ArticleBMC health services research2025
Securing the future of AHP research: mapping UK practitioner-academic/clinical-academic roles and sustainability.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate data on allied health professionals (AHPs) securing funded clinical-academic/practitioner-academic roles is limited. To address this knowledge gap, a survey was undertaken to gather data on professional discipline, geographical location and crucial insights into the funding and sustainability of these roles.
methodsA UK wide exploratory cross-sectional survey was carried out.
resultsThree hundred and fifty-three AHPs responded from all 14 AHP disciplines. Of the total respondents, 62% supported research delivery, with 59% leading or undertaking single-site clinical/practice-based studies, 50% contributing to multi-site studies, and 18% engaging in commercial research. Among those with a formal joint-funded practitioner-academic role, 74% conducted single-site research, 58% engaged in multi-site studies, and 23% undertook or lead commercial research. 16% of respondents held a formal joint-funded practitioner-academic role, with most contracts hosted by a practitioner sector/setting (58%) rather than an academic institution (39%). Research time allocation varied, with 50% being the most common proportion (23%). Nearly three-quarters (74%) had affiliations with university AHP education programmes. Among practitioners without formal joint-funded roles, diverse approaches to integrating research were reported, including designated research time within clinical roles (30%), fellowships (20%), and separate contracts for research and practice (17%). Research time dedication ranged widely, with 19% allocating 90% or more to research activities. 40% reported affiliations with university schools/departments/units delivering AHP education. Research role funding was primarily from the NIHR, NHS, charitable foundations, and employer-based arrangements, with joint funding models featuring prominently. Employment stability varied, with 52% having permanent contracts, while 35% had fixed-term arrangements. Key operational supports included research leads (58%) and research strategies explicitly inclusive of AHPs (55%).
conclusionsA substantial gap must be addressed to achieve the NHS England workforce target of 1% of clinical/practitioner-academic roles in all disciplines by 2030. Results provide insights into research involvement, the variability in role facilitation, and critical factors influencing sustainability. Recommendations include developing a cohesive strategy to strengthen practitioner-academic roles, ensuring they are recognised, funded and integrated into long-term workforce planning, strengthening organisational career pathways, securing sustainable funding, enhancing workforce stability and retention, policy and lobbying initiatives, and systematic expansion across disciplines. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.