Objectives This study compares rapid and traditional analyses of a UK health service evaluation dataset to explore differences in researcher time and consistency of outputs. Design Mixed methods study, quantitatively and qualitatively comparing qualitative methods. Setting Data from a home birth service evaluation study in a hospital in the English National Health Service, which took place between October and December 2014. Two research teams independently analysed focus group and interview transcript data: one team used a thematic analysis approach using the framework method, and the second used rapid analysis. Participants Home birth midwives (6), midwifery support workers (4), commissioners (4), managers (6), and community midwives (12) and a patient representative (1) participated in the original study. Primary outcome measures Time taken to complete analysis in person hours; analysis findings and recommendations matched, partially matched or not matched across the two teams. Results Rapid analysis data management took less time than thematic analysis (43 hours vs 116.5 hours). Rapid analysis took 100 hours, and thematic analysis took 126.5 hours in total, with interpretation and write up taking much longer in the rapid analysis (52 hours vs 8 hours). Rapid analysis findings overlapped with 79% of thematic analysis findings, and thematic analysis overlapped with 63% of the rapid analysis findings. Rapid analysis recommendations overlapped with 55% of those from the thematic analysis, and thematic analysis overlapped with 59% of the rapid analysis recommendations. Conclusions Rapid analysis delivered a modest time saving. Excessive time to interpret data in rapid analysis in this study may be due to differences between research teams. There was overlap in outputs between approaches, more in findings than recommendations. Rapid analysis may have the potential to deliver valid, timely findings while taking less time. We recommend further comparisons using additional data sets with more similar research teams.

Personal resilience has been conceptualised in many different ways; however, a common definition is that resilience is the ability to cope successfully despite adverse circumstances (Henshall, 2020). Historically, the term ‘resilience’ encompasses both physiological and psychological aspects and the latter is personal to individuals, with some people having more developed strategies for personal resilience than others. Understandings of resilience vary between populations, contexts and cultures (McDonald et al., 2012), with resilience being viewed in some cases as an inherent personality trait and in others as a dynamic process existing on a continuum between resilience and vulnerability.

Aims and objectives: To review interventions and strategies designed to progress UK clinical academic career pathways in nursing and identify barriers and facilitators to aid wider implementation.Background: For over a decade, the UK political agenda has promoted the entry of nurses into clinical academic roles. Partnerships between the National Health Service and academia are known to increase nursing recruitment, retention and quality of care. However, there remains a lack of nurses working in these partnership roles.Design: A systematised review was conducted. An electronic database search was carried out in PubMed, CINAHL, the British Nursing Database and PsychInfo for articles published between September 2006 to June 2020. A narrative approach to data synthesis was used, and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines were followed.Results: Ten papers were included in the review. The authors reported a range of programmes, pathways and toolkits. Pathway outcome measures included numbers of nurses recruited onto clinical academic programmes, clinical academic programmes completed, nursing research outputs, impact on clinical practice and impact on nursing recruitment. Barriers and facilitators to pathway development included funding, clinical and research time constraints, infrastructure, strong and strategic clinical academic leadership and effective partnership working. The quality of the included studies was mixed; more high‐quality, evidence‐based programmes need to be developed and rigorously evaluated.Conclusions: The findings can inform nursing clinical academic research pathway development internationally, by identifying key drivers for success. Sustained and cohesive implementation of clinical academic research pathways is lacking across the UK.Relevance to Clinical Practice: Strong, strategic leadership is required to enable progression of clinical academic nursing research pathway opportunities. Clinical nursing practitioners need to collaborate with external partners to enable development of clinical academic pathways within the nursing profession; this can lead to improvements in patient care and high‐quality clinical outcomes.

Background: Global workforce challenges faced by health care providers are linked to low levels of job satisfaction, recruitment, retention, and well-being, with detrimental impacts on patient care outcomes. Resilience-building programs can provide support for staff who endure highly stressful environments, enhance resilience, and support recruitment and retention, with web-based formats being key to increasing accessibility. Objective: We aimed to examine participants’ engagement with a newly developed Resilience Enhancement Online Training for Nurses (REsOluTioN), explore its acceptability, and compare levels of resilience and psychological well-being in nurses who completed REsOluTioN with those who did not. Methods: We carried out a pilot randomized trial (1:1), conducted at a single site (mental health and community trust in South England) between August 2021 and May 2022. Local research ethics approvals were obtained. Nurses were invited to participate and were randomly assigned to a waitlist group or REsOluTioN group. Training lasted for 4 weeks, consisting of prereading, web-based facilitated sessions, and mentorship support. We evaluated trial engagement, acceptability of training, and pre-post changes in resilience, measured by the Brief Resilience Scale, and psychological well-being, measured by the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale. Qualitative participant feedback was collected. Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2010 extension guidelines for reporting pilot and feasibility trials were used. Results: Of 108 participants recruited, 93 completed the study. Participants’ mean age was 44 (SD 10.85) years. Most participants were female (n=95, 88.8%), White (n=95, 88.8%), and worked in community settings (n=91, 85.0%). Sixteen facilitated and 150 mentoring sessions took place. Most REsOluTioN program participants reported the sessions helped improve their resilience (n=24, 72.8%), self-confidence (n=24, 72.7%), ability to provide good patient care (n=25, 75.8%), relationships with colleagues (n=24, 72.7%), and communication skills (n=25, 75.8%). No statistically significant differences between training and control groups and time on well-being (F1,91=1.44, P=.23, partial η2=0.02) and resilience scores (F1,91=0.33, P=.57, partial η2=0.004) were revealed; however, there were positive trends toward improvement in both. Nurse participants engaged with the REsOluTioN program and found it acceptable. Most found web-based training and mentoring useful and enjoyed learning, reflection, networking, and participatory sessions. Conclusions: The REsOluTioN program was acceptable, engaging, perceived as useful, and nurses were keen for it to be implemented to optimize resilience, psychological health, communication, and workplace environments. The study has evidenced that it is acceptable to implement web-based resilience programs with similar design features within busy health care settings, indicating a need for similar programs to be carefully evaluated. Mentorship support may also be a key in optimizing resilience. Trial limitations include small sample size and reduced statistical power; a multicenter randomized controlled trial could test effectiveness of the training on a larger scale. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05074563; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05074563 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/37015