Advancing scoping study methodology: a web-based survey and consultation of perceptions on terminology, definition and methodological steps.
Advancing scoping study methodology: a web-based survey and consultation of perceptions on terminology, definition and methodological steps.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s12913-016-1579-z
复制
发表时间：
2016-07-26
影响因子：
2.8
通讯作者：
O'Malley L
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
O'Brien KK;Colquhoun H;Levac D;Baxter L;Tricco AC;Straus S;Wickerson L;Nayar A;Moher D;O'Malley L
范围界定研究（或综述）是一种用于全面绘制某一领域一系列研究设计证据的方法，旨在为未来的研究实践、计划和政策提供信息。然而，在术语、定义或方法步骤方面尚不存在普遍共识。我们的目的是从学术和社区合作伙伴的角度了解进行范围界定研究的经验和考虑因素。主要目标是 1) 描述进行范围界定研究的经验，包括优势和挑战； 2) 描述术语、定义和方法步骤的观点。我们对具有开展范围界定研究经验和/或兴趣的临床医生、教育工作者、研究人员、知识用户、社区组织代表、研究生和政策利益相关者进行了一项横断面网络调查，以了解范围界定研究的实施和报告的经验和观点。我们实施了一份电子自我报告调查问卷，其中包含 22 个项目，涉及范围界定研究的经验、优势和挑战、术语观点和方法步骤。我们使用描述性统计和内容分析技术分析了问卷数据。在多方利益相关者磋商期间讨论了调查结果，以确定范围界定研究的进行和报告中的关键考虑因素。在 83 份邀请中，54 人 (65%) 完成了范围界定调查问卷，来自加拿大、英国和美国的 48 人 (58%) 参加了范围界定研究会议。许多范围界定研究的优势都被双重确定为挑战，包括范围的广度和迭代过程。术语方面尚未达成共识，但构成范围界定研究工作定义的关键定义特征包括对某一领域文献的探索性映射；迭代过程，纳入灰色文献；没有对纳入的研究进行质量评估，并且有一个可选的咨询阶段。我们为参与该方法的研究人员、临床医生和知识用户提供了进行和报告范围界定研究的注意事项。对于范围界定术语、定义和方法步骤仍然缺乏共识。造成这种情况的原因可能是由于不同学科出于不同目的而采用这种方法。需要开展进一步的工作来制定范围研究的报告和方法质量评估指南。本文的在线版本 (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1579-z) 包含补充材料，可供授权用户使用。
Scoping studies (or reviews) are a method used to comprehensively map evidence across a range of study designs in an area, with the aim of informing future research practice, programs and policy. However, no universal agreement exists on terminology, definition or methodological steps. Our aim was to understand the experiences of, and considerations for conducting scoping studies from the perspective of academic and community partners. Primary objectives were to 1) describe experiences conducting scoping studies including strengths and challenges; and 2) describe perspectives on terminology, definition, and methodological steps. We conducted a cross-sectional web-based survey with clinicians, educators, researchers, knowledge users, representatives from community-based organizations, graduate students, and policy stakeholders with experience and/or interest in conducting scoping studies to gain an understanding of experiences and perspectives on the conduct and reporting of scoping studies. We administered an electronic self-reported questionnaire comprised of 22 items related to experiences with scoping studies, strengths and challenges, opinions on terminology, and methodological steps. We analyzed questionnaire data using descriptive statistics and content analytical techniques. Survey results were discussed during a multi-stakeholder consultation to identify key considerations in the conduct and reporting of scoping studies. Of the 83 invitations, 54 individuals (65 %) completed the scoping questionnaire, and 48 (58 %) attended the scoping study meeting from Canada, the United Kingdom and United States. Many scoping study strengths were dually identified as challenges including breadth of scope, and iterative process. No consensus on terminology emerged, however key defining features that comprised a working definition of scoping studies included the exploratory mapping of literature in a field; iterative process, inclusion of grey literature; no quality assessment of included studies, and an optional consultation phase. We offer considerations for the conduct and reporting of scoping studies for researchers, clinicians and knowledge users engaging in this methodology. Lack of consensus on scoping terminology, definition and methodological steps persists. Reasons for this may be attributed to diversity of disciplines adopting this methodology for differing purposes. Further work is needed to establish guidelines on the reporting and methodological quality assessment of scoping studies. The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1579-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.