ArticleBMJ open2026
Evaluating the feasibility and acceptability of an online research capacity-building education programme for the health and care workforce: a mixed-methods pilot study.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of an online research capacity-building (RCB) education programme for the health and care workforce and explore its preliminary outcomes.
designMixed-methods pilot study incorporating quantitative survey data and a qualitative group interview.
settingSingle Health Innovation organisation in England's North West region.
participantsStaff working in research, evaluation and innovation-related roles.
interventions16 one-hour online RCB education sessions, informed by the Research Capacity and Culture Tool (individual domain), were delivered weekly via Microsoft Teams between February 2024 and October 2024. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were feasibility and acceptability of the programme, assessed through attendance and a participant group interview. The secondary outcome was change in behaviour intention measured pre-post education sessions using the Continuing Professional Development Reaction (CPD-R) questionnaire.
resultsAttendance per RCB education session ranged from 2 to 11 participants. Post-session CPD-R completion was low, limiting matched pre-post analysis, but median scores were generally higher post-session across most constructs. Four themes and eight sub-themes were identified from qualitative data. The four core themes were: establishing a common ground for research capacity building; creating pathways for meaningful involvement; translating knowledge within organisational contexts; and bridging individual development and collective momentum. The online format was received well for its accessibility and convenience, fitting within busy working schedules. Participants also reported increased confidence and perceived skill development.
conclusionsThis pilot study demonstrates initial feasibility and acceptability of an online format for RCB education within the health and care workforce. The format has potential for delivery at scale, where time and service pressures limit access to face-to-face programmes. Session length and content support require refinement in future iterations. Further research should examine implementation across diverse settings with larger samples.
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.