in clinical research engagement. The presenters ground their work in a rapid literature review and a local survey, providing a solid foundation for their conclusions. The argumentation is coherent: they identify barriers and facilitators, measure research culture, and then develop a targeted educational intervention. The course design is thoughtful, considering the needs and constraints of clinical staff. The presentation is persuasive in advocating for a collaborative, inclusive research culture, but it lacks critical discussion of potential limitations of the survey and the course’s effectiveness.
Scientific Rigor, Source Quality, Title Accuracy
The scientific rigor is moderate. The rapid review is not detailed, and the survey, while combining validated tools, is not itself validated. The response rate is low (12%), and the sample may not be representative. The sources cited are limited to internal organizational work and the CIHR IMHA patient partner training program; no external peer-reviewed literature is directly referenced. The title accurately reflects the content, emphasizing the link between research and care and the collaborative approach. The presentation is well-structured and transparent about methods, but the lack of external validation and outcome evaluation limits its scientific strength.
212 words
Title / Content Match
The title accurately reflects the content, emphasizing the connection between research and care and the collaborative approach to building research awareness.
Quality & Reliability
7/10
The presentation is based on a systematic rapid review and a local survey with a 12% response rate, providing credible data. However, the survey is not validated and the results are context-specific, limiting generalizability. The course development process is transparent and iterative, with user testing and national review.
Key Moments
Markers derived by PSI from the transcript: the creator did not define chapters.
- Introduction and land acknowledgement by Nicole Presley
- Miranda Amundson introduces the session goals and the Pacific wren analogy
- Presentation of rapid literature review findings on facilitators and barriers to research engagement
- Description of the survey methodology combining three validated tools and COM-B framework
- Presentation of survey results: demographics, job descriptions, and time dedicated to research
- Survey results on capability, opportunity, and motivation factors
- Open-ended responses and word cloud on research culture
- Fallon Ah-gyen introduces the course development, rationale, and team
- Course design: four key questions, self-paced online format, and content development
- User testing feedback and incorporation into the final course
- Course content overview: research pillars, local examples, and nursing/allied health research
- Conclusion and call to action
Cited Sources
- CIHR IMHA patient partner training program — Referenced as a resource that informed the course development for foundational research education.
Concurring Sources
- CIHR IMHA patient partner training program — Referenced as a resource that informed the course development for foundational research education.
Contribution & Novelties
The presentation provides a novel, institution-specific approach to building research awareness among clinical staff, grounded in a local survey and literature review. It highlights the importance of addressing research culture as a systemic issue and offers a practical educational intervention. The course is designed to be accessible and relevant, using local examples and feedback from clinical staff.
Pour aller plus loin :
- Knowledge Translation — Relevant to the course’s goal of increasing research awareness and application.
- Evidence-Based Practice — Core concept underlying the importance of research in clinical settings.
- COM-B model — Framework used to map barriers and facilitators in the survey.
- Research Capacity Building — Related to the goal of enhancing research skills among healthcare professionals.
117 words
Radar Profile
The radar profile shows moderate to high scores across all dimensions, with the lowest in technical level, reflecting the presentation's focus on practical, accessible information rather than deep technical detail. The high scores in information quality and reliability indicate a well-structured, evidence-informed presentation.