2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Place, Power, and Premature Mortality: A Rapid Scoping Review on the Health of Women in Appalachia

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          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

          Objective:

          Appalachian women continue to die younger than in other US regions. We performed a rapid scoping review to summarize women’s health research in Appalachia from 2000 to 2019, including health topics, study populations, theoretical frameworks, methods, and findings.

          Data Source:

          We searched bibliographic databases (eg, PubMed, PsycINFO, Google Scholar) for literature focusing on women’s health in Appalachia.

          Study Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria:

          Included articles were: (1) on women’s health in Appalachia; (2) published January 2000 to June 2019; (3) peer-reviewed; and (4) written in English. We excluded studies without reported data findings.

          Data Extraction:

          Two coders reviewed articles for descriptive information to create summary tables comparing variables of interest.

          Data Synthesis:

          Two coders co-reviewed a sub-sample to ensure consensus and refine data charting categories. We categorized major findings across the social-ecological framework.

          Results:

          A search of nearly 2 decades of literature revealed 81 articles, which primarily focused on cancer disparities (49.4%) and prenatal/pregnancy outcomes (23.5%). Many of these research studies took place in Central Appalachia (eg, 42.0% in Kentucky) with reproductive or middle-aged women (82.7%). Half of the studies employed quantitative methods, and half used qualitative methods, with few mixed method or community-engaged approaches (3.7%). Nearly half (40.7%) did not specify a theoretical framework. Findings included complex multi-level factors with few articles exploring the co-occurrence of factors across multiple levels.

          Conclusions:

          Future studies should: 1) systematically include Appalachian women at various life stages from under-represented sub-regions; 2) expand the use of rigorous methods and specified theoretical frameworks to account for complex interactions of social-ecological factors; and 3) build upon existing community assets to improve health in this vulnerable population.

          Related collections

          Most cited references99

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

          Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

            Background Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Results Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Conclusions Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies.

              The expansion of evidence-based practice across sectors has lead to an increasing variety of review types. However, the diversity of terminology used means that the full potential of these review types may be lost amongst a confusion of indistinct and misapplied terms. The objective of this study is to provide descriptive insight into the most common types of reviews, with illustrative examples from health and health information domains. Following scoping searches, an examination was made of the vocabulary associated with the literature of review and synthesis (literary warrant). A simple analytical framework -- Search, AppraisaL, Synthesis and Analysis (SALSA) -- was used to examine the main review types. Fourteen review types and associated methodologies were analysed against the SALSA framework, illustrating the inputs and processes of each review type. A description of the key characteristics is given, together with perceived strengths and weaknesses. A limited number of review types are currently utilized within the health information domain. Few review types possess prescribed and explicit methodologies and many fall short of being mutually exclusive. Notwithstanding such limitations, this typology provides a valuable reference point for those commissioning, conducting, supporting or interpreting reviews, both within health information and the wider health care domain.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                American Journal of Health Promotion
                Am J Health Promot
                SAGE Publications
                0890-1171
                2168-6602
                September 2021
                April 28 2021
                September 2021
                : 35
                : 7
                : 1015-1027
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Behavioral and Community Health Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Graduate School of Public Health, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
                [2 ]University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, KY, USA
                Article
                10.1177/08901171211011388
                56ec184b-e69b-432f-a8e2-f160b840b807
                © 2021

                http://journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article