Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application

Peters, Micah D J; Marnie, Casey; Colquhoun, Heather; Garritty, Chantelle; Hempel, Susanne; Horsley, Tanya; Langlois, Étienne V; Lillie, Erin; O’Brien, Kelly K; Tunçalp, Özge; Wilson, Michael G.; Zarin, Wasifa; Tricco, Andrea C.

doi:10.1186/s13643-021-01821-3

Cited by 206 publications

(94 citation statements)

References 42 publications

(64 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[29] Additionally, the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) (2020 and 2021) framework and recommendations were used to ensure that this scoping review meets their stated purpose as well as providing the Person-Concept-Context (PPI) to inform the title. [32,33] To ensure rigor the PRISMA-P checklist also informed this protocol and will inform the scoping review. [34]…”

Section: Methods and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Based on other scoping reviews and the frameworks used to inform our scoping review,[29,31–33,35– 38] we will likely extract the following information onto our data charting form. An example of the data extraction form as it appears on Covidence is displayed in the appendix (see appendix 3).…”

Section: Methods and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Disagreements in the charting of data will be discussed by all three reviewers (KB, JC, and MQ) to resolve conflicts. [35] Based on other scoping reviews and the frameworks used to inform our scoping review,[29, [31][32][33][35][36][37][38] we will likely extract the following information onto our data charting form. An example of the data extraction form as it appears on Covidence is displayed in the appendix (see appendix 3).…”

Section: Stage 4b: Charting the Data From All Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Athletes’ access to, attitudes towards, and experiences of help-seeking for mental health: A scoping review protocol

Brown

Quinton

Cumming

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Athletes are not immune to mental health issues but are less likely to seek help than nonathletes and experience barriers including lack of access to services, lack of knowledge as to how to access services and negative past experiences for help-seeking. Formal and semi-formal sources of support (e.g. support provided in healthcare, sporting context, and higher education systems) are key places for athletes to seek help for mental health, and there is a need to synthesise the evidence on athletes' access, attitudes to, and experiences of, these services. This protocol outlines a scoping review that will be used to map the evidence, identify gaps in the literature, and summarise findings on athletes' access, attitudes to and experiences of help-seeking for their mental health. Methods and analysis: The methodological frameworks of Arksey and O'Malley (2005), Levac et al. (2010), and the Joanna Briggs Institute (2020 & 2021) were used to inform this scoping review protocol alongside the PRISMA-P checklist and published scoping review protocols within sport and health. This protocol outlines the background evidence, need for this scoping review, and the steps that will be taken. Dissemination: The evidence will be mapped numerically and thematically to describe studies and highlight key concepts, themes, and gaps in the literature. The published scoping review will be disseminated to relevant stakeholders and policymakers including those in healthcare, the sporting context, and the higher education system. The resulting outputs will be in the form of both peer-reviewed and non-peer reviewed publications (e.g. multimedia in the form of a blog post and at conferences).

show abstract

Section: Methods and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methods and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Stage 4b: Charting the Data From All Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Athletes’ access to, attitudes towards, and experiences of help-seeking for mental health: A scoping review protocol

Brown

Quinton

Cumming

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Literature reviews are important for health-related professions such as nursing and medicine, and health service research among others. This is because they can provide a quick overview of current (scientific) knowledge on broad or even specific research questions 1 2. In recent years, different types of methodological approaches have been established for conducting reviews depending on a wide variety of research questions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In recent years, different types of methodological approaches have been established for conducting reviews depending on a wide variety of research questions. Examples include systematic reviews and rapid reviews for the (rapid) evaluation of the effectiveness of interventions,1 3–6 scoping reviews and evidence maps for mapping of the current research landscape related to a broad question,2 7–15 realist reviews for the analysis of the underlying theory of programmes or interventions in terms of how these theories are relevant and can explain why a programme or intervention works, is effective or not,16 and integrative reviews with a focus on the analysis and synthesis of qualitative as well as quantitative studies 17–19. More review types are described in the publications by Grant and Booth 20.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consulting concepts and structures for people with dementia in Germany: a protocol for a ‘grey-shaded’ scoping review

Manietta

Rommerskirch-Manietta

Purwins

et al. 2022

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionLiterature reviews represent an important type of study for the various professions in healthcare. The consideration and inclusion of grey literature is gaining importance in all types of reviews. However, searching for grey literature is challenging for different reasons and the search is often insufficiently transparently reported in reviews. The aim of this protocol is to describe our planned methodical approach for a scoping review with a specific focus on grey literature related to the topic of consulting according to §7a of the German Social Law, Book XI (SGB XI) for people with dementia and their relatives in Germany.Methods and analysisWe will use the following search strategies: (1) search in the German electronic databases, for example, Livivo and GeroLit (via GBV), (2) google search engines, (3) targeted websites, for example, Alzheimer’s association and (4) contact experts, for example, stakeholders of private care insurance companies who provide consulting according to §7a SGB XI. Additionally, we will conduct a search in the academic electronic databases MEDLINE (via PubMed) and CINAHL (via EBSCO). For included grey literature, we will conduct a backward citation tracking via reference lists. For included scientific articles, we will conduct a backward (via reference lists) and forward (via Google scholar) citation tracking. Each strategy will be conducted by one reviewer. Screening of the identified potentially relevant records will be conducted in Covidence by two reviewers independently. Results will be charted in a table and illustrated descriptively.Ethics and disseminationThere are no ethical concerns with conducting a scoping review. We will discuss our results regarding consulting according to §7a SGB XI for people with dementia and their relatives with a variety of stakeholders in Germany. We will disseminate the thematic results and the methodological reflection of our search approach in the form of articles in peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed journals.

show abstract

Digital interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness in older adults: An evidence and gap map

Welch,

Ghogomu,

Barbeau

et al. 2023

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundSocial isolation and loneliness are more common in older adults and are associated with a serious impact on their well‐being, mental health, physical health, and longevity. They are a public health concern highlighted by the COVID‐19 pandemic restrictions, hence the need for digital technology tools to enable remotely delivered interventions to alleviate the impact of social isolation and loneliness during the COVID‐19 restrictions.ObjectivesTo map available evidence on the effects of digital interventions to mitigate social isolation and/or loneliness in older adults in all settings except hospital settings.Search MethodsWe searched the following databases from inception to May 16, 2021, with no language restrictions. Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycInfo via Ovid, CINAHL via EBSCO, Web of Science via Clarivate, ProQuest (all databases), International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS) via ProQuest, EBSCO (all databases except CINAHL), Global Index Medicus, and Epistemonikos.Selection CriteriaTitles and abstracts and full text of potentially eligible articles were independently screened in duplicate following the eligibility criteria.Data Collection and AnalysisWe developed and pilot tested a data extraction code set in Eppi‐Reviewer and data were individually extracted and coded based on an intervention‐outcome framework which was also used to define the dimensions of the evidence and gap map.Main ResultsWe included 200 articles (103 primary studies and 97 systematic reviews) that assessed the effects of digital interventions to reduce social isolation and/or loneliness in older adults. Most of the systematic reviews (72%) were classified as critically low quality, only 2% as high quality and 25% were published since the COVID‐19 pandemic. The evidence is unevenly distributed with clusters predominantly in high‐income countries and none in low‐income countries. The most common interventions identified are digital interventions to enhance social interactions with family and friends and the community via videoconferencing and telephone calls. Digital interventions to enhance social support, particularly socially assistive robots, and virtual pets were also common. Most interventions focused on reducing loneliness and depression and improving quality of life of older adults. Major gaps were identified in community level outcomes and process indicators. No included studies or reviews assessed affordability or digital divide although the value of accessibility and barriers caused by digital divide were discussed in three primary studies and three reviews. Adverse effects were reported in only two studies and six reviews. No study or review included participants from the LGBTQIA2S+ community and only one study restricted participants to 80 years and older. Very few described how at‐risk populations were recruited or conducted any equity analysis to assess differences in effects for populations experiencing inequities across PROGRESS‐Plus categories.Authors' ConclusionsThe restrictions placed on people during the pandemic have shone a spotlight onto social isolation and loneliness, particularly for older adults. This evidence and gap map shows available evidence on the effectiveness of digital interventions for reducing social isolation or loneliness in older adults. Although the evidence is relatively large and recent, it is unevenly distributed and there is need for more high‐quality research. This map can guide researchers and funders to consider areas of major gaps as priorities for further research.

show abstract

Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application

Cited by 206 publications

References 42 publications

Athletes’ access to, attitudes towards, and experiences of help-seeking for mental health: A scoping review protocol

Athletes’ access to, attitudes towards, and experiences of help-seeking for mental health: A scoping review protocol

Consulting concepts and structures for people with dementia in Germany: a protocol for a ‘grey-shaded’ scoping review

Digital interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness in older adults: An evidence and gap map

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About