Dataset Information

Advancing methodology for scoping reviews: recommendations arising from a scoping literature review (SLR) to inform transformation of Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services

ABSTRACT: Background There is consensus that health services commissioning and clinical practice should be driven by scientific evidence. However, workload pressures, accessibility of peer reviewed publications and skills to find, appraise, and synthesise relevant evidence are often cited as barriers to uptake of research evidence by practitioners and commissioners alike. In recent years a growing requirement for rapid evidence synthesis to inform commissioning decisions about healthcare service delivery and provision of care contributed to an increasing popularity of scoping literature reviews (SLRs). Yet, comprehensive guidelines for conducting and reporting SLRs are still relatively scarce. Methods The exemplar review used as a worked example aimed to provide a readily available, comprehensive, and user-friendly repository of research evidence for local commissioners to help them make evidence-informed decisions about redesigning East of England Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services. In conducting the review, we were broadly guided by Arksey and O’Malley’s framework, however some modifications were made at different stages to better reflect the largely pragmatic objective of this review. This paper compares the methodology used with existing methodological frameworks for scoping studies, to add to the existing knowledge base. Results We proposed the following advancements to the existing SLR frameworks: (i) Assemble a research team with complementary skills and expertise; (ii); Draw on expertise of external partners, particularly practitioners, decision-makers and commissioners who will be translating findings into practice; (iii) Pre-register the review protocol. Keep a detailed record of all steps and decisions and consider how they would impact on generalisability and utility of review findings; (iv) Use systematic procedures for literature searchers, selection of studies, data extraction and analysis; (v) If feasible, appraise the quality of included evidence; (vi) Be transparent about limitations of findings. Conclusions Despite some methodological limitations, scoping literature reviews are a useful method of rapidly synthesising a large body of evidence to inform commissioning and transformation of CAMHS. SLRs allow researchers to start with a broader questions, to explore the issue from different perspectives and perhaps find more comprehensive solutions that are not only effective, but also accounted for their feasibility and acceptability to key stakeholders.

SUBMITTER: Anderson J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7526176 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHistorically, Indigenous voices have been silent in health research, reflective of colonial academic institutions that privilege Western ways of knowing. However, Indigenous methodologies and methods with an emphasis on the active involvement of Indigenous peoples and centering Indigenous voices are gaining traction in health education and research. In this paper, we map each phase of our scoping review process and weave Indigenous research methodologies into Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) framework for conducting scoping reviews.MethodsGuided by an advisory circle consisting of Indigenous Knowledge Keepers and allied scholars, we utilized both Indigenous and Western methods to conduct a scoping review. As such, a circle of Knowledge Keepers provided guidance and informed our work, while our methods of searching and scoping the literature remained consistent with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. In keeping with an Indigenous methodology, the scoping review protocol was not registered allowing for an organic development of the research process.ResultsWe built upon Arksey and O'Malley's 5-stages and added an additional 3 steps for a combined 8-stage model to guide our research: (1) Exploration and Listening, (2) Doing the Groundwork, (3) Identifying and Refining the Research Question, (4) Identifying Relevant Studies, (5) Study Selection, (6) Mapping Data, (7) Collating, Summarizing and Synthesizing the Data, and lastly, (8) Sharing and Making Meaning. Engagement and listening, corresponding to Arksey and O'Malley (2005)'s optional "consultation stage," was embedded throughout, but with greater intensity in stages 1 and 8.ConclusionAn Indigenous approach to conducting a scoping review includes forming a team with a wide array of experience in both Indigenous and Western methodologies, meaningful Indigenous representation, and inclusion of Indigenous perspectives to shape the analysis and presentation of findings. Engaging Indigenous peoples throughout the entire research process, listening, and including Indigenous voices and perspectives is vital in reconciliation research, producing both credible and useable information for both Indigenous communities and academia. Our Indigenous methodology for conducting a scoping review can serve as a valuable framework for summarizing Indigenous health-related research.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Guidelines are systematically developed recommendations to assist practitioner and patient decisions about treatments for clinical conditions. High quality and comprehensive systematic reviews and 'overviews of systematic reviews' (overviews) represent the best available evidence. Many guideline developers, such as the WHO and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, recommend the use of these research syntheses to underpin guideline recommendations. We aim to evaluate the impact and use of systematic reviews with and without pairwise meta-analysis or network meta-analyses (NMAs) and overviews in clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:CPGs will be retrieved from Turning Research Into Practice and Epistemonikos (2017-2018). The retrieved citations will be sorted randomly and then screened sequentially by two independent reviewers until 50 CPGs have been identified. We will include CPGs that provide at least two explicit recommendations for the management of any clinical condition. We will assess whether reviews or overviews were cited in a recommendation as part of the development process for guidelines. Data extraction will be done independently by two authors and compared. We will assess the risk of bias by examining how each guideline developed clinical recommendations. We will calculate the number and frequency of citations of reviews with or without pairwise meta-analysis, reviews with NMAs and overviews, and whether they were systematically or non-systematically developed. Results will be described, tabulated and categorised based on review type (reviews or overviews). CPGs reporting the use of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach will be compared with those using a different system, and pharmacological versus non-pharmacological CPGs will be compared. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:No ethics approval is required. We will present at the Cochrane Colloquium and the Guidelines International Network conference.

Project description:PurposeTo inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care on screening in primary care for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer by systematically reviewing evidence of (a) effectiveness; (b) test accuracy; (c) individuals' values and preferences; and (d) strategies aimed at improving screening rates.MethodsDe novo reviews will be conducted to evaluate effectiveness and to assess values and preferences. For test accuracy and strategies to improve screening rates, we will integrate studies from existing systematic reviews with search updates to the present. Two Cochrane reviews will provide evidence of adverse pregnancy outcomes from the conservative management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. We will search Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central (except for individuals' values and preferences, where Medline, Scopus, and EconLit will be searched) via peer-reviewed search strategies and the reference lists of included studies and reviews. We will search ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. Two reviewers will screen potentially eligible studies and agree on those to include. Data will be extracted by one reviewer with verification by another. Two reviewers will independently assess risk of bias and reach consensus. Where possible and suitable, we will pool studies via meta-analysis. We will compare accuracy data per outcome and per comparison using the Rutter and Gatsonis hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model and report relative sensitivities and specificities. Findings on values and preferences will be synthesized using a narrative synthesis approach and thematic analysis, depending on study designs. Two reviewers will appraise the certainty of evidence for all outcomes using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and come to consensus.DiscussionThe publication of guidance on screening in primary care for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer by the Task Force in 2013 focused on cytology. Since 2013, new studies using human papillomavirus tests for cervical screening have been published that will improve our understanding of screening in primary care settings. This review will inform updated recommendations based on currently available studies and address key evidence gaps noted in our previous review.

Project description:ObjectiveTo describe available evidence from systematic reviews of alternative healthcare delivery arrangements relevant to high-income countries to inform decisions about healthcare system improvement.DesignScoping review of systematic reviews.Data sourcesSystematic reviews of interventions indexed in Pretty Darn Quick-Evidence.Eligibility criteriaAll English language systematic reviews evaluating the effects of alternative delivery arrangements relevant to high-income countries, published between 1 January 2012 and 20 September 2017. Eligible reviews had to summarise evidence on at least one of the following outcomes: patient outcomes, quality of care, access and/or?use of healthcare services, resource use, impacts on equity and/or?social outcomes, healthcare provider outcomes or adverse effects.Data extraction and synthesisJournal, publication year, number and design of primary studies, populations/health conditions represented and types of outcomes were extracted.ResultsOf 829 retrieved records, 531 reviews fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Almost all (93%) reviews reported on patient outcomes, while only about one-third included resource use as an outcome of interest. Just over a third (n=189, 36%) of reviews focused on alternative information and communications technology interventions (including 162 reviews on telehealth). About one-quarter (n=122, 23%) of reviews focused on alternative care coordination interventions. 15% (n=80) of reviews examined interventions involving changes to who provides care and how the healthcare workforce is managed. Few reviews investigated the effects of interventions involving changes to how and when care is delivered (n=47, 9%) or interventions addressing a goal-focused question (n=38, 7%).ConclusionA substantial body of evidence about the effects of a wide range of delivery arrangements is available to inform health system improvements. The lack of economic evaluations in the majority of systematic reviews of delivery arrangements means that the value of many of these models is unknown. This scoping review identifies evidence gaps that would be usefully addressed by future research.

Project description:BackgroundHarmful alcohol use is a leading risk to the health of populations worldwide. Within Africa, where most consumers are adolescents, alcohol use represents a key public health challenge. Interventions to prevent or substantially delay alcohol uptake and decrease alcohol consumption in adolescence could significantly decrease morbidity and mortality, through both immediate effects and future improved adult outcomes. In Africa, these interventions are urgently needed; however, key data necessary to develop them are lacking as most evidence to date relates to high-income countries. The purpose of this review is to examine and map the range of interventions in use and create an evidence base for future research in this area.MethodsIn the first instance, we will conduct a review of systematic reviews relevant to global adolescent alcohol interventions. We will search the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL, Web of Science, Global Health and PubMed using a broad search. In the second instance we will conduct a scoping review by drawing on the methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley. We will search for all study designs and grey literature using the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL, Web of Science and Global Health, Google searches and searches in websites of relevant professional bodies and charities. An iterative approach to charting, collating, summarising and reporting the data will be taken, with the development of charting forms and the final presentation of results led by the extracted data. In both instances, the inclusion and exclusion criteria have been pre-defined, and two reviewers will independently screen abstracts and full text to determine eligibility of articles.DiscussionIt is anticipated that our findings will map intervention strategies aiming to reduce adolescent alcohol consumption in Africa. These findings are likely to be useful in informing future research, policy and public health strategies. Findings will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publication and in various media, for example, conferences, congresses or symposia.Protocol registrationThis protocol was submitted to the Open Science Framework on May 03, 2021. www.osf.io/qnvba.

Project description:ObjectivesOver the last two decades, the number of scoping reviews in core medical education journals has increased by 4200%. Despite this growth, research on scoping reviews provides limited information about their nature, including how they are conducted or why medical educators undertake this knowledge synthesis type. This gap makes it difficult to know where the field stands and may hamper attempts to improve the conduct, reporting and utility of scoping reviews. Thus, this review characterises the nature of medical education scoping reviews to identify areas for improvement and highlight future research opportunities.MethodThe authors searched PubMed for scoping reviews published between 1/1999 and 4/2020 in 14 medical education journals. The authors extracted and summarised key bibliometric data, the rationales given for conducting a scoping review, the research questions and key reporting elements as described in the PRISMA-ScR. Rationales and research questions were mapped to Arksey and O'Malley's reasons for conducting a scoping review.ResultsOne hundred and one scoping reviews were included. On average, 10.1 scoping reviews (SD = 13.1, median = 4) were published annually with the most reviews published in 2019 (n = 42). Authors described multiple reasons for undertaking scoping reviews; the most prevalent being to summarise and disseminate research findings (n = 77). In 11 reviews, the rationales for the scoping review and the research questions aligned. No review addressed all elements of the PRISMA-ScR, with few authors publishing a protocol (n = 2) or including stakeholders (n = 20). Authors identified shortcomings of scoping reviews, including lack of critical appraisal.ConclusionsScoping reviews are increasingly conducted in medical education and published by most core journals. Scoping reviews aim to map the depth and breadth of emerging topics; as such, they have the potential to play a critical role in the practice, policy and research of medical education. However, these results suggest improvements are needed for this role to be fully realised.

Dataset Information

Advancing methodology for scoping reviews: recommendations arising from a scoping literature review (SLR) to inform transformation of Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets