The concept of ‘Researcher Practitioner Engagement’ in healthcare research Authors: Nikki Daniels, PhD Researcher, Ulster University Contact: daniels-n@ulster.ac.uk Dr. Patricia Gillen, Head of R & D for Nurses, Midwives and AHPs, Southern HSC Trust/Lecturer, Dr. Karen Casson, Lecturer, Institute of Nursing and Health Research, Ulster University @nikkidanielsOT This is a DEL funded study Background Method Engagement between those who produce research (academic researchers) and those who use research in practice (frontline practitioners) is widely advocated across health care disciplines as a mechanism to bridge the research practice gap. Collaboration during research formulation and design can identify the knowledge needs of health professionals (Pentland et al. 2011) and is considered an important requirement to produce clinically relevant, useful and practicable new knowledge (Bowen and Graham 2013). It is unclear if academic researchers do indeed engage frontline practitioners in their research endeavours. To explore this further, this study began with a scoping review of nursing, midwifery and therapies literature to identify how academic researchers engage with frontline practitioners. Review of 32 papers showed wide variability in engagement activity and limited evidence on which to base this practice or support claims of positive impact on the research practice gap. Key findings from this scoping review were: wide variation and inconsistency in the terminology used to describe this activity variability in the stages of the research process in which practitioners are engaged limited and inconsistent use of theoretical positions to guide engagement practices Ambiguity and limited attention given specifically to this practice means further research is required to build a theoretical and evidence base which can support and guide academic researchers to engage practitioners in the research process to achieve the outcomes required to bridge the research practice gap. This can begin by proposing a term to represent this practice and clarifying a definition to develop understanding of this phenomena. A hybrid of concept analysis frameworks was used to meet the aim of this study (Rodgers 2000; Schwartz-Barcott and Kim 2000). The framework is comprised of a theoretical stage (Stage 1) and a fieldwork stage (Stage 2); the process and outcome of the theoretical stage is presented below. Step 1 Identify concept Identify any surrogate terms   Researcher Practitioner Engagement (RPE) engage, involve, participate, collaborate, partner Step 2 Setting: Nursing, midwifery, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, speech and language therapy practice Databases: CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsychInfo, Web of Science (2000 to 2017) Adjunct search using key words to represent: engagement (engage* OR involve* OR participat* OR collaborat* OR partner* OR co-produc* OR co-creat* integrated knowledge translation) practitioner (nurs*, midwi*, therap*, practitioner*, clinician*, stakeholder*, knowledge user*) researcher   Identify setting and sample Collect data to identify antecedents, attributes and consequences Titles and abstracts were reviewed to answer the questions: What are the events that are necessary prior to RPE? (antecedents) What characteristics make it possible to identify that a situation can be categorised as RPE? (attributes) What are the outcomes brought about by RPE? (consequences) Purpose Step 3 Analyse data to determine antecedents, attributes, consequences and a tentative definition 982 titles and abstracts were screened and 375 full papers reviewed. 14 papers thematically analysed which evaluated (n=9) or described (n=5) the requirements or outcomes of engagement of practitioners by academics in the research process; nursing (n=8), occupational therapy (n=3), midwifery (n=1) , mixed disciplines (n=2). To propose and clarify the concept of ‘Researcher Practitioner Engagement’ (RPE) in the context of nursing, midwifery and therapies research by distinguishing the defining attributes, antecedents and consequences and offering a tentative definition using a concept analysis framework. Findings 1. Potential barriers addressed 2. Organisational support 3. Relevant practitioner characteristics (attitude, skills, knowledge, relevant topic) 1. Collaborative relationship (mutual respect, shared goals, equality) 2. Use of activities to enhance relevance and rigour of findings 1. Practice changes 2. Changes to study conduct 3. Integration of research & practice 4. Practitioner development 5. Researcher’s understanding Attributes Consequences Antecedents Tentative definition of ‘Researcher Practitioner Engagement’ (RPE): “a process by which a researcher establishes, builds and strengthens a collaborative relationship to enable a practitioner to make meaningful contributions to the research process through the use of activities to enhance rigour and relevance of findings” Implications and future considerations A relatively small number of publications were available to enable the theoretical stage (Stage 1) of this concept analysis to be carried out. In line with the concept analysis framework, the fieldwork stage (Stage 2) will now be carried out. The antecedents, attributes, consequences and tentative definition will be presented to academic researchers and frontline practitioners with experience of this concept and discussed in online focus groups. The data from both stages will be combined and the features and definition of ‘Researcher Practitioner Engagement’ refined accordingly. By clarifying this concept, a common perception and understanding of ‘Researcher Practitioner Engagement’ can be developed to create a culture from which further evidence can be derived. References Bowen, S.J. and Graham, I.D. (2013) From knowledge translation to engaged scholarship: Promoting research relevance and utilization. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 94(1 SUPPL). Pentland, D., Forsyth, K., MacIver, D., Walsh, M., Murray, R., Irvine, L. and Sikora, S. (2011) Key characteristics of knowledge transfer and exchange in healthcare: integrative literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 67(7), pp.1408-1425. Rodgers, B. (2000) Philosophical foundations of concept development Chapter 1 IN Rodgers B. & Knafl K. (2000) Concept Development in Nursing: Foundations, Techniques and Applications 2nd ed WB Saunders Philadelphia Schwartz-Barcott D. and Kim H. (2000) An Expansion and Elaboration of the Hybrid Model of Concept Development Chapter 9 IN Rodgers B. & Knafl K. (2000) Concept Development in Nursing: Foundations, Techniques and Applications 2nd ed WB Saunders Philadelphia ulster.ac.uk