Scoping studies: advancing the methodology

Abstract Background Scoping studies are an increasingly popular approach to reviewing health research evidence. In 2005, Arksey and O'Malley published the first methodological framework for conducting scoping studies. While this framework provides an excellent foundation for scoping study methodology, further clarifying and enhancing this framework will help support the consistency with which authors undertake and report scoping studies and may encourage researchers and clinicians to engage in this process. Discussion We build upon our experiences conducting three scoping studies using the Arksey and O'Malley methodology to propose recommendations that clarify and enhance each stage of the framework. Recommendations include: clarifying and linking the purpose and research question (stage one); balancing feasibility with breadth and comprehensiveness of the scoping process (stage two); using an iterative team approach to selecting studies (stage three) and extracting data (stage four); incorporating a numerical summary and qualitative thematic analysis, reporting results, and considering the implications of study findings to policy, practice, or research (stage five); and incorporating consultation with stakeholders as a required knowledge translation component of scoping study methodology (stage six). Lastly, we propose additional considerations for scoping study methodology in order to support the advancement, application and relevance of scoping studies in health research. Summary Specific recommendations to clarify and enhance this methodology are outlined for each stage of the Arksey and O'Malley framework. Continued debate and development about scoping study methodology will help to maximize the usefulness and rigor of scoping study findings within healthcare research and practice

Assessing Communities of Practice in health policy : A conceptual framework as a first step towards empirical research

Peer reviewe

Quality of life among parents of preterm infants: a scoping review

Purpose: To synthesize the body of knowledge on the factors influencing the QoL of mothers and fathers of preterm infants. Methods: A scoping review was performed. Publications indexed in PubMed®, Web of Science™, CINAHL® and PsycINFO® were searched, targeting studies presenting original empirical data that examined parental perception on QoL after a preterm delivery. Eligibility and data extraction were conducted by two independent researchers. The main quantitative findings were synthesized and qualitative data were explored by content analysis. Results: The studies, 11 quantitative and 1 mixed methods, were derived mainly from the USA (n = 6). Heterogeneity across the studies was observed regarding the operationalization of QoL and the use of units of analysis (mothers, parents, families and caregivers). In a context where 40 out of 45 covariates were analysed by only one or two studies, results suggested that parental QoL after a preterm delivery is influenced by factors related with mother’s characteristics, family issues and health care environment rather than infants’ variables. Factors regarding fathers’ characteristics and structural levels were not addressed. Conclusions: Standardizing the operationalization of the QoL when analysing mothers and fathers of preterm infants calls for a structured questionnaire adapted to their specific needs. Further research should include both mothers and fathers, invest in mixed methods approaches and be performed in different countries and settings for allowing integration and comparison of findings.This work was supported by FEDER funding from the Operational Programme Factors of Competitiveness—COMPETE and by national funding from the Foundation for Science and Technology—FCT (Portuguese Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education) under the project “Parenting roles and knowledge in Neonatal Intensive Care Units” (FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-019902; Ref. FCT PTDC/CS-ECS/120750/2010) and the Unidade de Investigação em Epidemiologia—Instituto de Saúde Pública da Universidade do Porto (EPIUnit) (POCI-01-0145-FEDER-006862; Ref. UID/DTP/04750/2013); the grants PD/BD/105830/2014 (to MA), SFRH/BPD/103562/2014 (to EA), co-funded by the FCT and the POPH/FSE Program and the FCT Investigator contract IF/01674/2015 (to SS)

Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews:a scoping review

Abstract Background There is increasing recognition that it is good practice to involve stakeholders (meaning patients, the public, health professionals and others) in systematic reviews, but limited evidence about how best to do this. We aimed to document the evidence-base relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews and to use this evidence to describe how stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews. Methods We carried out a scoping review, following a published protocol. We searched multiple electronic databases (2010–2016), using a stepwise searching approach, supplemented with hand searching. Two authors independently screened and discussed the first 500 abstracts and, after clarifying selection criteria, screened a further 500. Agreement on screening decisions was 97%, so screening was done by one reviewer only. Pre-planned data extraction was completed, and the comprehensiveness of the description of methods of involvement judged. Additional data extraction was completed for papers judged to have most comprehensive descriptions. Three stakeholder representatives were co-authors for this systematic review. Results We included 291 papers in which stakeholders were involved in a systematic review. Thirty percent involved patients and/or carers. Thirty-two percent were from the USA, 26% from the UK and 10% from Canada. Ten percent (32 reviews) were judged to provide a comprehensive description of methods of involving stakeholders. Sixty-nine percent (22/32) personally invited people to be involved; 22% (7/32) advertised opportunities to the general population. Eighty-one percent (26/32) had between 1 and 20 face-to-face meetings, with 83% of these holding ≤ 4 meetings. Meetings lasted 1 h to ½ day. Nineteen percent (6/32) used a Delphi method, most often involving three electronic rounds. Details of ethical approval were reported by 10/32. Expenses were reported to be paid to people involved in 8/32 systematic reviews. Discussion/conclusion We identified a relatively large number (291) of papers reporting stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews, but the quality of reporting was generally very poor. Information from a subset of papers judged to provide the best descriptions of stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews provide examples of different ways in which stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews. These examples arguably currently provide the best available information to inform and guide decisions around the planning of stakeholder involvement within future systematic reviews. This evidence has been used to develop online learning resources. Systematic review registration The protocol for this systematic review was published on 21 April 2017. Publication reference: Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, Goodare H, Watts C, Morley R: Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a protocol for a systematic review of methods, outcomes and effects. Research Involvement and Engagement 2017, 3:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0060-4

Comorbidity and dementia: a scoping review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that amongst people with dementia there is a high prevalence of comorbid medical conditions and related complaints. The presence of dementia may complicate clinical care for other conditions and undermine a patient's ability to manage a chronic condition. The aim of this study was to scope the extent, range and nature of research activity around dementia and comorbidity. METHODS: We undertook a scoping review including all types of research relating to the prevalence of comorbidities in people with dementia; current systems, structures and other issues relating to service organisation and delivery; patient and carer experiences; and the experiences and attitudes of service providers. We searched AMED, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PubMed, NHS Evidence, Scopus, Google Scholar (searched 2012, Pubmed updated 2013), checked reference lists and performed citation searches on PubMed and Google Scholar (ongoing to February 2014). RESULTS: We included 54 primary studies, eight reviews and three guidelines. Much of the available literature relates to the prevalence of comorbidities in people with dementia or issues around quality of care. Less is known about service organisation and delivery or the views and experiences of people with dementia and their family carers. There is some evidence that people with dementia did not have the same access to treatment and monitoring for conditions such as visual impairment and diabetes as those with similar comorbidities but without dementia. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of comorbid conditions in people with dementia is high. Whilst current evidence suggests that people with dementia may have poorer access to services the reasons for this are not clear. There is a need for more research looking at the ways in which having dementia impacts on clinical care for other conditions and how the process of care and different services are adapting to the needs of people with dementia and comorbidity. People with dementia should be included in the debate about the management of comorbidities in older populations and there needs to be greater consideration given to including them in studies that focus on age-related healthcare issues

A scoping study of interventions to increase the uptake of physical activity (PA) amongst individuals with mild-to-moderate depression (MMD)

Background - Depression is the largest contributor to disease burden globally. The evidence favouring physical activity as a treatment for mild-to-moderate depression is extensive and relatively uncontested. It is unclear, however, how to increase an uptake of physical activity amongst individuals experiencing mild-to-moderate depression. This leaves professionals with no guidance on how to help people experiencing mild-to-moderate depression to take up physical activity. The purpose of this study was to scope the evidence on interventions to increase the uptake of physical activity amongst individuals experiencing mild-to-moderate depression, and to develop a model of the mechanisms by which they are hypothesised to work. Methods - A scoping study was designed to include a review of primary studies, grey literature and six consultation exercises; two with individuals with experience of depression, two pre-project consultations with physical activity, mental health and literature review experts, one with public health experts, and one with community engagement experts. Results - Ten papers met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Consultation exercises provided insights into the mechanisms of an uptake of physical activity amongst individuals experiencing mild-to-moderate depression; evidence concerning those mechanisms is (a) fragmented in terms of design and purpose; (b) of varied quality; (c) rarely explicit about the mechanisms through which the interventions are thought to work. Physical, environmental and social factors that may represent mediating variables in the uptake of physical activity amongst people experiencing mild-to-moderate depression are largely absent from studies. Conclusions - An explanatory model was developed. This represents mild-to-moderate depression as interfering with (a) the motivation to take part in physical activity and (b) the volition that it is required to take part in physical activity. Therefore, both motivational and volitional elements are important in any intervention to increase physical activity in people with mild-to-moderate depression. Furthermore, mild-to-moderate depression-specific factors need to be tackled in any physical activity initiative, via psychological treatments such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. We argu

Physiotherapy students' perspectives of online e-learning for interdisciplinary management of chronic health conditions: A qualitative study

© 2016 Gardner et al. Background: To qualitatively explore physiotherapy students' perceptions of online e-learning for chronic disease management using a previously developed, innovative and interactive, evidence-based, e-learning package: Rheumatoid Arthritis for Physiotherapists e-Learning (RAP-eL). Methods: Physiotherapy students participated in three focus groups in Perth, Western Australia. Purposive sampling was employed to ensure maximum heterogeneity across age, gender and educational background. To explore students' perspectives on the advantages and disadvantages of online e-learning, ways to enhance e-learning, and information/learning gaps in relation to interdisciplinary management of chronic health conditions, a semi-structured interview schedule was developed. Verbatim transcripts were analysed using inductive methods within a grounded theory approach to derive key themes. Results: Twenty-three students (78 % female; 39 % with previous tertiary qualification) of mean (SD) age 23 (3.6) years participated. Students expressed a preference for a combination of both online e-learning and lecture-style learning formats for chronic disease management, citing flexibility to work at one's own pace and time, and access to comprehensive information as advantages of e-learning learning. Personal interaction and ability to clarify information immediately were considered advantages of lecture-style formats. Perceived knowledge gaps included practical application of interdisciplinary approaches to chronic disease management and developing and implementing physiotherapy management plans for people with chronic health conditions. Conclusions: Physiotherapy students preferred multi-modal and blended formats for learning about chronic disease management. This study highlights the need for further development of practically-oriented knowledge and skills related to interdisciplinary care for people with chronic conditions among physiotherapy students. While RAP-eL focuses on rheumatoid arthritis, the principles of learning apply to the broader context of chronic disease management

Communication about genetic testing with breast and ovarian cancer patients: a scoping review

© 2018, The Author(s). Genetic testing of patients with cancer is increasingly offered to guide management, resulting in a growing need for oncology health professionals to communicate genetics information and facilitate informed decision-making in a short time frame. This scoping review aimed to map and synthesise what is known about health professionals’ communication about genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer with cancer patients. Four databases were systematically searched using a recognised scoping review method. Areas and types of research were mapped and a narrative synthesis of the findings was undertaken. Twenty-nine papers from 25 studies were included. Studies were identified about (i) information needs, (ii) process and content of genetic counselling, (iii) cognitive and emotional impact, including risk perception and recall, understanding and interpretation of genetic test results, and anxiety and distress, (iv) patients’ experiences, (v) communication shortly after diagnosis and (vi) alternatives to face-to-face genetic counselling. Patients’ need for cancer-focused, personalised information is not always met by genetic counselling. Genetic counselling tends to focus on biomedical information at the expense of psychological support. For most patients, knowledge is increased and anxiety is not raised by pre-test communication. However, some patients experience anxiety and distress when results are disclosed, particularly those tested shortly after diagnosis who are unprepared or unsupported. For many patients, pre-test communication by methods other than face-to-face genetic counselling is acceptable. Research is needed to identify patients who may benefit from genetic counselling and support and to investigate communication about hereditary breast and ovarian cancer by oncology health professionals