Knowledge Sharing and Communication Practices Between Therapists and Researchers Engaging in Translational Research: Qualitative Study

Research

Objectives: To understand how rehabilitation therapists communicate their clinical perspective to researchers and shape research into a more translational, patient- and practice-centered direction. To explore the barriers and facilitators therapists face as they engage in translational research.

Design: Semi-structured interviews triangulated with observations and organizational archival data.Setting: A large, urban, academically-affiliated, translational rehabilitation research hospital.Participants: We conducted 28 semi-structured interviews with therapists who engage in research (n=26) and researchers with no therapy background (n=2). Therapists included 17 physical therapists, 6 occupational therapists, 2 speech language pathologists, and 1 prosthetist-orthotist. This purposive sample increased heterogeneity and richness of data.

We used convenience sampling to conduct 6 ethnographic observations of communication between therapists and researchers during team meetings and treatment sessions.Interventions: Not applicable.Main Outcome Measures: Thematic analysis using inductive, constant comparative methods to better understand how participants make meaning of their experiences.

Results: Interviews revealed four translational research stages in which therapists provided feedback to enhance clinical relevance: conception (project ideation and grant writing), approval and planning (protocol development and IRB submission), adaptation (ongoing changes to protocol), and synthesis (data analysis and manuscript drafting). Therapists participated more in the stages of project approval and planning (n=20) and adaptation (n=25) than in the stages of project conception (n=8) and synthesis (n=12). Therapists engaged in informal (e.g., individual outreach or demonstration) and formal (e.g., structured team meetings or organizational presentations) communication mechanisms with researchers. Barriers to engagement mentioned by at least 50% of participants included: unfamiliarity with the research process and a lack of situational awareness (i.e., “who knows what”). Facilitators to engagement mentioned by at least 50% of participants included: psychological safety, research mentorship, and availability of both formal and informal communication opportunities.

Conclusions: Early (e.g., grant writing stage) and consistent integration of appropriate clinical perspectives might increase the effectiveness of rehabilitation therapists as key stakeholders in translational research. Adequate internal supports, such as research exposure and mentorship, could improve the experiences of rehabilitation therapists engaging in research activities.

Author(s) Disclosures: None