Table 1 Review inclusion and exclusion criteria

Non-medical healthcare professionals

This included: nurses; midwives; allied health professionals (art therapists, dietitians, drama therapists, music therapists, occupational therapists, orthoptists, operating department practitioners, osteopaths, podiatrists, prosthetists/orthotists, paramedics, physiotherapists, radiographers, and speech and language therapists); clinical psychologists; healthcare scientists and pharmacists. Assistants, technicians and support workers for these professions were also included.

Doctors and dentists

Mixed research teams involving medical and non-medical healthcare professionals were excluded unless data were reported separately for the non-medical healthcare professionals.

Clinical academic activity

Involvement of practising clinicians in clinical research. This included specific research roles, protected research time and other opportunities to be involved in research.

Audit and service evaluation

Both are routinely required components of clinical roles and were therefore not defined as clinical academic activity.

Pure academic or educational research

Research based in a higher education institute without impact on healthcare organisations or the staff working in these organisation.

Impact of clinical academic activity

The types of impact were not pre-defined and could include the assessment of clinical, economic, workforce or other outcomes that were attributed to the clinical academic activity.

Report clinical research outcomes only

Studies reporting the outcome of clinical research questions, rather than the impact of the research activity, were excluded.

Studies reporting quantitative and/or qualitative primary data and systematic reviews

Where eligible systematic reviews were identified, their primary papers were included and screened separately.

Opinion pieces and non-systematic reviews of the literature

Published after 2000

To identify the impact of clinical academic activity in the context of current and recent past practice, the review was restricted to the past 20 years.

Published before 2000

Due to rapidly evolving healthcare environments, it was felt that such articles would not represent current practice.