Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.

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

reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(12), 1291-1294. Sammendrag:Objectives: The scoping review has become increasingly popular as a form of knowledge synthesis. However, a lack of consensus on scoping review terminology, definition, methodology, and reporting limits the potential of this form of synthesis. In this article, we propose recommendations to further advance the field of scoping review methodology. Study Design and Setting: We summarize current understanding of scoping review publication rates, terms, definitions, and methods. We propose three recommendations for clarity in term, definition and methodology. Results: We recommend adopting the terms "scoping review" or "scoping study" and the use of a proposed definition. Until such time as further guidance is developed, we recommend the use of the methodological steps outlined in the Arksey and O'Malley framework and further enhanced by Levac et al. The development of reportingguidance for the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews is underway. Conclusion: Consistency in the proposed domains and methodologies of scoping reviews, along with the development of reporting guidance, will facilitate methodological advancement, reduce confusion, facilitate collaboration and improve knowledge translation of scoping review findings.Omsorgsbiblioteket har ikke tilgang til å publisere dette dokumentet i fulltekst. Kanskje ditt lokale bibliotek kan hjelpe deg, eller kanskje du kommer videre med lenken nedenfor.

BackgroundScoping reviews are used to identify knowledge gaps, set research agendas, and identify implications for decision-making. The conduct and reporting of scoping reviews is inconsistent in the literature. We conducted a scoping review to identify: papers that utilized and/or described scoping review methods; guidelines for reporting scoping reviews; and studies that assessed the quality of reporting of scoping reviews.MethodsWe searched nine electronic databases for published and unpublished literature scoping review papers, scoping review methodology, and reporting guidance for scoping reviews. Two independent reviewers screened citations for inclusion. Data abstraction was performed by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. Quantitative (e.g. frequencies of methods) and qualitative (i.e. content analysis of the methods) syntheses were conducted.ResultsAfter searching 1525 citations and 874 full-text papers, 516 articles were included, of which 494 were scoping reviews. The 494 scoping reviews were disseminated between 1999 and 2014, with 45 % published after 2012. Most of the scoping reviews were conducted in North America (53 %) or Europe (38 %), and reported a public source of funding (64 %). The number of studies included in the scoping reviews ranged from 1 to 2600 (mean of 118). Using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology guidance for scoping reviews, only 13 % of the scoping reviews reported the use of a protocol, 36 % used two reviewers for selecting citations for inclusion, 29 % used two reviewers for full-text screening, 30 % used two reviewers for data charting, and 43 % used a pre-defined charting form. In most cases, the results of the scoping review were used to identify evidence gaps (85 %), provide recommendations for future research (84 %), or identify strengths and limitations (69 %). We did not identify any guidelines for reporting scoping reviews or studies that assessed the quality of scoping review reporting.ConclusionThe number of scoping reviews conducted per year has steadily increased since 2012. Scoping reviews are used to inform research agendas and identify implications for policy or practice. As such, improvements in reporting and conduct are imperative. Further research on scoping review methodology is warranted, and in particular, there is need for a guideline to standardize reporting.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: Scoping studies (or reviews) are a method used to comprehensively map evidence across a range of study designs in an area, with the aim of informing future research practice, programs and policy. However, no universal agreement exists on terminology, definition or methodological steps. Our aim was to understand the experiences of, and considerations for conducting scoping studies from the perspective of academic and community partners. Primary objectives were to 1) describe experiences conducting scoping studies including strengths and challenges; and 2) describe perspectives on terminology, definition, and methodological steps. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional web-based survey with clinicians, educators, researchers, knowledge users, representatives from community-based organizations, graduate students, and policy stakeholders with experience and/or interest in conducting scoping studies to gain an understanding of experiences and perspectives on the conduct and reporting of scoping studies. We administered an electronic self-reported questionnaire comprised of 22 items related to experiences with scoping studies, strengths and challenges, opinions on terminology, and methodological steps. We analyzed questionnaire data using descriptive statistics and content analytical techniques. Survey results were discussed during a multi-stakeholder consultation to identify key considerations in the conduct and reporting of scoping studies. Results: Of the 83 invitations, 54 individuals (65 %) completed the scoping questionnaire, and 48 (58 %) attended the scoping study meeting from Canada, the United Kingdom and United States. Many scoping study strengths were dually identified as challenges including breadth of scope, and iterative process. No consensus on terminology emerged, however key defining features that comprised a working definition of scoping studies included the exploratory mapping of literature in a field; iterative process, inclusion of grey literature; no quality assessment of included studies, and an optional consultation phase. We offer considerations for the conduct and reporting of scoping studies for researchers, clinicians and knowledge users engaging in this methodology. Conclusions: Lack of consensus on scoping terminology, definition and methodological steps persists. Reasons for this may be attributed to diversity of disciplines adopting this methodology for differing purposes. Further work is needed to establish guidelines on the reporting and methodological quality assessment of scoping studies.

P4C is a model that responds to the needs of this population, addresses issues identified in research, and provides a continuum of services designed to build capacity.

The development of more effective rehabilitative interventions requires a better understanding of how humans learn and transfer motor skills in real-world contexts. Presently, clinicians design interventions to promote skill learning by relying on evidence from experimental paradigms involving simple tasks, such as reaching for a target. While these tasks facilitate stringent hypothesis testing in laboratory settings, the results may not shed light on performance of more complex real-world skills. In this perspective, we argue that virtual environments (VEs) are flexible, novel platforms to evaluate learning and transfer of complex skills without sacrificing experimental control. Specifically, VEs use models of real-life tasks that afford controlled experimental manipulations to measure and guide behavior with a precision that exceeds the capabilities of physical environments. This paper reviews recent insights from VE paradigms on motor learning into two pressing challenges in rehabilitation research: 1) Which training strategies in VEs promote complex skill learning? and 2) How can transfer of learning from virtual to real environments be enhanced? Defining complex skills by having nested redundancies, we outline findings on the role of movement variability in complex skill acquisition and discuss how VEs can provide novel forms of guidance to enhance learning. We review the evidence for skill transfer from virtual to real environments in typically developing and neurologically-impaired populations with a view to understanding how differences in sensory-motor information may influence learning strategies. We provide actionable suggestions for practicing clinicians and outline broad areas where more research is required. Finally, we conclude that VEs present distinctive experimental platforms to understand complex skill learning that should enable transfer from therapeutic practice to the real world.

Virtual reality and active video games (VR/AVGs) are promising rehabilitation tools because of their potential to facilitate abundant, motivating, and feedback-rich practice. However, clinical adoption remains low despite a growing evidence base and the recent development of clinically accessible and rehabilitation-specific VR/AVG systems. Given clinicians’ eagerness for resources to support VR/AVG use, a critical need exists for knowledge translation (KT) interventions to facilitate VR/AVG integration into clinical practice. KT interventions have the potential to support adoption by targeting known barriers to, and facilitators of, change. This scoping review of the VR/AVG literature uses the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to (1) structure an overview of known barriers and facilitators to clinical uptake of VR/AVGs for rehabilitation; (2) identify KT strategies to target these factors to facilitate adoption; and (3) report the results of these strategies. Barriers/facilitators and evaluated or proposed KT interventions spanned all but 1 and 2 TDF domains, respectively. Most frequently cited barriers/facilitators were found in the TDF domains of Knowledge, Skills, Beliefs About Capabilities, Beliefs About Consequences, Intentions, Goals, Environmental Context and Resources, and Social Influences. Few studies empirically evaluated KT interventions to support adoption; measured change in VR/AVG use did not accompany improvements in self-reported skills, attitudes, and knowledge. Recommendations to target frequently identified barriers include technology development to meet end-user needs more effectively, competency development for end-users, and facilitated VR/AVG implementation in clinical settings. Subsequent research can address knowledge gaps in both clinical and VR/AVG implementation research, including on KT intervention effectiveness and unexamined TDF domain barriers.