Researcher practitioner engagement in health research: The development of a new concept.

The engagement of frontline practitioners in the production of research-derived knowledge is often advocated. Doing so can address perceived gaps between what is known from research and what happens in clinical practice. Engagement practices span a continuum, from co-production approaches underpinned by principles of equality and power sharing to those which can minimalize practitioners' contributions to the knowledge production process. We observed a conceptual gap in published healthcare literature that labels or defines practitioners' meaningful contribution to the research process. We, therefore, aimed to develop the concept of "Researcher Practitioner Engagement" in the context of academically initiated healthcare research in the professions of nursing, midwifery, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, and speech and language therapy. Guided by Schwartz-Barcott et al.'s hybrid model of concept development, published examples were analyzed to establish the attributes, antecedents, and consequences of this type of engagement. Academic researchers (n = 17) and frontline practitioners (n = 8) with relevant experience took part in online focus groups to confirm, eliminate, or elaborate on these proposed concept components. Combined analysis of theoretical and focus group data showed that the essence of this form of engagement is that practitioners' clinical knowledge is valued from a study's formative stages. The practitioner's clinical perspectives inform problem-solving and decision-making in study activities and enhance the professional and practice relevance of a study. The conceptual model produced from the study findings forms a basis to guide engagement practices, future concept testing, and empirical evaluation of engagement practices.

Perspectives on reporting non-verbal interactions from the contemporary research focus group.

BACKGROUND: The main defining attribute that delineates focus groups from other methods of collecting data is that data are generated through participants communicating with each other rather than solely with the group moderator. The way in which interactions take place across group interviews and focus groups varies, yet both are referred to as focus groups, resulting in a broad umbrella term for its numerous manifestations. AIM: To reflect on how focus groups are adopted and reported, including the use of the term 'focus group'. DISCUSSION: The authors recognise that the term 'focus group' is sometimes used synonymously with 'group interview' but argue that this practice must be challenged. They suggest using terms that indicate the type of space and synchronicity of the focus group, prefixed with 'in-person' or 'conventional' to identify traditional focus groups. They also suggest separating virtual group interviews into 'synchronous' and 'asynchronous', based on whether the participants and researchers can engage with each other in real time. CONCLUSION: There is a need for qualitative researchers to reach a consensus about the nature of focus groups and group interviews, as well as where their differences and similarities lie. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The authors hope to encourage nurse researchers to think about these issues when labelling, planning, analysing and reporting studies involving focus groups.

Practitioner Engagement by Academic Researchers: A Scoping Review of Nursing, Midwifery, and Therapy Professions Literature.

BACKGROUND: Engagement of frontline practitioners by academic researchers in the research process is believed to afford benefits toward closing the research practice gap. However, little is known about if and how academic researchers engage nurses, midwives, or therapists in research activities or if evidence supports these claims of positive impact. METHOD: A scoping review was undertaken using the Arksey and O'Malley (2005) framework to identify the extent to which this phenomenon has been considered in the literature. RESULTS: An iterative search carried out in CINAHL, Pubmed, Medline, and Embase retrieved 32 relevant papers published 2000 to 2017, with the majority from the last 2-years. Retained papers described or evaluated active engagement of a practitioner from nursing, midwifery, and therapy disciplines in at least one stage of a research project other than as a study participant. Engagement most often took place in one research activity with few examples of engagement throughout the research process. Limited use of theory and variations in terms used to describe practitioner engagement by researchers was observed. Subjective perspectives of practitioners' experiences and a focus on challenges and benefits were the most prominently reported outcomes. Few attempts were found to establish effects which could support claims that practitioner engagement can enhance the use of findings or impact health outcomes. CONCLUSION: It is recommended that a culture of practitioner engagement is cultivated by developing guiding theory, establishing consistent terminology, and building an evidence base through empirical evaluations which provide objective data to support claims that this activity can positively influence the research practice gap.