Evaluation of the JBI scoping reviews methodology by current users
Evaluation of the JBI scoping reviews methodology by current users
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/xeb.0000000000000202
复制
发表时间：
2020-03-01
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Peters, Micah
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Khalil, Hanan;Bennett, Marsha;Peters, Micah
背景资料：2014年，JBI系统性审评和实施报告数据库发布了一个基于先前框架和指南的范围界定审评实施和报告综合方法。需要就范围界定审查方法，特别是报告开展进一步工作。为协助完善该方法，进行了这项调查，以评价用户采用过程方法的经验。生成了一份电子调查，以探讨作者使用该方法的经验，并征求对范围界定审查制定阶段的反馈意见。方法：利用Qualtrics这一安全的调查平台进行了一项在线调查，并通过邀请向乔安娜·布里格斯系统性审评和执行情况报告数据库的51名注册用户分发了调查问卷。我们使用描述性统计分析问卷数据。定性数据被分组在一起，自由文本的意见归纳主题和编码的作者。结果：31名参与者完成了调查（响应率为61%）。大多数参与者认为自己是研究人员（55%），其次是教育工作者（25%）。大多数参与者是大学员工（77%），只有10%是医院员工。42%的参与者报告说，他们参与的范围界定审查花了6到12个月，32%的参与者花了一年多的时间完成审查。87%的参与者表示，他们的范围审查导致了进一步的工作，如开发一个系统的审查，资助申请的基础，形成学生的博士研究的一部分，并为研究项目的进一步工作提供信息。与会者列出的一些局限性是，方法的每一节都缺乏实例，特别是在纳入标准和成果部分的介绍方面。结论：与会者对联合执行机构范围界定审查方法的总体评价突出表明，需要对纳入标准和结果列报提供更多详细指导。还要求为每一步骤提供明确的例子，以便今后改进。
Background: In 2014, JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports published a comprehensive methodology for the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews based on previous frameworks and guidance. Further work on scoping review methodology and particularly reporting is needed. To assist with refinements to the methodology, this survey was undertaken to evaluate users' experiences of following the process methodology. An electronic survey was generated to explore authors' experiences with the methodology and to seek feedback on the stages of scoping review development. Method: An online survey administered using Qualtrics - a secure survey platform - was distributed through invitations to a total of 51 registered users in the Joanna Briggs Database of Systematic reviews and Implementation reports. We analysed the questionnaire data using descriptive statistics. The qualitative data were grouped together, and free text comments were inductively themed and coded by the authors. Results: Thirty-one participants completed the survey (response rate of 61%). The majority of the participants identified themselves as researchers (55%) followed by educators (25%). Most participants were university employees (77%) and only 10% were based in hospitals. Forty-two percent of the participants reported that the scoping review they had been involved with had taken between 6 and 12 months, and 32% of participants spent over a year completing their reviews. Eighty-seven percent of participants stated that their scoping reviews led to further work such as developing a systematic review, a basis for a grant application, formation of a part of students' doctoral studies, and informing further work in a research project. Some of the limitations listed by the participants were the lack of examples in each section of the methodology, especially in the inclusion criteria, and presentation of the results sections. Conclusion: The overall evaluation by the participants of the JBI scoping review methodology highlighted the need for additional detailed guidance for inclusion criteria and presentation of the results. Provision of clear examples for each step was also requested for future improvement.