ArticleHealth research policy and systems2025
The use of research evidence in blood collection policy and practice: a qualitative study with frontline staff, middle managers and senior managers.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is a known disconnect between scientific knowledge and its application in routine practice, known as the research-practice gap. A potential strategy to encourage research engagement among end-users is embedding researchers within an organization. This study set out to understand the views and experiences of senior managers, middle managers, and frontline staff in one department accessing and using research in a large organization with embedded researchers. We also investigated staff capacity to engage with research to identify opportunities to strengthen the use of research-based evidence in practice.
methodsWe conducted 14 semi-structured in-depth interviews between November 2022 and April 2023 with senior managers, middle managers, and frontline staff working in the blood collection department at Australian Red Cross Lifeblood. Directed qualitative content analysis and the SPIRIT Action Framework were used to interpret the data.
resultsCapacity to engage with and use research varied greatly between participants and appeared to be affected by their role, training, and prior work experience. Participants valued research highly. However, only a few felt confident in their knowledge and skills to engage with research. Participants described a lack of visibility of research within the organization as well as systems and structures to access research. Experiences with accessing research, generating research, and interacting with researchers were mostly limited to senior managers. Research was chiefly used by senior managers to support changes, followed by understanding blood collection issues, and informing policy development. Although present, research use was often not visible to frontline staff.
conclusionsTo increase research engagement and use, organizations should invest in strengthening their tools and systems, providing opportunities to increase individual knowledge and skills to engage with research, and increase the visibility of research and how it has been used.
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.