Search

A thorough literature search is a key feature of scoping reviews. We investigated the search practices used by social science researchers as reported in their scoping reviews. We collected scoping reviews published between 2015 and 2021 from Social Science Citation Index. In the 2484 included studies, we observed a 58% average annual increase in published reviews, primarily from clinical and applied social science disciplines. Bibliographic databases comprised most of the information sources in the primary search strategy (n = 9565, 75%), although reporting practices varied. Most scoping reviews (n = 1805, 73%) included at least one supplementary search strategy. A minority of studies (n = 713, 29%) acknowledged an LIS professional and few listed one as a co‐author (n = 194, 8%). We conclude that to improve reporting and strengthen the impact of the scoping review method in the social sciences, researchers should consider (1) adhering to PRISMA‐S reporting guidelines, (2) employing more supplementary search strategies, and (3) collaborating with LIS professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This paper describes several automation tools and software that can be considered during evidence synthesis projects and provides guidance for their integration in the conduct of scoping reviews. Study Design and Setting: The guidance presented in this work is adapted from the results of a scoping review and consultations with the JBI Scoping Review Methodology group. Results: This paper describes several reliable, validated automation tools and software that can be used to enhance the conduct of scoping reviews. Developments in the automation of systematic reviews, and more recently scoping reviews, are continuously evolving. We detail several helpful tools in order of the key steps recommended by the JBI's methodological guidance for undertaking scoping reviews including team establishment, protocol development, searching, de‐duplication, screening titles and abstracts, data extraction, data charting, and report writing. While we include several reliable tools and software that can be used for the automation of scoping reviews, there are some limitations to the tools mentioned. For example, some are available in English only and their lack of integration with other tools results in limited interoperability. Conclusion: This paper highlighted several useful automation tools and software programs to use in undertaking each step of a scoping review. This guidance has the potential to inform collaborative efforts aiming at the development of evidence informed, integrated automation tools and software packages for enhancing the conduct of high‐quality scoping reviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the WHO declared COVID-19 a pandemic, prominent social actors and institutions have warned about the threat of misinformation, calling for policy action to address it. However, neither the premises underlying expert claims nor the standards to separate truth from falsehood have been appraised. We conducted a scoping review of the medical and social scientific literature, informed by a critical policy analysis approach, examining what this literature means by misinformation. We searched academic databases and refereed publications, selecting a total of 68 articles for review. Two researchers independently charted the data. Our most salient finding was that verifiability relied largely on the claims of epistemic authorities, albeit only those vetted by the establishment, to the exclusion of independent evidentiary standards or heterodox perspectives. Further, "epistemic authority" did not depend necessarily on subject matter expertise, but largely on a new type of "expertise": in misinformation itself. Finally, policy solutions to the alleged threat that misinformation poses to democracy and human rights called for suppressing unverified information and debate unmanaged by establishment approved experts, in the name of protecting democracy and rights, contrary to democratic practice and respect for human rights. Notably, we identified no pockets of resistance to these dominant meanings and uses. We assessed the implications of our findings for democratic public policy, and for fundamental rights and freedoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractPostgraduate education has become increasingly crucial for nations in recent years, contributing to scientific, technological, and social progress. However, high dropout rates may undermine the benefits of postgraduate education. This study aims to identify which individual, academic, socio-economic, and institutional variables influence student attrition at the postgraduate level (master’s and doctoral) through a scoping review. Using the PRISMA-ScR method, we analyzed 40 research articles for bibliometric insights and specifically examined explanatory variables for postgraduate dropout. Within the individual determinant, explanatory variables include nationality, gender, age, marital status, family support, family and work obligations, and motivation levels. Socio-economic variables encompass the student’s income, employment status, and the national macroeconomic environment. In the academic context, key variables comprise prior knowledge, academic performance, student satisfaction, autonomy, self-efficacy, and research interest. Lastly, variables such as insufficient financial resources, institutional policies, teacher-student interaction, student support, academic infrastructure, and curriculum design play pivotal roles in the institutional realm. In conclusion, this study enhances our understanding of postgraduate dropout, offering valuable insights for the academic community and States to develop strategies that improve retention rates and reduce dropout levels in postgraduate education.

AbstractScoping review methodology is an accessible knowledge synthesis research method for counseling researchers that has the potential to significantly impact the counseling research ecosystem. Scoping reviews can be mobilized to analyze a body of academic literature in order to map concepts, develop critical research questions, and focus research efforts. Learning how to conduct scoping reviews can facilitate counseling researchers’ emergent scholarly interests and agendas. This research guideline aims to introduce scoping review methodology to the counseling profession, present key methodological steps and considerations for counseling researchers, and share lessons learned from previous team-based scoping review studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This scoping review aims to identify and systematically review published mapping reviews to assess their commonality and heterogeneity and determine whether additional efforts should be made to standardise methodology and reporting. The following databases were searched; Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Campbell collaboration database, Social Science Abstracts, Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA). Following a pilot-test on a random sample of 20 citations included within title and abstracts, two team members independently completed all screening. Ten articles were piloted at full-text screening, and then each citation was reviewed independently by two team members. Discrepancies at both stages were resolved through discussion. Following a pilot-test on a random sample of five relevant full-text articles, one team member abstracted all the relevant data. Uncertainties in the data abstraction were resolved by another team member. A total of 335 articles were eligible for this scoping review and subsequently included. There was an increasing growth in the number of published mapping reviews over the years from 5 in 2010 to 73 in 2021. Moreover, there was a significant variability in reporting the included mapping reviews including their research question, priori protocol, methodology, data synthesis and reporting. This work has further highlighted the gaps in evidence synthesis methodologies. Further guidance developed by evidence synthesis organisations, such as JBI and Campbell, has the potential to clarify challenges experienced by researchers, given the magnitude of mapping reviews published every year. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

IntroductionArts and health practice and research has expanded rapidly since the turn of the millennium. A World Health Organization scoping review of a large body of evidence claims positive health benefits from arts participation and makes recommendations for policy and implementation of arts for health initiatives. A more recent scoping review (CultureForHealth) also claims that current evidence is sufficient to form recommendations for policy and practice. However, scoping reviews of arts and health research—without critical appraisal of included studies—do not provide a sound basis for recommendations on the wider implantation of healthcare interventions.MethodsWe performed a detailed assessment of 18 Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) on arts-based interventions included in Section 1 of the CultureForHealth report using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool for RCTs (2023).ResultsThe 18 RCTs included demonstrated considerable risks of bias regarding internal and statistical conclusion validity. Moreover, the trials are substantially heterogeneous with respect to settings, health-issues, interventions, and outcomes, which limits their external validity, reliability, and generalisability.ConclusionsThe absence of a critical appraisal of studies included in the CultureForHealth report leads to an overinterpretation and overstatement of the health outcomes of arts-based interventions. As such, the CultureForHealth review is not a suitable foundation for policy recommendations, nor for formulating guidance on implementation of arts-based interventions for health.

Technology-based AAC interventions have become increasingly available for people with aphasia (PWA). These interventions include speech generating devices (SGDs) and/or mobile technology applications or software programs that produce speech output upon selection of a message. The purpose of this scoping review is to outline the current research evidence related to the effectiveness of AAC interventions using speech output technologies for PWA; identify gaps in the current literature; and propose directions for future research. To be included in this review, studies had to meet the following inclusion criteria: (a) the study's intervention variables were related to the implementation of AAC using SGDs and/or mobile technology applications or software programs that turn computers into SGDs; (b) the studies included dependent variables which related to a change in behavior observed secondary to AAC intervention using speech-output technologies; (c) participants in the studies had a primary diagnosis of aphasia whose etiologies included, but were not limited to, stroke, TBI, and PPA (d) statistical data from group designs allowed for effect sizes to be calculated (i.e., Cohen's d, Pearson's product moment correlation coefficient r, partial eta-squared), and data from single-case experimental designs (SCEDs) allowed for Nonoverlap of All Pairs (NAP) to be calculated; (e) studies were published in peer reviewed journals, in English, and between the years 1990 and 2020. Our search methods yielded 16 pre-experimental and experimental studies that met our inclusion criteria. Effect sizes for functional communication outcome measures as well as behaviors related to symbol identification, symbol combination, and navigation of the AAC ranged from small to large for both SCEDs and group designs. Of the included experimental studies, only three were appraised as providing conclusive evidence. The remaining studies were appraised as providing preponderant (n=2), suggestive (n=2), and inconclusive (n=2) evidence. Gaps in the research included limited data on generalization and maintenance across functional communication behaviors and communication environments. Future research must focus on discovering and understanding variables that lead to effective use of AAC strategies and techniques across communicative contexts and partners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose To analyze research on patient care training for radiation therapists and determine the topics related to patient care, methods of training delivery, and outcomes of those trainings. Methods Journal articles were chosen using guidelines for the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Peer-reviewed articles in English that implemented strategies to train radiation therapists and radiation therapy students on patient care principles were included in the review. Literature retrieved from search results were uploaded to Covidence, an internet-based systematic review management program, and collaborators reviewed abstracts and full-text articles during the study selection process. Charting methods included the authors, year of publication, country of origin, aims, methodology, educational approach, length of training, patient care category, audience, and outcomes. Results After searching 1479 citations and 145 full-text articles, 20 articles met the inclusion criteria of being patient care training programs for the radiation therapist or radiation therapy student. Among the 20 articles, 19 addressed the patient care category of interpersonal communication. Most trainings were delivered by lecture or didactic method and role play. Most of the reviewed training programs proved effective by their measured outcomes. Forty-five percent of studies did not clearly define the length of the training intervals for sufficient evaluation. Given the variety of topics covered by the patient care trainings, drawing summary conclusions from these data is difficult. Discussion The role of the radiation therapist is rooted in patient care. Although the American Society of Radiologic Technologists recognizes patient care as imperative and defines patient care as a key content category in the credentialing exam content specification, the standardization of patient care training is not present in radiation therapy education programs or across the profession. Patient care teaching methods must be evaluated to determine whether they are effective or if they could be improved. Conclusions This scoping review has identified that there is a substantial gap in the literature investigating the effectiveness of patient care training for radiation therapists. Future research is needed to determine whether this essential skill is attained and the teaching methods delivering these trainings are of high quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article titled "Methodological concerns in the published article in globalization and health: A critical evaluation" raises concerns about the methodology used in a recently published article in the journal Globalization and Health. The authors highlight several issues, including the lack of clarity in the study selection process, the use of Iranian databases for a global topic, and the inconsistency in keyword usage across different databases. They also note the absence of a dedicated section for data extraction and emphasize the importance of adhering to validated checklists and registering review protocols. The authors suggest that these steps can enhance the credibility and reliability of scoping reviews and support evidence-based decision-making. [Extracted from the article]

Scoping reviews are a type of research synthesis that aim to map the literature on a particular topic or research area. Though originally intended to provide a quick overview of a field of research, scoping review teams have been overwhelmed in recent years by a deluge of available research literature. This work presents the interdisciplinary development of a semi-automated scoping review methodology aimed at increasing the objectivity and speed of discovery in scoping reviews as well as the scalability of the scoping review process to datasets with tens of thousands of publications. To this end we leverage modern representation learning algorithms based on transformer models and established clustering methods to discover evidence maps, key themes within the data, knowledge gaps within the literature, and assess the feasibility of follow-on systematic reviews within a certain topic. To demonstrate the wide applicability of this methodology, we apply the here proposed semi-automated method to two separate datasets, a Virtual Human dataset with more than 30,000 peer-reviewed academic articles and a smaller Self-Avatar dataset with less than 500 peer-reviewed articles. To enable collaboration, we provide full access to analyzed datasets, keyword and author word clouds, as well as interactive evidence maps.

Abstract Background Scoping Reviews (ScRs) have emerged in the orthodontic literature as a new methodological perspective to collate and summarize scientific evidence. The aim of the present study was to identify and record the proportion of Scoping Reviews in orthodontics that have been clearly and adequately justified, based on the methodological framework of such types of reviews. Associations with a number of publication characteristics were also sought. Three major databases, namely PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection, as well as 11 specialty orthodontic journals were electronically sought from inception until August 1, 2022, for ScRs. The primary outcome pertained to whether the published reports of the ScRs included an appropriate justification and explanation for the selection of this kind of knowledge synthesis methodology. Potential association with year, journal, continent of authorship, number of authors, methodologist involvement, appropriate reporting guidelines and registration practices followed were explored. Results A total of 40 ScRs were eligible for inclusion, with the majority not being adequately justified (22/40; 55.0%). The majority of studies were published from 2020 onward (32/40; 80.0%). The regression model did not reveal any significant association between justification of ScRs and a number of publication characteristics (p > 0.05 at all levels). Conclusions Less than half of the included ScRs were adequately justified in terms of selection of the appropriate synthesis methodology. Awareness should be raised in the scientific community regarding the correctness of the use of this newly emerging type of study in orthodontics, to safeguard against any trace of research waste.

BackgroundINPLASY® is an international platform for registering systematic reviews and meta-analysis protocols that was launched in March 2020. INPLASY® provides an online database in which the protocols are maintained as permanent public records and can be accessed on its website (www.inplasy.com).MethodsWe described the database features and registered information of all records published since the launch of the registry on March 31, 2023. Additionally, we analyzed the website statistics dataset to explore user experience and promote data transparency.ResultsFour thousand six hundred fifty-eight records were registered in INPLASY®, and more than 94% of the protocols were published within 24 h. Most of the submissions were from China, followed by Portugal, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Brazil. The INPLASY® website received 386,395 page views from 64,568 visitors during the first three years. The accesses were obtained from 170 countries. Most of the accesses were from China, followed by the US, the UK, and Portugal. The review status “completed and published” was observed in 898 protocols, and these studies were published in 372 different scientific peer-reviewed journals. The features of INPLASY® include the following: (i) INPLASY® identifier, a unique protocol number; (ii) the digital object identifier (DOI) number, the URL of the protocol linked to a specific DOI; (iii) ORCID update, INPLASY® automatically updates authors' ORCID page, including their protocol; and (iv) search tools, the protocols are freely accessible on www.inplasy.com.ConclusionsINPLASY® has several practical and useful features that should be considered when planning the registration of a systematic review protocol. Furthermore, the sharp increase in the number of protocols registered in INPLASY® in the first three years and the database statistics demonstrate that INPLASY® has become an important source of systematic review protocols. Therefore, authors should access INPLASY® before planning a future review study to avoid unintended duplication of efforts and to obtain timely registration.

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research has the potential to improve research validity and relevance. Objectives: To explore how PPI has been carried out and how its impacts have been reported in occupational therapy (OT) health research. Methodology: Scoping review based on a search in four databases for OT research with descriptions of PPI, published between 2010 and 2020. Results: Across the 17 included studies PPI was reported in all stages of research. Descriptions of how PPI was carried out varied across the studies, and details with respect to the kind of approach used were lacking. Positive impacts on research design, research ethics, public collaborators and researchers were reported, but only anecdotally. Reflections and challenges related to PPI were also addressed. Implications: In future studies, comprehensiveness and consistency is needed to document the diversity of how PPI is carried out in OT health research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Scoping Reviews (ScRs) have emerged in the orthodontic literature as a new methodological perspective to collate and summarize scientific evidence. The aim of the present study was to identify and record the proportion of Scoping Reviews in orthodontics that have been clearly and adequately justified, based on the methodological framework of such types of reviews. Associations with a number of publication characteristics were also sought. Three major databases, namely PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection, as well as 11 specialty orthodontic journals were electronically sought from inception until August 1, 2022, for ScRs. The primary outcome pertained to whether the published reports of the ScRs included an appropriate justification and explanation for the selection of this kind of knowledge synthesis methodology. Potential association with year, journal, continent of authorship, number of authors, methodologist involvement, appropriate reporting guidelines and registration practices followed were explored. Results: A total of 40 ScRs were eligible for inclusion, with the majority not being adequately justified (22/40; 55.0%). The majority of studies were published from 2020 onward (32/40; 80.0%). The regression model did not reveal any significant association between justification of ScRs and a number of publication characteristics (p > 0.05 at all levels). Conclusions: Less than half of the included ScRs were adequately justified in terms of selection of the appropriate synthesis methodology. Awareness should be raised in the scientific community regarding the correctness of the use of this newly emerging type of study in orthodontics, to safeguard against any trace of research waste. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Caregivers and children continue to use pediatric rehabilitation telehealth services (PRTS) post-pandemic. Understanding how caregivers support children during PRTS can help us fully integrate caregivers for positive outcomes. This scoping review describes the roles caregivers take on during PRTS., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and ERIC for research published January 2005 to July 2023. We included English articles on the effect of PRTS. We excluded qualitative and non-peer-reviewed literature., Results: Thirty-four articles met inclusion criteria. Caregivers were gatekeepers, technicians, implementers, trainees, collaborators, telehealth consumers, and supervisors in PRTS. Caregivers took on roles throughout PRTS, and roles varied by type of PRTS delivered., Conclusions: Caregivers take on multiple roles to support children during PRTS. Our results can inform clinical decisions about how to integrate and support caregivers in PRTS. Future research should explore strategies that support caregiver role taking to maximize caregiver involvement and outcomes in PRTS., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Abstract Scoping reviews are an increasingly common approach to evidence synthesis with a growing suite of methodological guidance and resources to assist review authors with their planning, conduct and reporting. The latest guidance for scoping reviews includes the JBI methodology and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses—Extension for Scoping Reviews. This paper provides readers with a brief update regarding ongoing work to enhance and improve the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews as well as information regarding the future steps in scoping review methods development. The purpose of this paper is to provide readers with a concise source of information regarding the difference between scoping reviews and other review types, the reasons for undertaking scoping reviews, and an update on methodological guidance for the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. Despite available guidance, some publications use the term ‘scoping review’ without clear consideration of available reporting and methodological tools. Selection of the most appropriate review type for the stated research objectives or questions, standardised use of methodological approaches and terminology in scoping reviews, clarity and consistency of reporting and ensuring that the reporting and presentation of the results clearly addresses the review’s objective(s) and question(s) are critical components for improving the rigour of scoping reviews. Rigourous, high-quality scoping reviews should clearly follow up to date methodological guidance and reporting criteria. Stakeholder engagement is one area where further work could occur to enhance integration of consultation with the results of evidence syntheses and to support effective knowledge translation. Scoping review methodology is evolving as a policy and decision-making tool. Ensuring the integrity of scoping reviews by adherence to up-to-date reporting standards is integral to supporting well-informed decision-making.

Introduction: Fatigue after stroke can negatively affect the survivors' well-being. Despite the high prevalence and consequences of poststroke fatigue (PSF), there is no specific guidance for occupational therapy practitioners (OTPs) to address this symptom. Objectives: The objectives of the study were to identify and describe the research on potential occupational therapy (OT) interventions for PSF. Method: Three databases were searched using scoping review methodology. Two authors completed a title and abstract and full-text review. Study characteristics, participant characteristics, qualities of interventions, and outcome measures were extracted and synthesized. Results: Eight studies met selection criteria. Studies were conducted with stroke and traumatic brain injury patients in outpatient, inpatient, and community settings. Interventions included psychoeducation and behavior change, multicomponent programs, and mindfulness-based stress reduction therapies. The Fatigue Severity Scale and the Mental Fatigue Scale were commonly used. Conclusion: Evidence for OT interventions targeting PSF is limited. Recommendations for future research are provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Standard practice for conducting systematic reviews (SRs) is time consuming and involves the study team screening hundreds or thousands of citations. As the volume of medical literature grows, the citation set sizes and corresponding screening efforts increase. While larger team size and alternate screening methods have the potential to reduce workload and decrease SR completion times, it is unknown whether investigators adapt team size or methods in response to citation set sizes. Using a cross-sectional design, we sought to understand how citation set size impacts (1) the total number of authors or individuals contributing to screening and (2) screening methods. Methods MEDLINE was searched in April 2019 for SRs on any health topic. A total of 1880 unique publications were identified and sorted into five citation set size categories (after deduplication): 10,000. A random sample of 259 SRs were selected (~ 50 per category) for data extraction and analysis. Results With the exception of the pairwise t test comparing the under 1000 and over 10,000 categories (median 5 vs. 6, p = 0.049) no statistically significant relationship was evident between author number and citation set size. While visual inspection was suggestive, statistical testing did not consistently identify a relationship between citation set size and number of screeners (title-abstract, full text) or data extractors. However, logistic regression identified investigators were significantly more likely to deviate from gold-standard screening methods (i.e. independent duplicate screening) with larger citation sets. For every doubling of citation size, the odds of using gold-standard screening decreased by 15 and 20% at title-abstract and full text review, respectively. Finally, few SRs reported using crowdsourcing (n = 2) or computer-assisted screening (n = 1). Conclusions Large citation set sizes present a challenge to SR teams, especially when faced with time-sensitive health policy questions. Our study suggests that with increasing citation set size, authors are less likely to adhere to gold-standard screening methods. It is possible that adjunct screening methods, such as crowdsourcing (large team) and computer-assisted technologies, may provide a viable solution for authors to complete their SRs in a timely manner.

Abstract Background Appropriate search strategies are essential to ensure the integrity and reproducibility of systematic and scoping reviews, as researchers seek to capture as many relevant resources as possible. In the case of Indigenous health reviews, researchers are met with the special challenge of creating a search strategy that can encompass this large, diverse population group with no universally agreed upon identification criteria. Main body With an aim to promote improved review methodologies that uphold standards of justice, autonomy, and equity for Indigenous peoples and other heterogeneous populations, we describe critical gaps and approaches to close them. We report organizational and transparency issues around how Indigenous populations are indexed in several major databases, and draw on examples of published reviews and protocols to demonstrate the challenges inherent to creating a comprehensive search strategy. Conclusions The conduct and communication of results from health literature research on global Indigenous populations are compromised by challenges of methodology that are rooted in the complexities inherent to defining Indigenous peoples. These challenges must be urgently addressed to improve this important field of inquiry moving forward.

Systematic reviews are resource‐intensive. The machine learning tools being developed mostly focus on the study identification process, but tools to assist in analysis and categorization are also needed. One possibility is to use unsupervised automatic text clustering, in which each study is automatically assigned to one or more meaningful clusters. Our main aim was to assess the usefulness of an automated clustering method, Lingo3G, in categorizing studies in a simplified rapid review, then compare performance (precision and recall) of this method compared to manual categorization. We randomly assigned all 128 studies in a review to be coded by a human researcher blinded to cluster assignment (mimicking two independent researchers) or by a human researcher non‐blinded to cluster assignment (mimicking one researcher checking another's work). We compared time use, precision and recall of manual categorization versus automated clustering. Automated clustering and manual categorization organized studies by population and intervention/context. Automated clustering failed to identify two manually identified categories but identified one additional category not identified by the human researcher. We estimate that automated clustering has similar precision to both blinded and non‐blinded researchers (e.g., 88% vs. 89%), but higher recall (e.g., 89% vs. 84%). Manual categorization required 49% more time than automated clustering. Using a specific clustering algorithm, automated clustering can be helpful with categorization of and identifying patterns across studies in simpler systematic reviews. We found that the clustering was sensitive enough to group studies according to linguistic differences that often corresponded to the manual categories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development explicitly calls for an end to child, early, and forced marriages, a harmful practice that has been experienced by 650 million girls and women globally. The COVID-19 pandemic threatens to halt progress toward this goal and highlights the need to assess research progress and link emerging knowledge with efforts to prevent and respond to child marriage. We conducted a systematic search of publications focused on child marriage covering four languages (English, Spanish, Portuguese, and French), encompassing a 20-year period (1 January 2000–31 December 2019) and including peer-reviewed and gray literature across all major geographic regions of the world. Our review identified and analyzed 1,068 publications from an initial number of 4,081 abstracts screened, finding that studies on the prevalence, determinants, and consequences of child marriage represented a majority of the total publications. Including publications in Spanish and Portuguese yielded results from Latin America and the Caribbean, Mozambique, and Europe, and including publications in French yielded results from West Africa and the Maghreb, in addition to English language publications covering both these and other parts of the word. Our review of the evolution and distribution of research over time and space calls for a greater focus of research on interventions preventing child marriage and responding to the needs of individuals married as children, a multilinguistic approach to knowledge exchange, and for research to be conducted in neglected high-prevalence settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the field of physical medicine and rehabilitation, there is a continuous need to conduct literature search in advancing evidence-based practice. In addition to the traditional meta-analysis approach, many clinicians have turned their attention to systematic reviews and scoping reviews for research evidence to support clinical practice. In this article, the authors aimed to (1) compare the similarities, differences, pros, and cons between a scoping review, a systematic review, and a meta-analysis and (2) summarize the fundamental stages in conducting a scoping review. Examples of recently published articles relevant to physical medicine and rehabilitation are presented to illustrate the concept and value of scoping reviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What is known and Objective: Scoping reviews are a valuable evidence synthesis methodology. They can be used to map the evidence related to any topic to allow examination of practice, methods, policy and where (and how) future research could be undertaken. As such, they are a useful form of evidence synthesis for pharmacy clinicians, researchers and policymakers to review a broad range of evidence sources. Comment: This commentary presents the most comprehensive and up to date methodology for scoping reviews published by Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). This approach builds upon two older approaches by Arksey and O'Malley, and Levac. To assist reviewers working in the field of pharmacy with planning and conducting scoping reviews, this paper describes how to undertake scoping reviews from inception to publication with specific examples related to pharmacy topics. What is new and conclusion: The JBI scoping review methodology is a valuable evidence synthesis approach to the field of pharmacy and therapeutics. This approach can assist pharmacy clinicians, researchers and policymakers to gain an understanding of the extant literature, to identify gaps, to explore concepts, characteristics and to examine current practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Asthma is a widespread pediatric chronic disease, but there is limited understanding of its impact on participation (other than physical activity) and the conceptualization of participation. We conducted a scoping review to explore the evidence on the relationship between pediatric asthma and participation in several domains of occupation outlined in the Occupational Therapy Practice Framework 4th Edition. A structured literature search was implemented in PubMed/MEDLINE, Elsevier EMBASE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Clarivate Web of Science Core Collection, and APA PsycINFO. Data were extracted by occupational domain and analyzed using a stoplight categorization. Of the 3444 identified articles, 10 met inclusion criteria, five of which were categorized as green (addressing specific occupational activities). No article explicitly defined participation. Asthma's influence on nonphysical activity occupations remains unclear. Future research must clarify both the meaning and measures that best capture participation, and further explore the relationship between asthma and participation., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: Cancer is a significant public health issue worldwide. Treatments such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy often cause psychological and physiological side effects, affecting patients' ability to function and their quality of life (QoL). Physical activity is crucial to cancer rehabilitation, improving physical function and QoL and reducing cancer-related fatigue. However, many patients face barriers to accessing cancer rehabilitation due to socioeconomic factors, transportation issues, and time constraints. Telerehabilitation can potentially overcome these barriers by delivering rehabilitation remotely., Objective: The aim of the study is to identify how telemedicine is used for the rehabilitation of patients with cancer., Methods: This scoping review followed recognized frameworks. We conducted an electronic literature search on PubMed for studies published between January 2015 and May 2023. Inclusion criteria were studies reporting physical therapy telerehabilitation interventions for patients with cancer, including randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials, feasibility studies, and usability studies. In total, 21 studies met the criteria and were included in the final review., Results: Our search yielded 37 papers, with 21 included in the final review. Randomized controlled trials comprised 47% (n=10) of the studies, with feasibility studies at 33% (n=7) and usability studies at 19% (n=4). Sample sizes were typically 50 or fewer participants in 57% (n=12) of the reports. Participants were generally aged 65 years or younger (n=17, 81%), with a balanced gender distribution. Organ-specific cancers were the focus of 66% (n=14) of the papers, while 28% (n=6) included patients who were in the posttreatment period. Web-based systems were the most used technology (n=13, 61%), followed by phone call or SMS text messaging-based systems (n=9, 42%) and mobile apps (n=5, 23%). Exercise programs were mainly home based (n=19, 90%) and included aerobic (n=19, 90%), resistance (n=13, 61%), and flexibility training (n=7, 33%). Outcomes included improvements in functional capacity, cognitive functioning, and QoL (n=10, 47%); reductions in pain and hospital length of stay; and enhancements in fatigue, physical and emotional well-being, and anxiety. Positive effects on feasibility (n=3, 14%), acceptability (n=8, 38%), and cost-effectiveness (n=2, 9%) were also noted. Functional outcomes were frequently assessed (n=19, 71%) with tools like the 6-minute walk test and grip strength tests., Conclusions: Telerehabilitation for patients with cancer is beneficial and feasible, with diverse approaches in study design, technologies, exercises, and outcomes. Future research should focus on developing standardized methodologies, incorporating objective measures, and exploring emerging technologies like virtual reality, wearable or noncontact sensors, and artificial intelligence to optimize telerehabilitation interventions. Addressing these areas can enhance clinical practice and improve outcomes for remote rehabilitation with patients., (©Patricia Goncalves Leite Rocco, C Mahony Reategui-Rivera, Joseph Finkelstein. Originally published in JMIR Cancer (https://cancer.jmir.org), 21.08.2024.)

Introduction: Arts and health practice and research has expanded rapidly since the turn of the millennium. A World Health Organization scoping review of a large body of evidence claims positive health benefits from arts participation and makes recommendations for policy and implementation of arts for health initiatives. A more recent scoping review (CultureForHealth) also claims that current evidence is sufficient to form recommendations for policy and practice. However, scoping reviews of arts and health research-without critical appraisal of included studies-do not provide a sound basis for recommendations on the wider implantation of healthcare interventions., Methods: We performed a detailed assessment of 18 Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) on arts-based interventions included in Section 1 of the CultureForHealth report using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool for RCTs (2023)., Results: The 18 RCTs included demonstrated considerable risks of bias regarding internal and statistical conclusion validity. Moreover, the trials are substantially heterogeneous with respect to settings, health-issues, interventions, and outcomes, which limits their external validity, reliability, and generalisability., Conclusions: The absence of a critical appraisal of studies included in the CultureForHealth report leads to an overinterpretation and overstatement of the health outcomes of arts-based interventions. As such, the CultureForHealth review is not a suitable foundation for policy recommendations, nor for formulating guidance on implementation of arts-based interventions for health., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Kaasgaard, Grebosz-Haring, Davies, Musgrave, Shriraam, McCrary and Clift.)

Scoping reviews are an increasingly common approach to evidence synthesis with a growing suite of methodological guidance and resources to assist review authors with their planning, conduct and reporting. The latest guidance for scoping reviews includes the JBI methodology and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses—Extension for Scoping Reviews. This paper provides readers with a brief update regarding ongoing work to enhance and improve the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews as well as information regarding the future steps in scoping review methods development. The purpose of this paper is to provide readers with a concise source of information regarding the difference between scoping reviews and other review types, the reasons for undertaking scoping reviews, and an update on methodological guidance for the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. Despite available guidance, some publications use the term 'scoping review' without clear consideration of available reporting and methodological tools. Selection of the most appropriate review type for the stated research objectives or questions, standardised use of methodological approaches and terminology in scoping reviews, clarity and consistency of reporting and ensuring that the reporting and presentation of the results clearly addresses the review's objective(s) and question(s) are critical components for improving the rigour of scoping reviews. Rigourous, high-quality scoping reviews should clearly follow up to date methodological guidance and reporting criteria. Stakeholder engagement is one area where further work could occur to enhance integration of consultation with the results of evidence syntheses and to support effective knowledge translation. Scoping review methodology is evolving as a policy and decision-making tool. Ensuring the integrity of scoping reviews by adherence to up-to-date reporting standards is integral to supporting well-informed decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Participating in out-of-home (OOH) activities has been shown to benefit health in older adults. This scoping review aimed to describe the nature of the literature on OOH activities and health in community dwelling older adults, and the operationalization of OOH activity and health-related variables. We followed the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines. Four databases were searched; studies were selected through title/abstract and full-text screening; and data on study characteristics, sample, and OOH activity and health-related variables were extracted, and summarized descriptively. Sixty articles were identified. There was a considerable focus on leisure and social activities (78% and 75%, respectively) but no predominant health-related outcome was identified. Few studies analyzed sex/gender and/or racial differences (25% and 2%, respectively). Future studies may include systematic reviews focused on health outcomes associated with social and leisure OOH activities; as well as gender-based and/or race-based differences in OOH and health relationships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction The purpose of this study was to comprehensively review the best practices and current trends for mentoring programs in academic libraries. Methods The authors conducted a scoping review of the existing literature on academic library mentoring programs. The following sources were searched to identify relevant studies: ERIC, Education Research Complete (Ebsco) LISA, Library & Information Sciences Source (Ebsco), Scopus, the TRIP database, Web of Science and the grey literature. Results Among 802 unique abstracts, 42 studies reporting on 40 unique programs were selected for inclusion in this review. Of these, 28 programs were specifically designed to facilitate the development of junior or untenured librarians. Common program elements included participant input into mentor/mentee selection, written guidelines, mentor training, and senior administration support. Notably, only 18 authors (42.8%) reported on program evaluation methods and outcomes. Conclusions Despite the prevalence of the literature that exists on this topic, mentorship programs in academic libraries have been insufficiently explored. Rigorous and ongoing evaluation is required to determine the importance of mentoring programs to the career development of academic librarians, and identify design elements critical to their success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Standard practice for conducting systematic reviews (SRs) is time consuming and involves the study team screening hundreds or thousands of citations. As the volume of medical literature grows, the citation set sizes and corresponding screening efforts increase. While larger team size and alternate screening methods have the potential to reduce workload and decrease SR completion times, it is unknown whether investigators adapt team size or methods in response to citation set sizes. Using a cross-sectional design, we sought to understand how citation set size impacts (1) the total number of authors or individuals contributing to screening and (2) screening methods.Methods: MEDLINE was searched in April 2019 for SRs on any health topic. A total of 1880 unique publications were identified and sorted into five citation set size categories (after deduplication): < 1,000, 1,001-2,500, 2,501-5,000, 5,001-10,000, and > 10,000. A random sample of 259 SRs were selected (~ 50 per category) for data extraction and analysis.Results: With the exception of the pairwise t test comparing the under 1000 and over 10,000 categories (median 5 vs. 6, p = 0.049) no statistically significant relationship was evident between author number and citation set size. While visual inspection was suggestive, statistical testing did not consistently identify a relationship between citation set size and number of screeners (title-abstract, full text) or data extractors. However, logistic regression identified investigators were significantly more likely to deviate from gold-standard screening methods (i.e. independent duplicate screening) with larger citation sets. For every doubling of citation size, the odds of using gold-standard screening decreased by 15 and 20% at title-abstract and full text review, respectively. Finally, few SRs reported using crowdsourcing (n = 2) or computer-assisted screening (n = 1).Conclusions: Large citation set sizes present a challenge to SR teams, especially when faced with time-sensitive health policy questions. Our study suggests that with increasing citation set size, authors are less likely to adhere to gold-standard screening methods. It is possible that adjunct screening methods, such as crowdsourcing (large team) and computer-assisted technologies, may provide a viable solution for authors to complete their SRs in a timely manner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We propose modifications for scoping (and by extension systematic) review methodologies to improve their contribution to horizon scanning exercises. As a means of systematically collecting, coding and synthesising literature, we argue that scoping reviews are ideal for conducting initial environmental scans of a topic of interest, trend analyses and scenario developments. To demonstrate this utility, this paper uses a futures-oriented scoping review of technology-enhanced money laundering and terrorist financing risks as an example. At the forefront of the proposed modifications is a quality assessment framework assessing reviewed publications for their neutrality, evidence, relevance and clarity (NERC). This proposed framework is not only ideal for appraising publications but also as an indication of likelihood, namely whether their discussed insights constitute possible, plausible or probable alternative futures. The validity of the NERC framework in achieving these aims is assessed successfully through statistical correlation tests. The overall aim of this paper is to motivate the proposed modifications, the NERC framework and (modified) scoping reviews more generally as a formidable tool for informing horizon scanning, decision-making and pre-emptive policy development. • With some methodological enhancements, systematic and scoping reviews can become effective initial horizon scanning tools. • This article proposes six such modifications, including study selection, quality appraisal and expert verification. • The NERC framework (neutrality, evidence, relevance, and clarity) is proposed to assess publication quality. • The utility of NERC scores to identify weak signals, possible, plausible and probable future scenarios is demonstrated. • This can have significant impact on informing future studies, policy, prioritisation and understanding of futures issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Appropriate search strategies are essential to ensure the integrity and reproducibility of systematic and scoping reviews, as researchers seek to capture as many relevant resources as possible. In the case of Indigenous health reviews, researchers are met with the special challenge of creating a search strategy that can encompass this large, diverse population group with no universally agreed upon identification criteria. Main body: With an aim to promote improved review methodologies that uphold standards of justice, autonomy, and equity for Indigenous peoples and other heterogeneous populations, we describe critical gaps and approaches to close them. We report organizational and transparency issues around how Indigenous populations are indexed in several major databases, and draw on examples of published reviews and protocols to demonstrate the challenges inherent to creating a comprehensive search strategy. Conclusions: The conduct and communication of results from health literature research on global Indigenous populations are compromised by challenges of methodology that are rooted in the complexities inherent to defining Indigenous peoples. These challenges must be urgently addressed to improve this important field of inquiry moving forward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To determine the level of evidence for exercise based rehabilitation and its effect on gait and turning performance which have been associated with a reduced incidence of falls. Methods and analysis: The five databases were searched systematically: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). Articles comparing the effects of exercise-based treatment as an experimental intervention with a non-physiotherapy intervention (usual care, medication or education only) as the control were explored using the synthesis method. Results: Twelve out of the twenty-seven studies eligible for inclusion focussed explicitly on exercisebased treatment for gait and turning related to falls prevention in individuals with PD. Studies included specific exercise programs relevant to locomotion performance, Tai Chi and dance therapy which have all been shown to improve temporal, spatial and kinematic parameters in gait and turning, leading to improvements in fall parameters. Conclusion: This review evinces that Tai Chi, dance therapy and specific exercise programs can result in improvements in turning performance and may reduce the likelihood of falls in individuals with PD, however further research is required to explore the relationship between the benefits of exercisebased interventions on functional mobility and falls incidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objective of this study was to determine the scope of experience, roles, and challenges that librarians face in participating in dental and oral health systematic and scoping reviews to inform outreach efforts to researchers and identify areas for librarian professional development. Methods: The authors developed a twenty-three-item survey based on the findings of two recent articles about health sciences librarians’ roles and challenges in conducting systematic and scoping reviews. The survey was distributed via electronic mailing lists to librarians who were likely to have participated in conducting dental systematic and scoping reviews. Results: While survey respondents reported participating in many dental reviews, they participated more commonly in systematic reviews than in scoping reviews. Also, they worked less commonly on dental and oral health reviews than on non-dental reviews. Librarian roles in dental reviews tended to follow traditional librarian roles: all respondents had participated in planning and information retrieval stages, whereas fewer respondents had participated in screening and assessing articles. The most frequently reported challenges involved the lead reviewer or review team rather than the librarians themselves, with time- and methodology-related challenges being most common. Conclusions: Although librarians might not be highly involved in dental and oral health systematic and scoping reviews, more librarian participation in these reviews, either as methodologists or information experts, may improve their reviews’ overall quality.

Background: Musculoskeletal (MSK) pain is one of the most common reasons for primary care consultation, particularly pain in the lower back (LBP), knee and shoulder. The use of diagnostic imaging for MSK pain is increasing, but it is unclear whether this increase is justified on the basis of clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations. Aim: To identify and map the content of CPGs that informs the use of diagnostic imaging in those with nontraumatic LBP, knee and shoulder pain in primary and intermediate care in the UK. Design and Setting: A scoping review of CPGs. Methods: This scoping review was conducted and is reported in accordance with PRISMA guidance. A broad search strategy included electronic searches of MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychINFO and SPORTDiscus from 2009 to 17 April 2019. This was conducted alongside a search of guideline repositories and was combined with a snowball search of Google, relevant professional bodies and use of social media. Results: 31 relevant CPGs were included. Routine use of diagnostic imaging for those with nontraumatic LBP, knee or shoulder pain is generally discouraged in primary care or intermediate care. Diagnostic imaging should be reserved for when specific or serious pathology is suspected or where the person is not responding to initial nonsurgical management and the imaging result is expected to change clinical management decisions. Conclusion: Diagnostic imaging should not be routinely requested in primary or intermediate care for nontraumatic LBP, knee or shoulder pain. CPGs do not justify the increasing imaging rates in the UK for MSK pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evidence-based decision making is a hallmark of effective veterinary clinical practice. Scoping reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses all are methods intended to provide transparent and replicable ways of summarizing a body of research to address an important clinical or public health issue. As these methods increasingly are being used by researchers and read by practitioners, it is important to understand the distinction between these techniques and to understand what research questions they can, and cannot, address. This review provides an overview of scoping reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis, including a discussion of the method and uses. A sample dataset and coding to conduct a simple meta-analysis in the statistical program R also are provided. Scoping reviews are a descriptive approach, designed to chart the literature around a particular topic. The approach involves an extensive literature search, following by a structured mapping, or charting, of the literature. The results of scoping reviews can help to inform future research by identifying gaps in the existing literature and also can be used to identify areas where there may be a sufficient depth of literature to warrant a systematic review. Systematic reviews are intended to address a specific question by identifying and summarizing all of the available research that has addressed the review question. Questions types that can be addressed by a systematic review include prevalence/incidence questions, and questions related to etiology, intervention efficacy, and diagnostic test accuracy. The systematic review process follows structured steps with multiple reviewers working in parallel to reduce the potential for bias. An extensive literature search is undertaken and, for each relevant study identified by the search, a formal extraction of data, including the effect size, and assessment of the risk of bias is performed. The results from multiple studies can be combined using meta-analysis. Meta-analysis provides a summary effect size, and allows heterogeneity of effect among studies to be quantified and explored. These evidence synthesis approaches can provide scientific input to evidence-based clinical decision-making for veterinarians and regulatory bodies, and also can be useful for identifying gaps in the literature to enhance the efficiency of future research in a topic area.

Background: In 2014, JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports published a comprehensive methodology for the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews based on previous frameworks and guidance. Further work on scoping review methodology and particularly reporting is needed. To assist with refinements to the methodology, this survey was undertaken to evaluate users' experiences of following the process methodology. An electronic survey was generated to explore authors' experiences with the methodology and to seek feedback on the stages of scoping review development. Method: An online survey administered using Qualtrics - a secure survey platform - was distributed through invitations to a total of 51 registered users in the Joanna Briggs Database of Systematic reviews and Implementation reports. We analysed the questionnaire data using descriptive statistics. The qualitative data were grouped together, and free text comments were inductively themed and coded by the authors. Results: Thirty-one participants completed the survey (response rate of 61%). The majority of the participants identified themselves as researchers (55%) followed by educators (25%). Most participants were university employees (77%) and only 10%were based in hospitals. Forty-two percent of the participants reported that the scoping review they had been involved with had taken between 6 and 12months, and 32%of participants spent over a year completing their reviews. Eighty-seven percent of participants stated that their scoping reviews led to further work such as developing a systematic review, a basis for a grant application, formation of a part of students' doctoral studies, and informing further work in a research project. Some of the limitations listed by the participants were the lack of examples in each section of the methodology, especially in the inclusion criteria, and presentation of the results sections. Conclusion: The overall evaluation by the participants of the JBI scoping review methodology highlighted the need for additional detailed guidance for inclusion criteria and presentation of the results. Provision of clear examples for each step was also requested for future improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Studies of university students who are non-users of their academic libraries could provide valuable insights to libraries, yet the extent of the research on this topic remains largely unexplored. This scoping review provides a comprehensive and systematic examination of the research literature in this area, exploring how authors have defined, researched, and addressed the phenomenon of non-users. A search for relevant studies was conducted using bibliographic databases, grey literature searching, and citation tracing. From 1864 records, 69 publications were identified for inclusion. Analysis of the included publications revealed a wide array of definitions for non-users and reasons for non-use. An overwhelming majority of studies (88%) included a survey or questionnaire, most described only a single mode of recruitment, and there was a surprising dearth of information gathered about the non-users themselves. There is currently still much to be learned about students who do not use their academic library and their reasons for non-use. Further qualitative research focused on the needs and motivations of non-users could allow for more nuanced segmentation within this group, and inform libraries' outreach and development efforts. • Non-user is a label without a consistently applied definition. • The majority of studies on non-users relied on a single mode of recruitment. • The majority of studies exhibited high reliance on surveys. • Studies typically provided very limited or no data about the non-users themselves. • In-depth, qualitative research is needed for better understanding of non-users. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]