BackgroundSystematic reviews have been considered as the pillar on which evidence-based healthcare rests. Systematic review methodology has evolved and been modified over the years to accommodate the range of questions that may arise in the health and medical sciences. This paper explores a concept still rarely considered by novice authors and in the literature: determining the type of systematic review to undertake based on a research question or priority.ResultsWithin the framework of the evidence-based healthcare paradigm, defining the question and type of systematic review to conduct is a pivotal first step that will guide the rest of the process and has the potential to impact on other aspects of the evidence-based healthcare cycle (evidence generation, transfer and implementation). It is something that novice reviewers (and others not familiar with the range of review types available) need to take account of but frequently overlook. Our aim is to provide a typology of review types and describe key elements that need to be addressed during question development for each type.ConclusionsIn this paper a typology is proposed of various systematic review methodologies. The review types are defined and situated with regard to establishing corresponding questions and inclusion criteria. The ultimate objective is to provide clarified guidance for both novice and experienced reviewers and a unified typology with respect to review types.
This article is the second in a new series on the systematic review from the Joanna Briggs Institute, an international collaborative supporting evidence-based practice in nursing, medicine, and allied health fields. The purpose of the series is to show nurses how to conduct a systematic review-one step at a time. This article details the process of articulating a review question to guide the search for relevant studies and discusses how to define inclusion criteria for the study-selection phase of the review.
Many representations of the movement of healthcare knowledge through society exist, and multiple models for the
translation of evidence into policy and practice have been articulated. Most are linear or cyclical and very few come close
to reflecting the dense and intricate relationships, systems and politics of organizations and the processes required to
enact sustainable improvements. We illustrate how using complexity and network concepts can better inform knowledge
translation (KT) and argue that changing the way we think and talk about KT could enhance the creation and movement
of knowledge throughout those systems needing to develop and utilise it. From our theoretical refinement, we propose
that KT is a complex network composed of five interdependent sub-networks, or clusters, of key processes (problem
identification [PI], knowledge creation [KC], knowledge synthesis [KS], implementation [I], and evaluation [E]) that
interact dynamically in different ways at different times across one or more sectors (community; health; government;
education; research for example). We call this the KT Complexity Network, defined as a network that optimises the
effective, appropriate and timely creation and movement of knowledge to those who need it in order to improve what
they do. Activation within and throughout any one of these processes and systems depends upon the agents promoting
the change, successfully working across and between multiple systems and clusters. The case is presented for moving to
a way of thinking about KT using complexity and network concepts. This extends the thinking that is developing around
integrated KT approaches. There are a number of policy and practice implications that need to be considered in light of
this shift in thinking.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.