Barriers to Research and Quality Improvement in Nephrology: Nurses and Allied Health Professionals' Perspectives

ABSTRACT

Background

Nurses and allied health professionals play a critical role in delivering kidney care and improving outcomes for people with kidney disease. However, engagement in research remains limited, and barriers within nephrology are not well understood.

Objectives

To explore perceived barriers and facilitators to research and quality initiatives engagement among nephrology nurses and allied health professionals in Australia and New Zealand.

Design, Participants, and Methods

A mixed‐methods convergent parallel study was conducted using an online survey and facilitated workshop at the Renal Society of Australasia Conference (June 2025). The Capability, Opportunity, Motivation–Behaviour (COM‐B) framework guided data collection and analysis. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively, while qualitative data from focus groups were analysed using framework analysis and mapped to COM‐B domains.

Results

Forty‐seven survey responses and 28 workshop participants were included. Barriers related to opportunity (lack of time, resources, and organisational support) and capability (limited knowledge of research processes and low confidence with research methodologies) were identified. Despite these barriers, strong motivational facilitators were identified. Participants valued research as important for improving patient care and clinical practice and expressed a strong desire to be involved in future research and quality initiatives. Findings reinforced the importance of mentorship, networking, leadership support, and protected time as enablers of research engagement.

Conclusions

Research engagement is influenced by interacting capability, opportunity, and motivational factors. Strategies to build research and quality improvement capacity in nephrology should address knowledge gaps, strengthen organisational support, and foster collaborative research cultures to enable sustainable clinician‐led research and evidence‐based kidney care.

1. Introduction

Nephrology nurses and allied health professionals play a key role in the delivery and quality of care for patients with kidney disease. Their daily interface with patients and care delivery uniquely positions them to identify clinically important quality initiatives and research questions in nephrology and to lead and contribute to evidence generation through active research to improve outcomes for people with kidney disease.

1.1. Literature Review

International literature highlights several barriers that constrain nurses and allied health professionals from engaging in research. These include limited access to research training and mentorship, insufficient protected time within clinical roles, lack of funding opportunities, and organisational cultures that prioritise service delivery over scholarly activity (Jabonete and Roxas 2022). In the nephrology context, additional challenges arise from the complexity of chronic kidney disease (CKD) care, which often spans acute, chronic, and palliative domains, requiring collaboration across diverse disciplines (Okpechi et al. 2018).

In Australia and New Zealand, health systems emphasise evidence‐based practice, yet structural and cultural barriers continue to impede research participation by non‐medical clinicians. Unlike the United Kingdom, where the Chief Nursing Officer has published a dedicated national strategic plan for nursing research (Nhs England and Nhs Improvement 2021), New Zealand does not have a similar policy and Australia's national policy emphasis has primarily focused on nursing workforce development, innovation, and evidence‐based practice through the National Nursing Workforce Strategy (Australian Government Department of Health 2026). Currently, there is no single coordinated research‐capacity strategy for nephrology nursing. Capacity‐building in this region is instead distributed across professional societies, local health district research programmes, and university partnerships. Workforce surveys (Lederer and Lebowitz 2020) and professional association reports (Okpechi et al. 2018) suggest that while nephrology nurses and allied health professionals express strong interest in research, they frequently encounter obstacles such as inadequate institutional support, limited career pathways in clinical research, and uncertainty about navigating ethics and governance processes. These barriers not only restrict professional development but also limit the generation of practice‐based evidence that could inform patient‐centred care in nephrology (Baillie et al. 2025).

Addressing these challenges is essential to foster a research‐active workforce capable of leading quality improvement (QI) initiatives and ensuring that the perspectives of nurses and allied health professionals are represented in nephrology scholarship. Understanding the barriers within the Australian and New Zealand context provides a foundation for developing strategies that build capacity, enhance collaboration, and ultimately strengthen the evidence base for kidney care (Hill et al. 2023; Clayton et al. 2015; Bonner et al. 2023, Kathy Burford and Bennett 2022). However, much of this evidence derives from international or general nursing and allied health settings, and few studies have specifically examined the barriers and the facilitators to research and QI engagement through a behavioural framework capable of directing targeted interventions. To address this gap, the present study aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators to research and QI engagement among nephrology nurses and allied health professionals in Australia and New Zealand, and to interpret them using a behaviour framework in order to pinpoint where targeted strategies are most likely to strengthen research engagement.

2. Material and Methods

We used a mixed‐methods, convergent parallel design that combined a facilitated workshop discussion with a workshop survey to explore participants' perspectives on barriers to research. The behaviour changing framework: Capability, Opportunity, Motivation Behaviour model (COM‐B) (Michie et al. 2011) was used to guide the development of survey questions and workshop discussion prompts to identify barriers and facilitators to conducting research. COM‐B was selected as it focuses on the modifiable behavioural determinants of research engagement and their direct mapping to intervention functions, rather than quantifying research capacity or culture. The reporting of findings in this paper is based on Mixed Methods Reporting in Rehabilitation & Health Sciences (MMR‐RHS) (Tovin and Wormley 2023).

2.1. Participants and Setting

All nurses and allied health professionals working in nephrology who could speak English were deemed eligible to participate. We sent the online survey to the Renal Society of Australasia (RSA), for them to distribute to their members. Attendees of the RSA Conference in Melbourne, June 2025, were also invited to participate in a research workshop. Workshop attendees did not need to complete survey prior. We limited attendance at the workshop to 30 participants. The invitation was included in the conference registration and via emails from the conference committee. Ethics approval was granted by Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee, (Project ID: 47132) and all registered participants were provided with an information sheet prior to the workshop.

2.2. Survey

The survey was developed by the author and co‐authors, who have expertise in the COM‐B model, research and kidney disease. It consisted of two parts: demographical information (country, state, position, age, gender, and workload arrangement) and a questionnaire containing 15 statements developed based on the COM‐B model. Five statements under each COM‐B component and structured as a Likert scale for participants to rank from one, strongly disagree, to five, strongly agree. The initial draft survey was reviewed by two clinical nurses to check the readability and relevance, and no changes were required. A QR code generated by the online survey software QuestionPro was included in the invitation letter, which was distributed to eligible participants. Completing the survey implied consent to participate.

2.3. Workshop Programme

The workshop began with an introduction and overview of the rationale for the workshops, followed by two presentations that demonstrated the role of nurses and allied health professionals in quality initiatives and research. The facilitators of the workshop also discussed ethics approval and consent via attendance with the participants prior to the workshop commencing. All participants were offered the option not to participate in the workshop. After the presentation, one participant declined to be involved and did not attend the focus group session, while the rest (n = 28) were allocated to one of the four concurrent focus groups for an open discussion lasting 1 h. Each breakout group consisted of six to seven participants, and a co‐facilitator.

The research questions comprised open‐ended questions that were guided by the COM‐B model and reviewed by the research team prior to the workshop. The participants shared their views, experiences and priorities based on their own lived experiences. This allowed the co‐facilitators (GC, EZ, RC) to collect rich, nuanced data and capture diverse perspectives. At the end of the breakout group discussions, all participants returned to the main discussion room, where one person from each group presented a summary of their group's discussion. Other groups could add further to each group's key summary. The main workshop facilitator (RW) summarised key points to conclude the workshop.

2.4. Data Analysis

Quantitative data were analysed descriptively as aggregate data. We calculated the mean and standard deviation (SD) for each statement response and categorised them into disagree (mean: 1–2.9), neutral (mean: 3–3.9) and agree (mean: 4–5). Statements disagreed by most participants were coded as perceived barriers, and statements agreed by most participants were coded as perceived facilitators. There was one missing data in Component 5, and imputation techniques (Ranganathan and Hunsberger 2024) were adopted by replacing the data with the mean value of the scale; as only a single value (< 0.2% of all responses) was missing, mean substitution was unlikely to materially affect the aggregate results.

Qualitative data were recorded and transcribed using the University approved Microsoft 365 Dictate feature, which includes transcription capabilities via Word. The resulting transcripts were reviewed for accuracy and completeness by one author (RW) to ensure data quality. We also reviewed transcripts against written notes made by each focus group to ensure no key concepts were missed.

Transcripts were then imported into NVivo 14 for systematic coding and analysis. We employed a framework analysis approach, beginning with inductive coding. The researcher involved in data coding and analysis [SP] engaged in repeated readings of the transcripts to immerse in the data and identify meaningful content. Idea units with similar or complementary meanings were grouped into broader nodes, which were then synthesised into overarching themes that were mapped onto the components of the COM‐B framework. A detailed summary of the idea units, themes, illustrative quotes (data excerpts), and their alignment with COM‐B domains is available in (Supporting Information: File 1: Table 1 Barrier and COM‐B mapping and Table 2 Enablers and COM‐B mapping). Consistent with the convergent parallel design, the survey and interviews were analysed separately and then merged, with the COM‐B model serving as the shared analytical framework for integration. Integrated findings are reported narratively in the Results and Discussion.

Table 1.

Survey participants' characteristics.

	Australia (n = 43)	New Zealand (n = 4)
Age (mean ± SD)	45.5 ± 9.2	50.5 ± 9.0
Female gender, n (%)	40 (93%)	3 (75%)
States/territories, n (%)	VIC, 28 (65)	AUK, 4 (100)
	NSW, 6 (14)
	QLD, 4 (9)
	SA, 2 (5)
	WA, 2 (5)
	ACT, 1 (2)
	Nursing (n = 42)	Nursing (n = 3)
Position, n (%)	RN, 20 (47)	RN, 2 (50)
	Educator/lecturer, 5 (12)	NP, 1 (25)
	CNC, 4 (9)
	CNS, 4 (9)
	Manager, 4 (9)
	Access coordinator, 2 (5)
	Research nurse, 2 (5)
	NP, 1 (2)
	Allied Health (n = 1)	Allied Health (n = 1)
	Social worker, 1 (2)	Physiologist, 1 (25)
Position/workload includes a research component, n (%)	Yes, 20 (47)	Yes, 2 (50)
	No, 23 (53)	No, 2 (50)
Position/workload includes a quality improvement component, n (%)	Yes, 37 (86)	Yes, 4 (100)
	No, 4 (14)	No, 0

Table 2.

Survey responses: Key barriers and facilitators.

Survey statement	Mean (SD)	Responses %					Categorisation
		1	2	3	4	5
Capability
1. I had received training/education on research	3.4 (1.2)	6.4	23.4	10.6	42.6	17.0	Neutral
2. I had received training/education on quality improvement	3.3 (1.0)	4.3	17.0	34.0	31.9	12.8	Neutral
3. I was confident with different research methodologies consultations	2.9 (1.1)	8.5	31.9	23.4	31.9	4.3	Perceived Barrier
4. I worked in a team that has a capacity in conducting research	3.1 (1.1)	8.5	21.3	25.5	40.4	4.3	Neutral
5. I understand the process of conducting quality improvement project	3.4 (1.0)	4.3	19.2	17.0	55.3	4.3	Neutral
Opportunity
6. I have all the necessary resources to conduct or lead research/quality activities	2.7 (0.9)	10.6	31.9	36.2	21.3	0	Perceived Barrier
7. I have the support I need to conduct or lead research/quality activities	2.9 (1.0)	10.6	25.5	29.8	31.9	2.1	Perceived Barrier
8. I have time within my work to conduct research/quality activities	2.4 (1.0)	17.0	44.7	19.2	19.2	0	Perceived Barrier
9. I could access training and education to facilitate research/quality initiatives	3.6 (0.7)	8.5	27.7	59.6	4.3	0	Neutral
10. There are research/quality activities opportunities available in my current workplace	3.3 (0.9)	2.1	21.3	23.4	48.9	4.3	Neutral
Motivation
11. I understood how research/quality initiatives could help my patients	4.4 (0.5)	0	0	2.1	53.2	44.7	Perceived Facilitator
12. I understood how research/quality initiatives could help my clinical practice	4.3 (0.5)	0	0	2.1	61.7	36.2	Perceived Facilitator
13. I believe research/quality initiatives are crucial to quality patient care	4.6 (0.5)	0	0	0	42.6	57.4	Perceived Facilitator
14. I am encouraged to participate in research/quality activities	3.3 (0.9)	2.1	12.8	51.1	23.4	10.6	Neutral
15. I would like to be involved in future planning of research/quality activities	4.3 (0.5)	0	0	2.1	61.7	36.2	Perceived Facilitator

Investigator triangulation involved all other research members, who reviewed the codes and themes before consensus was reached. Coding discrepancies were discussed within the research team by comparing interpretations against the transcripts and focus group notes and agreeing on the most appropriate COM‐B domain allocation. Formal thematic saturation was not used as a stopping criterion because the workshop format, however, the research team considered whether additional or divergent ideas continued to emerge across the four focus groups during analysis. To address reflexivity, the researchers discussed their backgrounds, biases, experiences and perspectives during the planning phase before the workshop, and these discussions continued during interpretation of the data. The workshop facilitators and coders included clinicians and researchers with experience in nephrology nursing, quality improvement, qualitative research, and the COM‐B framework, providing relevant content and methodological expertise while also requiring reflexive attention to their assumptions and professional positioning.

3. Results

3.1. Participant Characteristic

A total of 28 participants attended the workshop and participated in the focus groups. We did not collect the demographics of the workshop participants. Of the 64 surveys received; 17 were incomplete, leaving 47 for inclusion in the analysis. Most survey participants (91%) were in Australia, Victoria (65%), female (93%), and working as a registered nurse (47%). Almost half (47%) of participants indicated that their position and/or workload includes a research component, and 86% had quality improvement component. Research component was self‐reported and denotes research being formally included in a participant's position description or allocated workload, rather than confirmation that the individual was currently research active. Table 1 presents the survey participants' characteristics.

3.2. Survey Statements

Table 2 presents survey participants' responses, and based on the mean scores, four statements were categorised into perceived barriers, and four were categorised into perceived facilitators.

Most perceived barriers were related to “Opportunity”, including resources (mean: 2.7, SD: 0.9); support (mean: 2.9, SD: 1.0) and time (mean: 2.4, SD: 1.0) to conduct or lead research/quality initiatives. The other one was related to “Capability”, such as confidence with different methodologies (mean: 2.9, SD: 1.1).

All perceived facilitators were related to “Motivation”, including believe research/quality initiatives could help patients (mean: 4.4, SD: 0.5), help clinical practice (mean: 4.3, SD: 0.5), are crucial to quality patient care (mean: 4.6, SD: 0.5), and would like to be involved in future planning of research/quality activities (mean: 4.3, SD: 0.5).

3.3. Semi‐Structured Interview Results

The results of the focus groups identified three main perceived barriers that were related to three elements of COM‐B‐ Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation. The main perceived barriers including knowledge about the research and lack of support and opportunity. The main perceived facilitator included: networking opportunities and valuing research in patients care and career progression. Themes have been mapped against the COM‐B model but are often interlinked.

3.3.1. Barrier 1. Knowledge About the Research Process and Different Methodologies (Capacity)

Participants described a lack of knowledge and awareness about the research process as a major barrier to becoming involved in any research or QI activity. They often felt unsure about how to start or become involved in a research project.

I don't know where to start! You just don't know which one's got the priority or, which one would be worth pursuing?

For many, they were unaware of how to conduct research, particularly developing ideas and formulating research questions.

I don't even know when ethics approval is needed or where to get it from. People talk about ethics, but it feels like a vague process

I know how to do research theoretically… But they don't teach you how to form a team, divide the jobs, bring everything together, and do it practically. Yes, that practical side of research is missing.

Through lack of experience being involved in research, participants expressed a lack of confidence in participating in research or QI projects as they did not know what tools to use to support them or how to develop a study design.

I actually think it's more than just knowing that we don't just have clinical trials to take four years with 500 patients and but you can do those nice little smaller studies and you have access to your patients,… that there are different ways.

3.3.2. Barrier 2 ‐ Lack of Support and Opportunity (Opportunity and Motivation)

Some participants identified the lack of mentorship, supervision and peer support as a barrier to engaging in research and QI projects.

…having people supporting you, having a team behind you. Despite presenting it to the senior staff, to the leaders, people above me, it's like it's falling apart. It's like pulling teeth, isn't it?

Lack of organisational leadership and visibility were also identified as a key barrier to engaging in research and QI projects. They felt that leaders did not actively encourage or prioritise research within the organisation, which contributed to low motivation and limited opportunities for staff to participate in research activities.

I think if you don't have the right leadership to turn to and support you and encourage you to do that as well, then it makes it more difficult.

There is often a lack of support to connect the research findings with actual practice. This makes it less rewarding…. Even if you know how to do research, the bigger challenge is actually using that research to implement changes in practice.

Most of the time, the focus is on things like KPIs and compliance with policies. So, not many people prioritise research.

Most participants identified lack of time as a major barrier to conducting research. They attributed this to heavy clinical workloads, the absence of protected time for research, the time‐intensive nature of obtaining ethical approval, and the additional effort required to engage with other staff and consumers.

I have a colleague who's currently in that programme who cannot get guarded time with all this research. She's meant to be allowed two hours a week and is finding a very hard time kind of trying to justify that time to her manager.

Another big challenge is actually finding the time within your current job because often, they won't give you any extra hours to do research or quality improvement work.

We're so busy managing our everyday responsibilities and meeting social expectations that there's no capacity to build a culture that embraces research and evidence‐based practice—unless we absolutely have to.

3.3.3. Enabler 1: Networking, Collaboration and Organisational Partnership (Opportunity)

Most study participants identified networking, collaboration, and organisational partnerships as key enablers that create opportunities for conducting research and QI projects. They emphasised that professional networks and research committees can offer essential resources, mentorship, and guidance throughout the research process. Engaging with like‐minded peers through these networks was seen as a powerful way to build confidence and momentum in research activities.

I would say one important facilitator is the professional bodies or representative committees we belong to. These organisations provide resources, networking opportunities, collaboration chances, research opportunities, mentorship, and guidance on how to conduct research…

I think research symposium is a really good platform. Every year when I attend, I see people presenting their own research…. That inspires you to think about what you can do in your own work.

A strong culture of teamwork was also identified as a key enabler. Some participants shared that being part of a group with shared interests made it easier to engage in research, as responsibilities could be distributed among team members. They emphasised that this allowed a range of expertise and skill and therefore confidence. This collaborative environment not only reduced the burden on individuals but also inspired greater participation and enthusiasm for research.

Collaboration makes a huge difference. Finding a group interested in a topic means no one has to do 100% of the work, everyone contributes a bit, and together you address a big research gap

In our hospital, we also have great support from the library team… This kind of support is a good way to facilitate research and learning.

3.3.4. Enabler 2: Valuing Research to Improve Outcomes and Career Progression (Motivation)

Some participants said that having a genuine passion for research as a way to improve patient care. Although they saw the barriers to conducting research, they also found their motivation and commitment knowing how important research is to patient care.

I think no one would do things like this without passion or, like, really wanting to do it… if you want to make a change, and you passionate to make that change, that it's a driving force.

Linking research activities to career progression was also reported as a strong motivator for research engagement. Some participants shared that when research contributions are formally recognised as part of career development pathways, they feel more encouraged to participate. Knowing that research efforts could lead to professional growth, advancement, or recognition within their field provided a clear incentive to invest time and energy into research activities.

Another facilitator is also quite the obvious where we all say when you do research you get to climb up to a CNC role… So if career progression is something we're after, the way to it would be completing your project.

4. Discussion

This study used a mixed‐methods convergent parallel design to explore nephrology nurses' and allied health professionals' perspectives on barriers and facilitators to engaging in research and QI. By integrating data from a facilitated workshop discussion and a workshop survey, the findings highlight that research and QI engagement is shaped by multiple interacting factors related to capability, opportunity, and motivation. Our results indicate that limited knowledge about research processes, lack of organisational support, and restricted opportunities to participate in research were key barriers, while networking opportunities and recognising the value of research for patient care and career development acted as important facilitators. Although these themes were mapped against the COM‐B model, participants' experiences suggest that these domains are closely interconnected rather than discrete. Integrating the survey and focus‐group findings showed high motivation scores were mirrored by participants' expressed passion for research and its perceived value for patient care and career progression.

Consistent with the capability domain of the COM‐B framework, participants identified barriers related to research knowledge and skills, including limited familiarity with research processes and low confidence in engaging in research activities. This is consistent with findings from several studies which explored allied health professionals (Angus et al. 2022; Mueller et al. 2025) and nurses and midwives' (Mohamed et al. 2024; Owusu et al. 2025; Mbimbi et al. 2025) participation and utilisation of research. Such findings reflect broader evidence indicating that many clinicians feel underprepared to engage in research because of limited exposure to research training during their professional development. Insufficient research literacy may reduce clinicians' confidence to initiate or contribute to research projects (Hines et al. 2015), thereby limiting the integration of research into clinical practice. Addressing capability barriers may therefore require targeted educational strategies, including interactive or activity‐based research training, mentorship, and opportunities to develop practical research skills within clinical settings.

Opportunity‐related barriers were also prominent in participants' accounts. A lack of organisational support, limited time, and restricted access to research networks were commonly identified challenges that constrained research participation. These findings correspond to the opportunity component of the COM‐B model, which emphasises the importance of environmental and organisational conditions that enable or constrain behaviour. These findings align with those of a systematic review that examined barriers, enablers, and strategies for embedding translational research within a public hospital system, focusing on nursing and allied health disciplines (Smith and Johnson 2023). In busy clinical environments such as nephrology services, competing clinical demands may limit the capacity of clinicians to engage in research activities. Participants' accounts reflected this directly, describing an absence of protected time, difficulty justifying ‘guarded’ research hours to managers, and workplace cultures oriented towards key performance indicators, compliance, and day‐to‐day operations rather than scholarly activity. Considered alongside the clinical pressure and organisational culture already documented in the Australian and New Zealand nephrology nursing workforce (Hill et al. 2023), these conditions may help explain why opportunity‐related barriers were the most strongly endorsed in our survey and the most prominent in the focus‐group discussions. Without dedicated time, resources, or institutional encouragement, research involvement may be perceived as an additional burden rather than an integrated component of professional practice. These findings highlight the importance of organisational structures that support research engagement, including leadership support, access to research infrastructure, and protected time for research‐related activities.

Motivational factors also played a key role in shaping participants' willingness to engage in research. Participants emphasised that recognising the value of research for improving patient outcomes and supporting career development increased their motivation to participate in research activities. These findings reflect the motivation domain of the COM‐B model, which highlights the influence of beliefs, values, and professional aspirations on behaviour. When clinicians perceive research as directly relevant to patient care and professional advancement, they may be more likely to view research engagement as meaningful and worthwhile. This is supported by previous studies among health professionals (D'arrietta et al. 2024; D'Arrietta et al. 2025), which examined factors influencing motivation to engage in research. Facilitators such as research training have been shown to build confidence (D'arrietta et al. 2022a; Matus et al. 2018); however, fostering motivation for the uptake and sustained engagement in research requires educators to help novice clinician researchers recognise the intrinsic and attainment value of research as they progress through their career pathway.

Importantly, our findings suggest that the domains of capability, opportunity, and motivation are closely interrelated. For example, improved research knowledge may increase clinicians' confidence and motivation to engage in research, while organisational support and networking opportunities may enhance both capability development and sustained motivation (D'arrietta et al. 2022b). This interconnectedness reflects the theoretical premise of the COM‐B model that behaviour change emerges through dynamic interactions between these domains. Interventions designed to increase research engagement may therefore be most effective when they address multiple components simultaneously. While these patterns are consistent with the broader research‐engagement literature in nursing and allied health, this study adds nephrology‐specific evidence and, by mapping barriers and enablers onto a single behaviour‐change framework, pinpoints where targeted strategies are most likely to shift engagement. Consistent with recent recommendations for nurse‐led kidney research (Baillie et al. 2025), embedding research roles, structured mentorship through professional societies such as the RSA, and protected time may help convert the strong motivation observed here into sustained, clinician‐led nephrology research.

4.1. Clinical Implications

These findings have several implications for strengthening research capacity within nephrology practice. Strategies that combine research education, mentorship, and networking opportunities may help develop clinicians' research capability while also fostering motivation and collaboration. At an organisational level, embedding research within clinical roles, providing protected time for research activities, and promoting supportive leadership may help create an environment where research participation is both feasible and valued. Strengthening research engagement is also likely to benefit patients directly, as health organisations and clinical teams that actively participate in research tend to deliver improved processes of care and patient outcomes (Boaz et al. 2024). Building on these findings, we suggest three practical directions: for practice, embedding protected research time, mentorship, and accessible ethics and methods support within nephrology nursing and allied health roles; for policy, formal recognition of research and QI activity within career pathways and workforce planning by health services and professional societies; and for research, further multisite studies that collect participant demographics and evaluate targeted, COM‐B‐informed capacity‐building interventions.

4.2. Strengths and Limitations

This study has several strengths. The use of a mixed‐methods convergent design enabled the integration of qualitative and quantitative insights, providing a more comprehensive understanding of participants' perspectives. In addition, the inclusion of both nurses and allied health professionals allowed for multidisciplinary perspectives on research engagement within nephrology care. However, several limitations should be considered. Workshop participants may have had a pre‐existing interest in research, which could influence the perspectives reported. We also did not collect workshop participant demographics. The majority of the workshop participants were nurses. Furthermore, the findings may not be fully generalisable beyond nephrology settings or the participating organisations. Because participants were recruited through the RSA and a conference research workshop, they are likely to have held a stronger pre‐existing interest in research than the wider nephrology workforce, which may have contributed to the uniformly high motivation scores and limits the transferability of the findings. The absence of demographic data for the workshop participants further constrains our ability to judge how representative the qualitative sample was, or whether particular professional groups were over‐ or under‐represented. In addition, the survey was developed for this study and checked for readability but did not undergo formal validity or reliability testing, so the quantitative findings should be interpreted as indicative rather than psychometrically robust.

In conclusion, research engagement among nephrology nurses and allied health professionals is influenced by interacting factors related to capability, opportunity, and motivation. Addressing knowledge gaps, strengthening organisational support, and fostering a research culture that values collaboration and professional development may help enhance clinician participation in research and ultimately support evidence‐informed nephrology care.

Author Contributions

Rachael C. Walker and Ginger Chu: conceptualisation, methodology, data curation, writing – original draft preparation, reviewing and editing. Edward Zimbudzi and Ronald L. Castelino: conceptualisation, methodology, data curation, reviewing and editing. Sangeeta Paudyal: analysed the data, helped to draft manuscript and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

The authors have nothing to report.

Ethics Statement

Ethics approval was granted by Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee, Project ID: 47132.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supporting information

Supporting File

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.