For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
Inviting an author to review:
Alteration of immunological properties of bovine serum albumin by covalent attachment of polyethylene glycol.
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
5
views
160
references
 Top references
cited by
15
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      148
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Challenges in the development of digital public health interventions and mapped solutions: Findings from a scoping review.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          "Digital public health" has emerged from an interest in integrating digital technologies into public health. However, significant challenges which limit the scale and extent of this digital integration in various public health domains have been described. We summarized the literature about these challenges and identified strategies to overcome them.

          Related collections

          Most cited references160

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

          Adrian Aldcroft, Chantelle Garritty, Simon Lewin … (2018)
          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.
          Article 0 comments Cited 7163 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

            Lisa O'Malley, Hilary Arksey (2005)
            Article 0 comments Cited 6062 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Scoping studies: advancing the methodology

              Danielle Levac, Heather Colquhoun, Kelly K. O’Brien (2010)
              Background Scoping 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. Discussion We 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. Summary Specific 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.
              Article 0 comments Cited 2641 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Digit Health
                Title: Digital health
                Publisher: SAGE Publications
                ISSN: 2055-2076
                ISSN (Print): 2055-2076
                Publication date (Electronic): 2022
                Volume: 8
                Affiliations
                [1 ] School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
                [2 ] British Columbia Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
                [3 ] CIHR Canadian HIV Trials Network, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
                Article
                Publisher Item ID: 10.1177_20552076221102255
                DOI: 10.1177/20552076221102255
                PMC ID: 9152201
                PubMed ID: 35656283
                SO-VID: 86634cbb-7133-4cf2-94b6-8e95d6490cb2
                History

                Keywords: public health,mHealth,eHealth,digital health,Digital public health
                Data availability:
                Keywords: public health, mHealth, eHealth, digital health, Digital public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content148

                See all similar

                Cited by15

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors1,652

                See all reference authors