Search

Scoping reviewers often face challenges in the extraction, analysis, and presentation of scoping review results. Using best-practice examples and drawing on the expertise of the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group and an editor of a journal that publishes scoping reviews, this paper expands on existing JBI scoping review guidance. The aim of this article is to clarify the process of extracting data from different sources of evidence; discuss what data should be extracted (and what should not); outline how to analyze extracted data, including an explanation of basic qualitative content analysis; and offer suggestions for the presentation of results in scoping reviews. Refereed/Peer-reviewed

The objective of this scoping review was to explore how absorptive capacity has been conceptualized and measured in studies of innovation adoption in health care organizations.Current literature highlights the need to incorporate knowledge translation processes at the organizational and system level to enhance the adoption of new knowledge into practice. Absorptive capacity is a set of routines and processes characterized by knowledge acquisition, assimilation, transformation, and application. Absorptive capacity, a key concept in organizational learning theory, is thought to be critical to the adoption of new knowledge and innovations in organizations. To understand how absorptive capacity was conceptualized and measured in health care organizations, it was appropriate to conduct a scoping review to answer our research question.This scoping review included published and unpublished primary studies (ie, experimental, quasi-experimental, observational, and qualitative study designs), as well as reviews that broadly focused on the adoption of innovations at the organizational level in health care, and framed innovation adoption as processes that rely on organizational learning and absorptive or learning capacity.Searches included electronic databases (eg, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus) and gray literature, as well as reference scanning of relevant studies. Study abstracts and full texts were screened for eligibility by two independent reviewers. Data extraction of relevant studies was also done independently by two reviewers. All discrepancies were addressed through discussion or adjudicated by a third reviewer. Synthesis of the extracted data focused on descriptive frequencies and counts of the results. This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR).The search strategies identified a total of 7433 citations. Sixteen papers were identified for inclusion, including a set of two companion papers, and data were extracted from 15 studies. We synthesized the objectives of the included studies and identified that researchers focused on at least one of the following aspects: i) exploring pre-existing capacity that affects improvement and innovation in health care settings; ii) describing factors influencing the spread and sustainability of organizations; iii) identifying measures and testing the knowledge application process; and iv) providing construct clarity. No new definitions were identified within this review; instead existing definitions were refined to suit the local context of the health care organization in which they were used.Given the rapidly changing and evolving nature of health care, it is important to understand both current best practices and an organization's ability to acquire, assimilate, transform, and apply these practices to their specific organization. While much research has gone into developing ways to implement knowledge translation, understanding an organization's internal structures and framework for seeking out and implementing new evidence as it relates to absorptive capacity is still a relatively novel concept.

The objective of this scoping review is to identify evidence synthesis types and previously proposed classification systems, typologies, or taxonomies that have guided evidence synthesis.Evidence synthesis is a constantly evolving field. There is now a plethora of evidence synthesis approaches used across many different disciplines. Historically, there have been numerous attempts to organize the types and methods of evidence synthesis in the form of classification systems, typologies, or taxonomies. This scoping review will seek to identify all the available classification systems, typologies, or taxonomies; how they were developed; their characteristics; and the types of evidence syntheses included within them.This scoping review will include discussion papers, commentaries, books, editorials, manuals, handbooks, and guidance from major organizations that describe multiple approaches to evidence synthesis in any discipline.The Evidence Synthesis Taxonomy Initiative will support this scoping review. The search strategy will aim to locate both published and unpublished documents utilizing a three-step search strategy. An exploratory search of MEDLINE (Ovid) has identified keywords and MeSH terms. A second search of MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Elsevier), CINAHL with Full Text (EBSCO), ERIC (EBSCO), Scopus (Elsevier), Compendex (Elsevier), and JSTOR will be conducted. Relevant evidence synthesis organizations will be searched. Identified documents will be independently screened, selected, and extracted by two researchers, and the data will be presented in tables and summarized descriptively.OSF https://osf.io/qwc27.

The objective of this scoping review is to map the current evidence about access to health and social services for women living on a low income in Canada.Women, especially those living on a low income, are disproportionately likely to suffer inequities in access to health and social services. There is insufficient understanding of how the interaction of socioeconomic factors and gender can affect women's access to these services. This review will provide an initial picture of what exists in the literature about access to health and social services for women living on a low income in Canada. The results of this scoping review may be used to inform subsequent qualitative and quantitative reviews on this subject.Literature addressing access to health and social services by women who are 18 years or older and living on a low income in Canada will be considered for inclusion. Health services will include health promotion and disease prevention; treatment of medical conditions; and rehabilitation, palliative, and end-of-life care. Social services are non-medical services designed to help members of a society who may need extra support or are considered to have social or behavioral risk factors.We will search relevant electronic databases (eg, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO) and gray literature. The review will include all study designs, including qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods methodologies (excluding economic analyses or clinical practice guideline development documents). Two reviewers will test the screening criteria and data extraction protocol.

Objective: Scoping reviews and evidence map methodologies are increasingly being used by researchers. The objective of this article is to examine how scoping reviews can reduce research waste. Study design and setting: This article summarises the key issues facing the research community regarding research waste and how scoping reviews can make an important contribution to the reduction of research waste in both primary and secondary research. Results: The problem of research waste is an enduring challenge for global health, leading to a waste of human and financial resources and producing research outputs that do not provide answers to the most pressing research questions. Research waste occurs within primary research but also in secondary research such as evidence syntheses. The focus of scoping reviews on characterising the nature of existing evidence on a topic and of including all types of evidence, potentially reduces research waste in five ways: (i) identifying key research gaps on a topic, (ii) determining appropriate outcome measures, (iii) mapping existing methodological approaches, (iv) developing a consistent understanding of terms and concepts used in existing evidence, and (v) ensuring scoping reviews do not exacerbate the issue of research waste. Conclusion: To ensure that scoping reviews do not themselves end up contributing to research waste, it is important to register the scoping review and to ensure that international reporting standards and methodological guidance are followed. Refereed/Peer-reviewed

Evidence synthesis encompasses a broad range of review types, and scoping reviews are an increasingly popular approach to synthesizing evidence in a number of fields. They sit alongside other evidence synthesis methodologies, such as systematic reviews, qualitative evidence synthesis, realist synthesis, and many more. Until now, scoping reviews have been variously defined in the literature. In this article, we provide the following formal definition for scoping reviews: Scoping reviews are a type of evidence synthesis that aims to systematically identify and map the breadth of evidence available on a particular topic, field, concept, or issue, often irrespective of source (ie, primary research, reviews, non-empirical evidence) within or across particular contexts. Scoping reviews can clarify key concepts/definitions in the literature and identify key characteristics or factors related to a concept, including those related to methodological research.

Scoping reviews are used to assess the extent of a body of literature on a particular topic, and often to ensure that further research in that area is a beneficial addition to world knowledge. The aim of this paper reports upon the development of a methodology for scoping reviews based upon the Arksey and O'Malley framework, the Levac, Colquhoun, and O'Brien, and the Joanna Briggs Institute methods of evidence synthesis.A working group consisting of members of the Joanna Briggs collaborating organizations met to discuss the proposed framework for the methodology and develop a draft for the scoping review methodology based on the Arksey and O'Malley framework and the work of Levac et al. This was followed by a workshop attended by other members of the organizations consisting of 30 international researchers to discuss the proposed methodology. Further refinement of the methodology was undertaken as a result of the feedback received from the workshop.The development of the methodology focused on five stages of the protocol and review development. These were identifying the research question by clarifying and linking the purpose and research question, identifying the relevant studies using a three-step literature search in order to balance feasibility with breadth and comprehensiveness, careful selection of the studies to using a team approach, charting the data and collating the results to identify the implications of the study findings for policy, practice, or research.The current methodology recommends including both quantitative and qualitative research, as well as evidence from economic and expert opinion sources to answer questions of effectiveness, appropriateness, meaningfulness and feasibility of health practices and delivery methods. The proposed framework has the potential to provide options when faced with complex concepts or broad research questions.