ABSTRACT
Objective To assess the training and development needs of researchers and support staff affiliated to the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), one of the largest BRCs in England, and to find out about their past experiences of training.
Design A cross-sectional online questionnaire survey.
Setting and Participants A convenience sample of clinicians, nurses, midwives, allied health professionals, researchers and support staff (N=798) affiliated with the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.
Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary outcome measure was the type of training and the secondary outcome measures were the duration, location and timing of training.
Results The response rate was 24%. Of 189 respondents, 114 were women (60%) and 75 men (40%). Respondents included research scientists (31%), medical doctors and dentists (17%), nurses and midwives (16%) and research managers and administrators (16%). Seventy-one percent respondents (n=134) reported attending at least one training activity in the last year and the most wanted training was leadership skills (25%), followed by research grant and fellowship writing (18%) and statistical analysis (16%). An ideal length of a training course was half a day (41%), whole day (25%) and 1-2 hours (22%). The most preferred time of the day for training was morning (60%) and afternoon (22%) and the favoured delivery style of training was an interactive workshop (52%), lecture/talk (25%), online (9%) and practical activities (9%). The main barriers to attending training courses were the lack of time (n-18%), work commitments (13%), and childcare responsibilities (6%).
Conclusions Translational researchers and supporting affiliates want short, easily accessible, interactive training sessions, particularly leadership training skills and grant and fellowship writing. However, practical elements are important too e.g. in a convenient location during the working day. Work commitment is the biggest obstacle in doing training.
Strengths and limitations of this study
This survey was done to develop and revamp the NIHR Oxford BRC’s training programme that met the training and development needs of our researchers and research support staff.
Leadership skills, research grant and fellowship writing, statistical analysis were the most wanted training.
The lack of time, work commitments, and childcare responsibilities were the main barriers to attending training courses.
Our findings have limited generalisability because the study is based on the responses of participants who are affiliated with only one NIHR BRC; hence, these findings could not be generalised to other NIHR BRCs.
These findings might inform the training and development programmes in other NIHR BRCs in the country.
Competing Interest Statement
K. Bell is Training and Education Project Manager, S. G. S. Shah is Senior Research Fellow, L. R. Henderson is Clinical Research Manager and V. Kiparoglou is chief Operating Officer at the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, England, United Kingdom.
Funding Statement
This study was funded/supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (Research Grant No. IS-BRC-1215-20008). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. The funders had no role in study design, analysis and interpretation of this study.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was an evaluation of the training and development service. We used the Health Research Authority (HRA) decision tool whether our study required NHS ethics approval. The HRA tool results suggested that our study would not be considered Research; hence, NHS ethics approval was not required and obtained. In addition, our retrospective application for ethics approval was reviewed by the Officer of the Oxford University Medical Sciences Interdivisional Research Ethics Committee, with reference to formally approved process and determined that the study would be classified as evaluation, rather than research, therefore does not require ethical review (CUREC Application: R77595/RE001, date August 26, 2021).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵† Joint First authorships: The authors have informed that they agree that both Karen Bell and Syed Ghulam Sarwar Shah completed the intellectual and other work typical of the first author.
Data Availability
All data are reported in this article; hence, no additional data are available.
