Stakeholders' interpretations and responses to research as a feature of advanced practice: A scoping review.

Background: Although clinical practice has been prioritised and operationalised globally, research activities remain underdeveloped and inconsistently supported in advanced practice roles. A focus on clinical tasks limits the growth of advanced practitioners as research leaders, negatively impacting job satisfaction, retention, and progression into consultant-level practice. Stakeholder attitudes and actions are central to shaping advanced practitioners' engagement with research and their professional development. However, the interpretation and response to research as a core component remain poorly understood. This knowledge gap risks ineffective efforts to strengthen the research pillar of advanced practice, highlighting the need to better understand stakeholder perspectives to integrate research more effectively into advanced practice. Objective: This scoping review aims to map how stakeholders interpret and respond to research within advanced practice and identify gaps in the conceptual, methodological, and theoretical aspects of the literature. Information Sources: A systematic search was conducted in CINAHL, MEDLINE, and the British Nursing Database, focusing on English-language literature published between 2013 and 2025. Methods: Following the Joanna Briggs Institute method for scoping reviews and informed by the Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for Practice, and Research Recommendations framework, data were extracted, analysed, and synthesised. Data were presented in tabular form and supplemented with a narrative synthesis. Results: The findings were mapped into four categories: 1) Research as a Role Expectation, 2) Contextual Factors Shaping Research, 3) Educational Preparation for Research, and 4) Interventions Supporting Research. While research is an expected feature of advanced practice, its engagement is often hindered by time constraints, heavy clinical workloads, lack of leadership, insufficient education, and limited clinical-academic collaboration. Research activities are commonly assessed using traditional metrics, such as publications, while neglecting 'soft' outcomes, including increased confidence, skill development, and influence on team culture. Furthermore, many studies lacked theoretical frameworks, limiting their explanatory power. Conclusions: Research appears underdeveloped but is narrowly defined in advanced practice, often measured by traditional outputs rather than processes and impacts on learning and development. This review highlights the need for a comprehensive, theory-informed approach to understanding research in advanced practice. Such insights are crucial for shaping educational curricula, professional development, and organisational strategies to better support advanced practitioners as leaders and contributors to healthcare innovation.The EQUATOR guidelines for the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews have been met.There was no patient or public contribution to report for this scoping review.