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.

Knowledge management tools and mechanisms for evidence-informed decision-making in the WHO European Region: a scoping review

“…Nineteen studies examined the role of evidence synthesis in informing policies and decisions in Europe (Additional file 8 : Appendix 8). Evidence briefs for policy, evidence guides, context-specific evidence summaries, scoping and rapid reviews and plain language summaries of systematic reviews can play a role in informing strategies, plans and decisions [ 72 – 76 ] and considered as a credible and useful source of information [ 77 , 78 ]. Demand-led evidence briefing service, a resource-intensive service, was not associated with increases in NHS commissioners capacity to acquire, assess, adapt and apply research evidence to support decision-making compared with less intensive and less targeted strategies [ 79 ].…”

A scoping review of resilience among transition-age youth with serious mental illness: tensions, knowledge gaps, and future directions

“…The application of recent guidelines for high quality and transparent reporting is a notable strength to the current review which helped to mitigate the challenges and limitations mentioned above [ 44 , 45 , 48 , 54 ]. Additionally, the scoping review protocol was developed and carried out by a multidisciplinary review team with backgrounds in occupational therapy / rehabilitation sciences (AEN, SPB, EJN), kinesiology (MLdJ, CMS), and psychiatry / early intervention (NK).…”

“…Results were synthesized and reported in line with the PRISMA-ScR Checklist [ 44 ]. A detailed audit trail was used to track important decisions among the review team [ 54 ]. Ongoing reflexive practice was also used to acknowledge how our unique positions, backgrounds, and experiences may contribute to pre-existing assumptions about youth mental health and resilience, and thus impact methodological choices, analyses, and interpretations.…”

Integration of Internet of Things and blockchain technology in healthcare domain: A systematic literature review

“…The proposed SLR provides the research conducted to elaborate on IoT and blockchain‐based integration in the healthcare domain. This SLR process is based on steps recommended by Khan et al, 18 Psomas, 19 and Anderson et al 20 This review is conducted by performing three phases, that is, (1) planning the review phase, (2) conducting the review phase, and (3) reporting the review phase. Figure 5 shows the involved phases.…”