120
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Undertaking a scoping review: A practical guide for nursing and midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics Translated title: 执行范围界定审查: 为护理和助产学生、临床医生、研究人员及学者提供实用指南

      research-article

      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

          Aim

          The aim of this study is to discuss the available methodological resources and best‐practice guidelines for the development and completion of scoping reviews relevant to nursing and midwifery policy, practice, and research.

          Design

          Discussion Paper.

          Data Sources

          Scoping reviews that exemplify best practice are explored with reference to the recently updated JBI scoping review guide (2020) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses Scoping Review extension (PRISMA‐ScR).

          Implications for nursing and midwifery

          Scoping reviews are an increasingly common form of evidence synthesis. They are used to address broad research questions and to map evidence from a variety of sources. Scoping reviews are a useful form of evidence synthesis for those in nursing and midwifery and present opportunities for researchers to review a broad array of evidence and resources. However, scoping reviews still need to be conducted with rigour and transparency.

          Conclusion

          This study provides guidance and advice for researchers and clinicians who are preparing to undertake an evidence synthesis and are considering a scoping review methodology in the field of nursing and midwifery.

          Impact

          With the increasing popularity of scoping reviews, criticism of the rigour, transparency, and appropriateness of the methodology have been raised across multiple academic and clinical disciplines, including nursing and midwifery. This discussion paper provides a unique contribution by discussing each component of a scoping review, including: developing research questions and objectives; protocol development; developing eligibility criteria and the planned search approach; searching and selecting the evidence; extracting and analysing evidence; presenting results; and summarizing the evidence specifically for the fields of nursing and midwifery. Considerations for when to select this methodology and how to prepare a review for publication are also discussed. This approach is applied to the disciplines of nursing and midwifery to assist nursing and/or midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics.

          摘要

          目的

          本研究旨在讨论可用的方法论资源和最佳实践指南, 以便确定和执行涉及护理和助产政策、实践及研究的范围审查。

          设计

          讨论稿。

          数据来源

          参考最近更新的JBI范围审查指南 (2020年) 以及系统审查和荟萃分析范围审查扩展的首选报告项目 (PRISMA‐ScR) , 以便探讨最佳实践的范围审查程序。

          护理和助产学启示

          范围审查可用于合成证据, 目前越来越普遍。其主要用于解决大量研究问题, 并汇集通过不同来源获得的证据。范围审查是一种有用的证据合成方式, 适用于护理和助产程序, 并可为研究人员提供机会, 帮助其审查广泛的证据和资源。然而, 仍应严格执行范围审查程序, 且应保证其透明度。

          结论

          本研究可为研究人员、临床医师提供指导和建议, 帮助其合成证据, 并在护理和助产领域应用范围审查方法。

          影响

          伴随着范围审查日益普及, 多个学术和临床学科人员提出应保证方法的严谨性、透明度和适当性, 包括护理和助产学。本讨论稿的重点在于范围审查的各组成部分, 包括: 提出研究问题和目标; 制定方案; 确定资格标准和拟议搜索方法; 寻找和选择证据; 提取和分析证据; 展示结果以及概述护理和助产领域的具体证据。此外, 讨论内容包括方法选择时间和评论发表方法。此方法适用于护理和助产学科, 可用于协助护理和/或助产学生、临床医生、研究人员和学术人员。

          Related collections

          Most cited references36

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

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

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

            Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

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

              Scoping studies: advancing the methodology

              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.

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                danielle.pollock@adelaide.edu.au
                Journal
                J Adv Nurs
                J Adv Nurs
                10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2648
                JAN
                Journal of Advanced Nursing
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                0309-2402
                1365-2648
                04 February 2021
                April 2021
                : 77
                : 4 ( doiID: 10.1111/jan.v77.4 )
                : 2102-2113
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] JBI Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences The University of Adelaide Adelaide SA Australia
                [ 2 ] Adelaide Nursing School Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences The University of Adelaide Adelaide SA Australia
                [ 3 ] Rosemary Bryant AO Research Centre Clinical & Health Sciences University of South Australia Adelaide SA Australia
                [ 4 ] The Centre for Evidence‐based Practice South Australia (CEPSA): A JBI Centre of Excellence Adelaide SA Australia
                [ 5 ] Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital Unity Health Toronto Toronto ON Canada
                [ 6 ] Epidemiology Division and Institute of Health Management, Policy, and Evaluation Dalla Lana School of Public Health University of Toronto Toronto ON Canada
                [ 7 ] Queen's Collaboration for Health Care Quality: A JBI Centre of Excellence Kingston ON Canada
                [ 8 ] School of Health Sciences Robert Gordon University Aberdeen UK
                [ 9 ] The Scottish Centre for Evidence‐based Multi‐professional Practice: A JBI Centre of Excellence Aberdeen UK
                [ 10 ] Faculty of Health Sciences University of the Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
                [ 11 ] The Wits‐JBI Centre for Evidence‐Based Practice: A JBI Affiliated Group Johannesburg South Africa
                [ 12 ] School of Nursing Queen's University Kingston ON Canada
                [ 13 ] School of Psychology and Public Health Department of Public Health La Trobe University Melbourne Vic Australia
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Danielle Pollock, JBI, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.

                Email: danielle.pollock@ 123456adelaide.edu.au

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6604-0609
                Article
                JAN14743
                10.1111/jan.14743
                8049063
                33543511
                ca9b0647-6fe7-4c7e-8a74-8fe1840b92fa
                © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Advanced Nursing published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 02 December 2020
                : 02 November 2020
                : 14 December 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 2, Pages: 12, Words: 7668
                Funding
                Funded by: AT is supported by the Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Synthesis
                Categories
                Research Methodology: Discussion Paper–Methodology
                Research Papers
                Research Methodology: Discussion Paper–Methodology
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                April 2021
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.0.2 mode:remove_FC converted:15.04.2021

                Nursing
                evidence synthesis,methodology,midwifery,nursing,prisma‐scr,reporting,scoping review
                Nursing
                evidence synthesis, methodology, midwifery, nursing, prisma‐scr, reporting, scoping review

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log