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.

BackgroundHIV-related stigma continues to negatively impact the health and well-being of people living with HIV, with deleterious effects on their care, treatment and quality of life. A growing body of qualitative research has documented the relationship between HIV-related stigma and health. This review aims to synthesize qualitative evidence that explored the intersections of stigma and health for people with HIV.MethodsA thematic summary was conducted that was guided by the qualitative metasummary technique developed by Sandelowski and Barraso. Literature searches yielded 8,622 references of which 55 qualitative studies were identified that illustrated HIV-related stigma in the context of health.ResultsThe metasummary classified qualitative findings into three overarching categories: conceptualizing stigma which identified key dimensions of HIV-related stigma; experiencing stigma which highlighted experiences of stigma in the health context, and managing stigma which described ways in which stigma is avoided or addressed. To better illustrate these connections, the qualitative literature was summarized into the following themes: stigma within health care settings, the role of stigma in caring for one’s health, and strategies to address HIV-related stigma in the health context. A number of health care practices were identified – some rooted in institutional practices, others shaped by personal perceptions held by practitioners – that could be stigmatizing or discriminatory towards people with HIV. There existed interconnections between enacted stigma and felt stigma that influenced health care utilization, treatment adherence, and overall health and well-being of people with HIV. Intersectional stigma also emerged as instrumental in the stigma experiences of people living with HIV. A number of strategies to address stigma were identified including social support, education, self-efficacy, resilience activities, and advocacy.ConclusionThis review of the qualitative evidence indicates that HIV-related stigma within health contexts is a broad social phenomenon that manifests within multiple social spheres, including health care environments. Findings from this review indicate that future stigma research should consider the social structures and societal practices – within and outside of health care environments – that perpetuate and reinforce stigma and discrimination towards people with HIV.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-015-2197-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Lack of stable, secure, adequate housing is a significant barrier to consistent and appropriate HIV medical care, access and adherence to antiretroviral medications, sustained viral suppression, and risk of forward transmission. Studies that examined the history of homelessness or problematic housing years before outcome assessment were least likely to find negative outcomes, homelessness being a potentially modifiable contextual factor. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies indicate an independent effect of housing assistance on improved outcomes for formerly homeless or inadequately housed people with HIV. Housing challenges result from complex interactions between individual vulnerabilities and broader economic, political, and legal structural determinants of health. The broad structural processes sustaining social exclusion and inequality seem beyond the immediate reach of HIV interventions, but changing housing and residential environments is both possible and promising.

BackgroundA wide range of diverse and inconsistent terminology exists in the field of knowledge translation. This limits the conduct of evidence syntheses, impedes communication and collaboration, and undermines knowledge translation of research findings in diverse settings. Improving uniformity of terminology could help address these challenges. In 2012, we convened an international working group to explore the idea of developing a common terminology and an overarching framework for knowledge translation interventions.FindingsMethods included identifying and summarizing existing frameworks, mapping together a subset of those frameworks, and convening a multi-disciplinary group to begin working toward consensus. The group considered four potential approaches to creating a simplified framework: melding existing taxonomies, creating a framework of intervention mechanisms rather than intervention strategies, using a consensus process to expand one of the existing models/frameworks used by the group, or developing a new consensus framework.ConclusionsThe work group elected to draft a new, simplified consensus framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems and policies. The framework will include four key components: strategies and techniques (active ingredients), how they function (causal mechanisms), how they are delivered (mode of delivery), and what they aim to change (intended targets). The draft framework needs to be further developed by feedback and consultation with the research community and tested for usefulness through application and evaluation.

This article extends a previous review of the literature (Maccini & Hughes, 1997) on mathematics interventions for secondary school students with learning disabilities (LD). A systematic review of the literature from 1995 to 2006 yielded 23 articles that met the criteria for inclusion. It was determined that a number of practices demonstrated significant gains for secondary school students with LD in math, including mnemonic strategy instruction, graduated instructional approach, cognitive strategy instruction involving planning, schema-based instruction, and contextualized videodisc instruction. We also discuss the nature and focus of math interventions and implications for both research and practice based on the findings.

BackgroundCommunity-based organizations (CBOs) are important stakeholders in health systems and are increasingly called upon to use research evidence to inform their advocacy, program planning, and service delivery efforts. CBOs increasingly turn to community-based research (CBR) given its participatory focus and emphasis on linking research to action. In order to further facilitate the use of research evidence by CBOs, we have developed a strategy for community-based knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) that helps CBOs more effectively link research evidence to action. We developed the strategy by: outlining the primary characteristics of CBOs and why they are important stakeholders in health systems; describing the concepts and methods for CBR and for KTE; comparing the efforts of CBR to link research evidence to action to those discussed in the KTE literature; and using the comparison to develop a framework for community-based KTE that builds on both the strengths of CBR and existing KTE frameworks.DiscussionWe find that CBR is particularly effective at fostering a climate for using research evidence and producing research evidence relevant to CBOs through community participation. However, CBOs are not always as engaged in activities to link research evidence to action on a larger scale or to evaluate these efforts. Therefore, our strategy for community-based KTE focuses on: an expanded model of 'linkage and exchange' (i.e., producers and users of researchers engaging in a process of asking and answering questions together); a greater emphasis on both producing and disseminating systematic reviews that address topics of interest to CBOs; developing a large-scale evidence service consisting of both 'push' efforts and efforts to facilitate 'pull' that highlight actionable messages from community relevant systematic reviews in a user-friendly way; and rigorous evaluations of efforts for linking research evidence to action.SummaryThrough this type of strategy, use of research evidence for CBO advocacy, program planning, and service delivery efforts can be better facilitated and continually refined through ongoing evaluations of its impact.

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.