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.

中文翻译：

---

学术研究人员的从业者参与：护理、助产和治疗专业文献的范围审查。

背景 学术研究人员在研究过程中参与一线从业者被认为有助于缩小研究实践差距。然而，对于学术研究人员是否以及如何让护士、助产士或治疗师参与研究活动，或者证据是否支持这些积极影响的说法，我们知之甚少。方法 使用 Arksey 和 O'Malley (2005) 框架进行范围界定审查，以确定文献中考虑这种现象的程度。结果 在 CINAHL、Pubmed、Medline 和 Embase 中进行的迭代搜索检索了 2000 年至 2017 年发表的 32 篇相关论文，其中大部分是最近 2 年发表的。保留的论文描述或评估了护理、助产、除了作为研究参与者之外，研究项目的至少一个阶段的治疗学科。参与最常发生在一项研究活动中，在整个研究过程中参与的例子很少。观察到用于描述研究人员从业者参与的术语的理论和变化的使用有限。从业者经验的主观视角以及对挑战和收益的关注是最突出的报告结果。很少有人尝试建立可以支持从业者参与可以增强研究结果的使用或影响健康结果的说法的效果。结论 建议通过发展指导理论、建立一致的术语、