Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40826082›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2025

The benefits for health care staff of involvement in applied health research: a scoping review.

Andria Hanbury, Emily Parker, Rebecca Lawton, Jayne Marran, Jane Schofield, Laurie Cave, Lynn McVey, Emma Eyers, Peter Van der Graaf, Roman Kislov

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Clinical research is not an optional extra.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Andria HanburyBradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford, England. andria.hanbury@bthft.nhs.uk.
Emily ParkerUniversity of Leeds and Department of Health and Social Care, London, UK.
Rebecca LawtonUniversity of Leeds and Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford, England.
Jayne MarranBradford Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, England.
Jane SchofieldBradford Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, England.
Laurie CaveUniversity of Leeds, Leeds, England.
Lynn McVeyBradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford, England. lynn.mcvey@bthft.nhs.uk.
Emma EyersBradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford, England. emma.eyers@bthft.nhs.uk.
Peter Van der GraafNorthumbria University, Newcastle, England.
Roman KislovManchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, England.

Funding

National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Yorkshire and Humber NIHR 200166
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInitiatives are increasingly encouraging health and social care staff involvement in research, with evidence for patient and organisational level benefits. There is less evidence of the benefits for staff and whether this varies by type of involvement. This scoping review aimed to identify the different ways staff are involved in applied health research, the benefits experienced, and whether this varies by type of involvement. This will help to inform leaders in service organisations, funders, and researchers about how to maximise such benefits.

methodsThe scoping review followed the JBI methodology. Four databases were searched: CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Scopus. Grey literature was identified via Google, Google Scholar and relevant websites. Records had to be UK-based, published in English between 2003 and 2023 and cover applied health and care research, health care staff involvement and report on benefits. Text was extracted from records, coded afterwards, and quality checked. The benefits were distilled by four research active health care staff. Descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis were used to report the results.

findingsIn total, 49 records were reviewed, 42 records were from the database search and 7 from the grey literature search. Records were most commonly journal articles (n = 44), covering multiple care settings (n = 15) and mixed professional groups (n = 24), used qualitative methods (n = 22) and focussed on clinical academic roles (n = 21). Six benefits of involvement in research were distilled: personal fulfilment, general competencies/skills, connections/networks, opportunities for learning, opportunities for leading improvements in practice, and using evidence more effectively. Records that focussed on the more intensive clinical academic roles reported more examples of opportunities for leading improvements in practice, and the building of connections and social support. Non-clinical academic records more frequently reported that involvement in research provided opportunities for learning.

conclusionsThese findings support efforts to involve staff in research, with a range of benefits associated with enhanced job satisfaction, even when research involvement is in a less intense form, such as participation in a study. These findings can be used to encourage involvement, with recommendations for future research to review the benefits for social care staff, and to examine more directly the effect on staff wellbeing and retention.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelHealth Services ResearchHumansUnited KingdomBenefitsHealth care staffResearch involvement

Identifiers

PMID40826082
PMCPMC12359832

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.