To investigate the effect of kinesiotape on hop distance, pain, and motoneuronal excitability in healthy people and people with Achilles tendinopathy (AT). Within-subject design. An academic health science center, which is an acute London National Health Service trust. With ethical approval and informed consent, a convenience sample of 26 healthy people and 29 people with AT were recruited. Seven participants were lost after functional testing, leaving 24 participants in each group. Kinesiotape applied over the Achilles tendon. The single-leg hop test and visual analog scale were measured with and without the tape. Using the Hoffman (H) reflex, change in motoneuronal excitability of calf muscles was measured before tape application, with the tape on and after its removal. There were no changes to hop distance when tape was applied (P = 0.55). Additionally, there were no changes to pain (P = 0.74). The H reflex amplitude of soleus and gastrocnemius increased in the healthy group after its removal (P = 0.01 and P = 0.03, respectively), whereas the H reflex remained unchanged in people with AT (P = 0.43 and 0.16, respectively). Calf muscles were facilitated by kinesiotape in healthy participants. Despite this, there was no change to hop distance. Kinesiotape had no effect on hop distance, pain, or motoneuronal excitability in people with AT. These results do not support the use of kinesiotape applied in this way for this condition.

Background: There are increasing opportunities for healthcare professionals outside medicine to be involved in and lead clinical research. However, there are few roles within these professions that include time for research. In order to develop such roles, and evaluate effective use of this time, the range of impacts of this clinical academic activity need to be valued and understood by healthcare leaders and managers. To date, these impacts have not been comprehensively explored, but are suggested to extend beyond traditional quantitative impact metrics, such as publications, citations and funding awards.Methods: Ten databases, four grey literature repositories and a naïve web search engine were systematically searched for articles reporting impacts of clinical academic activity by healthcare professionals outside medicine. Specifically, this did not include the direct impacts of the research findings, rather the impacts of the research activity. All stages of the review were performed by a minimum of two reviewers and reported impacts were categorised qualitatively according to a modified VICTOR (making Visible the ImpaCT Of Research) framework.Results: Of the initial 2704 identified articles, 20 were eligible for inclusion. Identified impacts were mapped to seven themes: impacts for patients; impacts for the service provision and workforce; impacts to research profile, culture and capacity; economic impacts; impacts on staff recruitment and retention; impacts to knowledge exchange; and impacts to the clinical academic.Conclusions: Several overlapping sub-themes were identified across the main themes. These included the challenges and benefits of balancing clinical and academic roles, the creation and implementation of new evidence, and the development of collaborations and networks. These may be key areas for organisations to explore when looking to support and increase academic activity among healthcare professionals outside medicine. The modified VICTOR tool is a useful starting point for individuals and organisations to record the impact of their research activity. Further work is needed to explore standardised methods of capturing research impact that address the full range of impacts identified in this systematic review and are specific to the context of clinical academics outside medicine.