Global evidence of gender inequity in academic health research: a living scoping review protocol

IntroductionThere is evidence that the use of some reporting guidelines, such as the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials, is associated with improved completeness of reporting in health research. However, the current levels of adherence to reporting guidelines are suboptimal. Over the last few years, several actions aiming to improve compliance with reporting guidelines have been taken and proposed. We will conduct a scoping review of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research that have been evaluated or suggested, in order to inform future interventions.Methods and analysisOur review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methods manual. We will search for relevant studies in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases. Moreover, we will carry out lateral searches from the reference lists of the included studies, as well as from the lists of articles citing the included ones. One reviewer will screen the full list, which will be randomly split into two halves and independently screened by the other two reviewers. Two reviewers will perform data extraction independently. Discrepancies will be solved through discussion. In addition, this search strategy will be supplemented by a grey literature search. The interventions found will be classified as assessed or suggested, as well as according to different criteria, in relation to their target (journal policies, journal editors, authors, reviewers, funders, ethical boards or others) or the research stage at which they are performed (design, conducting, reporting or peer review). Descriptive statistical analysis will be performed.Ethics and disseminationA paper summarising the findings from this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. This scoping review will contribute to a better understanding and a broader perspective on how the problem of adhering better to reporting guidelines has been tackled so far. This could be a major first step towards developing future strategies to improve compliance with reporting guidelines in health research.

Download Full-text

Incorporating and evaluating citizen engagement in health research: a scoping review protocol

Systematic Reviews ◽

10.1186/s13643-021-01812-4 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Anmol Shahid ◽

Brianna K. Rosgen ◽

Karla D. Krewulak ◽

Diane L. Lorenzetti ◽

Nadine Foster ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Scoping Review ◽

Health Research ◽

Open Science ◽

Citizen Engagement ◽

Implementation Evaluation ◽

Scoping Reviews ◽

Meaningful Engagement ◽

Review Protocol ◽

Planning Decision ◽

Science Framework

Abstract Background Citizen engagement in research is an emerging practice that involves members of the general public in research processes such as priority setting, planning, decision-making, research conduct, implementation, evaluation, and dissemination. Engaging citizens in research, particularly health research, increases the relevance of study findings, minimizes waste by facilitating stewardship over resources, and builds public trust in the research. While several existing frameworks guide the application of citizen engagement principles to health research, it is unclear how citizen engagement can be utilized to maximize benefits and minimize risks and challenges in health research. To address the gaps in knowledge around citizen engagement in health research, we propose a scoping review to synthesize the state of knowledge on methods to incorporate and evaluate citizen engagement in research. A protocol is presented in this manuscript. Methods The methodology for our scoping review is guided by Arksey and O’ Malley’s framework for scoping reviews, and additional recommendations by Levac and colleagues. We will include peer-reviewed and gray literature that report on citizen engagement in health research (including biomedical, clinical, health systems and services, and social, cultural, environmental and population health) and report method(s) to conduct, measure, or evaluate citizen engagement. We will systematically search electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, JSTOR, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Science Direct) from inception onwards and search relevant organizations’ websites for additional studies, frameworks, and reports on citizen engagement. Title and abstract and full-text citations will be screened independently and in duplicate. Data will be extracted independently and in duplicate, including document characteristics, citizen engagement definitions and goals, and outcomes of citizen engagement (e.g., barriers, facilitators). Discussion This review will synthesize the definitions, goals, methods, outcomes, and significance of citizen engagement in health research, as well as any potential barriers, facilitators, and challenges outlined in existing literature. The findings will provide an evidence-based foundation for developing new or improved guidance for citizen engagement in health research. Overall, we anticipate that our scoping review will be a preliminary step to meaningful engagement of citizens in research and strengthen the relationship between the scientific community and the public through transparency and collaboration. Systematic review registration Open Science Framework https://osf.io/hzcbr.

Download Full-text

Incorporating and Evaluating Citizen Engagement in Health Research: a Scoping Review Protocol

10.21203/rs.3.rs-185385/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Anmol Shahid ◽

Brianna K Rosgen ◽

Karla K Krewulak ◽

Diane L Lorenzetti ◽

Nadine Foster ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Scoping Review ◽

Health Research ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Citizen Engagement ◽

The Public ◽

Implementation Evaluation ◽

Scoping Reviews ◽

Meaningful Engagement ◽

Review Protocol ◽

Planning Decision

Abstract Background: Citizen engagement in research is an emerging practice that involves members of the general public in research processes such as priority-setting, planning, decision-making, research conduct, implementation, evaluation, and dissemination. Engaging citizens in research, particularly health research, increases the relevance of study findings, minimizes waste by facilitating stewardship over resources, and builds public trust in the research. While several existing frameworks guide the application of citizen engagement principles to health research, it is unclear how citizen engagement can be utilized to maximize benefits and minimize risks and challenges in health research. To address the gaps in knowledge around citizen engagement in health research, we propose a scoping review to synthesize the state of knowledge on methods to incorporate and evaluate citizen engagement in research. A protocol is presented in this manuscript. Methods: The methodology for our scoping review is guided by Arksey and O’ Malley’s framework for scoping reviews, and additional recommendations by Levac and colleagues. We will include peer-reviewed and grey literature that report on citizen engagement in health research (including biomedical, clinical, health systems and services, and social, cultural, environmental and population health) and report method(s) to conduct, measure, or evaluate citizen engagement. We will systematically search electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, JSTOR, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Science Direct) and relevant organizations’ websites for additional studies, frameworks, and reports on citizen engagement. Title and abstract and full-text citations will be screened independently and in duplicate. Data will be extracted independently and in duplicate, including: document characteristics, citizen engagement definitions and goals, and outcomes of citizen engagement (e.g., impact, barriers, facilitators). Discussion: This review will synthesize the definitions, goals, methods, outcomes, and significance of citizen engagement in health research, as well as any potential barriers, facilitators, and challenges outlined in existing literature. The findings will provide an evidence-based foundation for developing new or improved guidance for citizen engagement in health research. Overall, we anticipate that our scoping review will be a preliminary step to meaningful engagement of citizens in research and strengthen the relationship between the scientific community and the public through transparency and collaboration.SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Download Full-text

Scoping review protocol on maternal, newborn and child health research in Ethiopia

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034307 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (7) ◽

pp. e034307

Author(s):

Grace J Chan ◽

Misrak Getnet ◽

Ronke Olowojesiku ◽

Thein Min-Swe ◽

Bezawit Hunegnaw ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Mortality Rate ◽

Child Health ◽

Maternal And Child Health ◽

Scoping Review ◽

Health Research ◽

Newborn And Child Health ◽

Live Births ◽

Review Protocol ◽

Child Health Research ◽

And Child Health

IntroductionThere has been a tremendous reduction in maternal and child mortality in the last decade. However, a significant number of deaths still occur disproportionately in low-income country settings. Ethiopia is the second-most populous nation in sub-Saharan Africa with a high maternal mortality rate of 412 deaths per 100 000 live births and an under-five mortality rate of 55 per 1000 live births. This study presents a scoping review protocol to describe the current knowledge of maternal and child health in Ethiopia to identify gaps for prioritisation of future maternal, newborn and child health research.Methods and analysesA search strategy will be conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE and the WHO African Index Medicus. Researchers will independently screen title and abstracts followed by full texts for inclusion. Study characteristics, research topics, exposures and outcomes will be abstracted from articles meeting inclusion criteria using standardised forms. Descriptive analysis of abstracted data will be conducted.Ethics and disseminationData will be abstracted from published manuscripts and no additional ethical approval is required. The results of the review will be shared with maternal and child health experts in Ethiopia through stakeholder meetings to prioritise research questions. Findings will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication, in addition to national-level and global-level disseminations.

Download Full-text

Conceptualising, operationalising and measuring trust in participatory health research networks: a scoping review protocol

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038840 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (10) ◽

pp. e038840

Author(s):

Meghan Gilfoyle ◽

Anne MacFarlane ◽

Jon Salsberg

Keyword(s):

Social Networks ◽

Scoping Review ◽

Health Research ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Community Based Participatory Research ◽

Community Health Services ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Research Partnerships ◽

Participatory Health Research ◽

Review Protocol

IntroductionA participatory approach to co-creating new knowledge in health research has gained significant momentum in recent decades. This is founded on the described benefits of community-based participatory research (CBPR), such as increased relevance of research for those who must act on its findings. This has prompted researchers to better understand how CBPR functions to achieve these benefits through building sustainable research partnerships. Several studies have identified ‘trust’ as a key mechanism to achieve sustainable partnerships, which themselves constitute social networks. Although existing literature discuss trust and CBPR, or trust and social networks, preliminary searches reveal that none link all three concepts of trust, CBPR and social networks. Thus, we present our scoping review protocol to systematically review and synthesise the literature exploring how trust is conceptualised, operationalised and measured in CBPR and social networks.Methods and analysisThis protocol follows guidelines from Levac et al (Scoping studies: advancing themethodology. Implement Sci 2010;5:69), which follow the methodological framework of Arksey and O’Malley. This scoping review explores several electronic databases including Scopus, Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and PsychINFO. Grey literature such as theses/dissertations and reports will be included. A search strategy was identified and agreed on by the team in conjunction with a research librarian. Two independent reviewers will screen articles by title and abstract, then by full text based on pre-determined exclusion/inclusion criteria. A third reviewer will arbitrate discrepancies regarding inclusions/exclusions. We plan to incorporate a thematic analysis.Ethics and disseminationEthics is not required for this review specifically. It is a component of a larger study that received ethical approval from the University of Limerick research ethics committee (#2018_05_12_EHS). Translation of results to key domains is integrated through active collaboration of stakeholders from community, health services and academic sectors. Findings will be disseminated through academic conferences, and peer review publications targeting public and patient involvement in health research.

Download Full-text

Elevating the uses of storytelling approaches within Indigenous health research: a critical and participatory scoping review protocol involving Indigenous people and settlers

Systematic Reviews ◽

10.1186/s13643-020-01503-6 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 9 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Kendra L. Rieger ◽

Sarah Gazan ◽

Marlyn Bennett ◽

Mandy Buss ◽

Anna M. Chudyk ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Indigenous Peoples ◽

Scoping Review ◽

Health Research ◽

Mixed Methods Research ◽

Healthcare Professionals ◽

Indigenous Health ◽

Healthcare Providers ◽

Indigenous Communities ◽

Open Science ◽

Review Protocol

Abstract Background There is a complicated and exploitative history of research with Indigenous peoples and accompanying calls to meaningfully and respectfully include Indigenous knowledge in healthcare. Storytelling approaches that privilege Indigenous voices can be a useful tool to break the hold that Western worldviews have within the research. Our collaborative team of Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers, and Indigenous patients, Elders, healthcare providers, and administrators, will conduct a critical participatory, scoping review to identify and examine how storytelling has been used as a method in Indigenous health research. Methods Guided by two-eyed seeing, we will use Bassett and McGibbon’s adaption of Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping review methodology. Relevant articles will be identified through a systematic search of the gray literature, core Indigenous health journals, and online databases including Scopus, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AgeLine, Academic Search Complete, Bibliography of Native North Americans, Canadian Reference Centre, and PsycINFO. Qualitative and mixed-methods research articles will be included if the researchers involved Indigenous participants or their healthcare professionals living in Turtle Island (i.e., Canada and the USA), Australia, or Aotearoa (New Zealand); use storytelling as a research method; focus on healthcare phenomena; and are written in English. Two reviewers will independently screen titles/abstracts and full-text articles. We will extract data, identify the array of storytelling approaches, and critically examine how storytelling was valued and used. An intensive collaboration will be woven throughout all review stages as academic researchers co-create this work with Indigenous patients, Elders, healthcare professionals, and administrators. Participatory strategies will include four relational gatherings throughout the project. Based on our findings, we will co-create a framework to guide the respectful use of storytelling as a method in Indigenous health research involving Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples. Discussion This work will enable us to elucidate the extent, range, and nature of storytelling within Indigenous health research, to critically reflect on how it has been and could be used, and to develop guidance for the respectful use of this method within research that involves Indigenous peoples and settlers. Our findings will enable the advancement of storytelling methods which meaningfully include Indigenous perspectives, practices, and priorities to benefit the health and wellbeing of Indigenous communities. Systematic review protocol registration Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/rvf7q)

Download Full-text

Co-production scoping review: protocol v1

10.17504/protocols.io.by7epzje ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Helen J J. Smith ◽

Luke Budworth ◽

Chloe Grindey ◽

Isabel Hague ◽

Natalie Hamer ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Scoping Review ◽

Health Research ◽

Healthcare Services ◽

Future Research ◽

Evidence Map ◽

Methodological Research ◽

Production Practice ◽

Review Protocol ◽

The Uk ◽

Applied Health Research

Background Interest in and use of co-production in healthcare services and research is growing. Previous reviews have summarised co-production approaches in use, collated outcomes and effects of co-production and focused on replicability and reporting, but none have critically reflected on how co-production in applied health research might be evolving and the implications of this for future research. We aim to conduct a scoping review to systematically map recent literature on co-production in applied health research in the UK to inform co-production practice and guide future methodological research. Methods Scoping review using established methods. We will created an evidence map to show the extent and nature of the literature on co-production and applied health research, based on this we described the characteristics of the articles and scope of the literature and summarised conceptualisations of co-production and how it was implemented. We will extract implications for co-production practice or future research and conduct a content analysis of this information to identify lessons for the practice of co-production and themes for future methodological research. Results We will report on lessons for the practice of co-production and themes for future research on co-production.

Download Full-text

Defining precision health: a scoping review protocol

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044663 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (2) ◽

pp. e044663

Author(s):

Jillian C Ryan ◽

John Noel Viana ◽

Hamza Sellak ◽

Shakuntla Gondalia ◽

Nathan O'Callaghan

Keyword(s):

Scoping Review ◽

Health Research ◽

Scientific Journal ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Health Science ◽

Professional Networks ◽

Scientific Databases ◽

Review Protocol ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

Precision Health

IntroductionPrecision health is a nascent field of research that would benefit from clearer operationalisation and distinction from adjacent fields like precision medicine. This clarification is necessary to enable precision health science to tackle some of the most complex and significant health problems that are faced globally. There is a pressing need to examine the progress in human precision health research in the past 10 years and analyse this data to first, find similarities and determine discordances in how precision health is operationalised in the literature and second, identify gaps and future directions for precision health research.Methods and analysisTo define precision health and map research in this field, a scoping review will be undertaken and reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses - Scoping Review Extension guidelines. Systematic searches of scientific databases (Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and PsycINFO) and grey literature sources (Google Scholar, Google Patents) identified 8053 potentially eligible articles published from 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2020. Following removal of duplicates, a total of 3190 articles were imported for screening. Article data will be extracted using a customised extraction template on Covidence and analysed descriptively using narrative synthesis.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required. Findings will be disseminated through professional networks, conference presentations and publication in a scientific journal.

Download Full-text

Reproductive cancers among South African Black men: A scoping review protocol

10.2196/preprints.9872 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Elvis Tichaona Munatswa ◽

Mzikazi Nduna ◽

Thobeka Nkomo ◽

Esmeralda Vilanculos

Keyword(s):

South African ◽

Black Men ◽

Scoping Review ◽

African Black ◽

Review Protocol ◽

Reproductive Cancers

Download Full-text

Hypnotherapy for Procedural Pain and Distress in Children: A scoping Review Protocol

Pain Medicine ◽

10.1093/pm/pnab038 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Daly Geagea ◽

Zephanie Tyack ◽

Roy Kimble ◽

Lars Eriksson ◽

Vince Polito ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Scoping Review ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Procedural Pain ◽

Future Research ◽

Theoretical Frameworks ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Pharmacological Agents ◽

Review Protocol ◽

Meta Analyses

Abstract Objective Inadequately treated pain and distress elicited by medical procedures can put children at higher risks of acute and chronic biopsychosocial sequelae. Children can benefit from hypnotherapy, a psychological tailored intervention, as an adjunct to pharmacological agents to address the multiple components of pain and distress. Despite providing evidence on the effectiveness and potential superiority of hypnotherapy to other psychological interventions, research on hypnotherapy for paediatric procedural pain and distress has been predominantly limited to oncology and needle procedures. Plus, there is a lack of reporting of intervention manuals, factors influencing hypnotic responding, pain unpleasantness outcomes, theoretical frameworks, adverse events, as well as barriers and facilitators to the feasibility of delivering the intervention and study procedures. The proposed review aims to map the range and nature of the evidence on hypnotherapy for procedural pain and distress in children to identify gaps in literature and areas requiring further investigation. Methods This review will follow the Arksey and O'Malley (2005) methodology and incorporate additional scoping review recommendations by The Joanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses. Relevant studies will be identified through searching published literature databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science) and grey literature in addition to hand-searching of reference lists and key journals. Two authors will independently screen titles and abstracts of search results followed by full-texts review against eligibility criteria. Conclusion Findings are anticipated to guide future research and inform the development of tailored hypnotic interventions in children.

Download Full-text