Research capacity and culture in an Australian metropolitan public mental health service: scoping the skills and experience of social workers and occupational therapists

BACKGROUND: Investment in a clinical research culture appears to be associated with benefits for consumers, staff, and overall organisational performance. The validated 55-item Research Capacity and Culture (RCC) tool was developed specifically to gauge the research capacity and culture of health professionals and workplace settings within which they work. Results of some individual studies suggest that professional discipline and workplace setting may impact RCC results however it has never been used in a dedicated public mental health setting. Therefore, this study will explore the research capacity and culture of allied mental health clinicians (Part 1). Another aim is to explore potential connections between workplace settings, locations and disciplines based on published RCC-based data to help signpost potential impediments to service improvements (Part 2). METHODS: Part 1: An RCC-based online survey canvased Australian Social Workers and Occupational Therapists (n = 59) based in a metropolitan public mental health service. Non-parametric analyses explored links between research-related experience and participant characteristics. Part 2: Comparative analyses explored the potential influence of workplace settings and professional disciplines on published RCC results. RESULTS: Part 1: Overall, the research capacity and experiences of mental health Social Workers and Occupational Therapists seemed modest. Discipline was statistically associated with level of research-activity experience, weighted towards occupational therapy; demographic characteristics were not. Only two items in the RCC were rated high; many more items were rated low. Part 2: Published studies exploration found no link between RCC ratings and workplace location, setting, or professional discipline. Sampling biases and use of modified, non-validated RCC versions likely impacted the results. CONCLUSIONS: Allied mental health clinicians may not be sufficiently experienced, knowledgeable, or confident with a range of research-related activities given the emphasis on workforce research capability in policy and practice nowadays. This may be commonplace across health-based organisations. We recommend the systematic implementation of research training programs in (mental) health services, and a ‘whole-of-service levels’ approach be used i.e., transform policy, culture and leadership as well as provide practical resources with individual training. Potential benefits include a positive impact on organisation functioning, clinicians’ confidence and practice, and improved consumer outcomes. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-022-03936-0.