scholarly journals Addressing Challenges When Applying GRADE to Public Health Guidelines: A Scoping Review Protocol and Pilot Analysis

2022 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 992
Author(s):  
Lucia Kantorová ◽  
Tereza Friessová ◽  
Simona Slezáková ◽  
Alena Langaufová ◽  
Jiří Kantor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Descriptive Statistics ◽  
Graphical Form ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Directed Content Analysis ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Grade Approach

This is a protocol for a scoping review that aims to determine how guideline authors using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach have addressed previously identified challenges related to public health. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews will be followed. We will search and screen titles of guidelines for all languages published in 2013–2021 in: the GIN library, BIGG database, Epistemonikos GRADE guidelines repository, GRADEpro Database, MAGICapp, NICE and WHO websites. Two reviewers will independently screen full texts of the documents identified. The following information will be extracted: methods used for identifying different stakeholders and incorporating their perspectives; methods for identification and prioritization of non-health outcomes; methods for determining thresholds for decision-making; methods for incorporating and grading evidence from non-randomized studies; methods for addressing concerns with conditional recommendations in public health; methods for reaching consensus; additional methodological concerns; and any modifications made to GRADE. A combination of directed content analysis and descriptive statistics will be used for data analysis, and the findings presented narratively in a tabular and graphical form. In this protocol, we present the pilot results from 13 identified eligible guidelines issued between January and August 2021. We will publish the full review results when they become available.

scholarly journals Role of occupational therapy in musicians’ health: a scoping review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. e040922
Author(s):  
Bethany Villas ◽  
Uira Duarte Wisnesky ◽  
Sandra Campbell ◽  
Lauren Slavik ◽  
Amynah S. Mevawala ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Occupational Therapy ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Health Conditions ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Meta Analyses

Review question/objectiveThe purpose of this proposed review is twofold: first, to understand the role of occupational therapy presented in the musicians’ health literature; and second, to explore the potential for this role.IntroductionThe intense movement, awkward postures, concentration and emotional communication required of musicians can place them at increased risk of music-related health conditions, such as musculoskeletal disorders and performance anxiety. The development of music-related health conditions can be emotionally and financially devastating. The role of occupational therapy in musicians’ health has been previously discussed; however, no rigorous reviews of the scholarly literature have been published. We will, therefore, undertake a scoping review with the following research questions: (1) what is known about the role of occupational therapy in instrumental musicians’ health? and (2) what is the potential role of occupational therapy in musicians’ health?Methods and analysisA preliminary search of Medline, CINAHL, SCOPUS and Web of Science was previously undertaken by the first author to determine the extent of the research on this topic and to confirm that no other reviews have been conducted or are in progress. Study selection and analysis will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews guidelines for conducting a scoping review.Ethics and disseminationFormal ethics approval is not required at our institution for a review of published literature. The results of this review will be shared through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and traditional and social media.

Overview of current legislation, experiences and existing scenarios on allowing the sale of tobacco products only in tobacco stores: a scoping review protocol

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (16) ◽  
pp. e402101621884
Author(s):  
Lucas Manoel da Silva Cabral ◽  
Fernando Nagib Jardim ◽  
Maria José Domingues da Silva Giongo ◽  
Andréa Ramalho Reis Cardoso ◽  
Maria Raquel Fernandes da Silva ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Passive Smoking ◽  
Smoking Prevalence ◽  
Methodological Approach ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Tobacco Products ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Science Framework

This article presents the scoping review protocol on allowing the sale of tobacco products only in tobacco stores in Brazil. It is based on the hypothesis that limiting the sale of tobacco products only in tobacco shops would significantly prevent initiation and encourage cessation, thus reducing smoking prevalence and passive smoking in Brazil. The protocol aims to document the processes involved in the planning and methodological approach of an extensive scoping review, guided by Joanna Briggs Institute’s manual. The review protocol was prepared following PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. It was registered in the Open Science Framework.

scholarly journals Challenges and facilitators for early career researchers completing systematic or scoping reviews in the health sciences: A Scoping Review Protocol

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Patricia Ayala ◽  
Lindsey Sikora ◽  
Shona Kirtley ◽  
Patrick R. Labelle ◽  
Erica Lenton
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Review Cycle

An increasing number of systematic reviews (SysRev) are being published in health sciences and medicine; however, many are poorly conducted or reported.Strategies are needed to help reduce this avoidable waste in research . Systematic reviews can help decision makers interpret the deluge of published biomedical literature. However, a SysRev or scoping review may be of limited use if the methods used to conduct them are flawed, or if reporting is incomplete.At each stage during the systematic or scoping review cycle, different challenges can arise, especially for a novice researcher. All knowledge syntheses, once past the stage of question formulation, begin with the literature search. Librarians are in a strategic position to uncover issues regarding a researcher’slevel of preparedness in conducting these types of studies. From this vantage point, librarians can have a significant impact by teaching researchers about practices to properly report findings, as well as by raising awareness about which methodology might be more appropriate for their research question. Research waste is a growing concern, and librariansare part of the answer in the role they play as advocates for research integrity and transparency. This scoping review would be the first to cover this topic in a comprehensive, structured and methodologically rigorous way. Results would be of interest to librarians, researchers, educators and the wider research community in health sciences and medicine.

scholarly journals Interventions to integrate care for people with serious mental illness and substance use disorders: a systematic scoping review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. e031122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Richardson ◽  
Lauralie Richard ◽  
Kathryn Gunter ◽  
Sarah Derrett
Keyword(s):  
Mental Illness ◽  
Substance Use ◽  
Integrated Care ◽  
Substance Use Disorders ◽  
Serious Mental Illness ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Integrate Care ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Empirical Investigations

IntroductionPeople with serious mental illness (SMI) and/or substance use disorders (SUDs) have an elevated risk of premature mortality compared with the general population. This has been attributed to higher rates of chronic illness among these individuals, but also to inequities in healthcare access and treatment. Integrated care has the potential to improve the health of people with SMI/SUDs. The aims of this scoping review are to: (1) identify empirical investigations of interventions designed to integrate care for people with SMI/SUDs; (2) describe the underlying theories, models and frameworks of integrated care that informed their development; and (3) determine the degree to which interventions address dimensions of a comprehensive and validated framework of integrated care.Methods and analysisGuidelines for best practice and reporting of scoping reviews will be followed using the framework of Arksey and O’Malley and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses scoping review checklist. An iterative and systematic search of peer-reviewed publications reporting empirical research findings will be conducted. This literature will be identified by searching five databases: Medline (Ovid), PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase (Ovid) and Scopus. The search will be restricted to articles published between January 2000 and April 2019. Two reviewers will independently screen publications in two successive stages of title and abstract screening, followed by full-text screening of eligible publications. A tabular summary and narrative synthesis will be completed using data extracted from each included study. A framework synthesis will also be conducted, with descriptions of interventions mapped against a theoretical framework of integrated care.Ethics and disseminationThis review will identify the extent and nature of empirical investigations evaluating interventions to integrate care for people with SMI/SUDs. Ethical approval was not required. A team of relevant stakeholders, including people with lived experience of mental health conditions, has been established. This team will be engaged throughout the review and will ensure that the findings are widely disseminated. Dissemination will include publication of the review in a peer-reviewed journal. The review protocol has been registered through Open Science Framework and can be accessed athttps://osf.io/njkph/

scholarly journals Clinical prediction models to diagnose neonatal sepsis: a scoping review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. e039712
Author(s):  
Samuel R Neal ◽  
David Musorowegomo ◽  
Hannah Gannon ◽  
Mario Cortina Borja ◽  
Michelle Heys ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Neonatal Sepsis ◽  
Prediction Models ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Clinical Prediction ◽  
Clinical Prediction Models ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Review Protocol

IntroductionNeonatal sepsis is responsible for significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Diagnosis is often difficult due to non-specific clinical features and the unavailability of laboratory tests in many low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Clinical prediction models have the potential to improve diagnostic accuracy and rationalise antibiotic usage in neonatal units, which may result in reduced antimicrobial resistance and improved neonatal outcomes. In this paper, we outline our scoping review protocol to map the literature concerning clinical prediction models to diagnose neonatal sepsis. We aim to provide an overview of existing models and evidence underlying their use and compare prediction models between high-income countries and LMICs.Methods and analysisThe protocol was developed with reference to recommendations by the Joanna Briggs Institute. Searches will include six electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Global Index Medicus and the Cochrane Library) supplemented by hand searching of reference lists and citation analysis on included studies. No time period restrictions will be applied but only studies published in English or Spanish will be included. Screening and data extraction will be performed independently by two reviewers, with a third reviewer used to resolve conflicts. The results will be reported by narrative synthesis in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines.Ethics and disseminationThe nature of the scoping review methodology means that this study does not require ethical approval. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations, as well as through engagement with peers and relevant stakeholders.

scholarly journals Priority domains, aims, and testable hypotheses for implementation research: Protocol for a scoping review and evidence map

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan R. Garner ◽  
Sheila V. Patel ◽  
M. Alexis Kirk
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Implementation Science ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Implementation Research ◽  
Scientific Theories ◽  
National Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Evidence Map ◽  
Path Diagram ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Academy Of Sciences

Abstract Background The challenge of implementing evidence-based innovations within practice settings is a significant public health issue that the field of implementation research (IR) is focused on addressing. Significant amounts of funding, time, and effort have been invested in IR to date, yet there remains significant room for advancement, especially regarding IR’s development of scientific theories as defined by the National Academy of Sciences (i.e., a comprehensive explanation of the relationship between variables that is supported by a vast body of evidence). Research priority setting (i.e., promoting consensus about areas where research effort will have wide benefits to society) is a key approach to helping accelerate research advancements. Thus, building upon existing IR, general principles of data reduction, and a general framework for moderated mediation, this article identifies four priority domains, three priority aims, and four testable hypotheses for IR, which we organize in the priority aims and testable hypotheses (PATH) diagram. Methods The objective of this scoping review is to map the extent to which IR has examined the identified PATH priorities to date. Our sample will include IR published in leading implementation-focused journals (i.e., Implementation Science, Implementation Science Communications, and Implementation Research and Practice) between their inception and December 2020. The protocol for the current scoping review and evidence map has been developed in accordance with the approach developed by Arksey and O’Malley and advanced by Levac, Colquhoun, and O’Brien. Because scoping reviews seek to provide an overview of the identified evidence base rather than synthesize findings from across studies, we plan to use our data-charting form to provide a descriptive overview of implementation research to date and summarize the research via one or more summary tables. We will use the PATH diagram to organize a map of the evidence to date. Discussion This scoping review and evidence map is intended to help accelerate IR focused on suggested priority aims and testable hypotheses, which in turn will accelerate IR’s development of National Academy of Sciences-defined scientific theories and, subsequently, improvements in public health. Systematic review registration Open Science Framework https://osf.io/3vhuj/

scholarly journals Priority domains, aims, and testable hypotheses for implementation research: Protocol for a scoping review and evidence map

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan R Garner ◽  
Sheila Patel ◽  
M. Alexis Kirk
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Implementation Science ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Implementation Research ◽  
Scientific Theories ◽  
National Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Evidence Map ◽  
Path Diagram ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Academy Of Sciences

Abstract Background: The challenge of implementing evidence-based innovations within practice settings is a significant public health issue the field of implementation research (IR) is focused on addressing. Significant amounts of funding, time, and effort have been invested in IR to date, yet there remains significant room for advancement, especially regarding IR’s development of scientific theories as defined by the National Academy of Sciences (i.e., a comprehensive explanation of the relationship between variables that is supported by a vast body of evidence). Research priority setting (i.e., promoting consensus about areas where research effort will have wide benefits to society) is a key approach to helping accelerate research advancements. Thus, building upon existing IR, general principles of data reduction, and a general framework for moderated mediation, this article identifies four priority domains, three priority aims, and four testable hypotheses for IR, which we organize in the priority aims and testable hypotheses (PATH) diagram..Methods: The objective of this scoping review is to map the extent to which IR has examined the identified PATH priorities to date. Our sample will include IR published in leading implementation-focused journals (i.e., Implementation Science, Implementation Science Communications, and Implementation Research and Practice) between their inception and December 2020. The protocol for the current scoping review and evidence map has been developed in accordance with the approach developed by Arksey & O’Malley and advanced by Levac, Colquhoun, and O’Brien. Because scoping reviews seek to provide an overview of the identified evidence base rather than synthesize findings from across studies, we plan to use our data-charting form to provide a descriptive overview of implementation research to-date and summarize the research via one or more summary tables. We will use the PATH diagram to organize a map of the evidence to date.Discussion: This scoping review and evidence map is intended to help accelerate IR focused on suggested priority aims and testable hypotheses, which in turn will accelerate IR’s development of National Academy of Sciences-defined scientific theories and, subsequently, improvements in public health.Systematic review registration: Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/3vhuj/

scholarly journals Development of a national stroke audit in Ireland: scoping review protocol

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 31
Author(s):  
Carlos Bruen ◽  
Niamh A. Merriman ◽  
Paul J. Murphy ◽  
Joan McCormack ◽  
Eithne Sexton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acute Stroke ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Stroke Care ◽  
Acute Stroke Care ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Audit Data ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Minimum Dataset

Introduction Recent advances in stroke management and care have resulted in improved survival and outcomes. However, providing equitable access to acute care, rehabilitation and longer-term stroke care is challenging. Recent Irish evidence indicates variation in stroke outcomes across hospitals, and a need for continuous audit of stroke care to support quality improvement. The aim of this project is to develop a core minimum dataset for use in the new Irish National Audit of Stroke (INAS), which aims to improve the standard of stroke care in Ireland. This paper outlines the protocol for conducting a scoping review of international practice and guidelines in auditing acute and non-acute stroke care. Objective Identify data items that are currently collected by stroke audits internationally, and identify audit guidelines that exist for recommending inclusion of content in stroke audit datasets. Methods and analysis This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). We will search the following databases: Medline Ovid; Embase; CINAHL EBSCOHost. Grey literature will also be searched for relevant materials, as will relevant websites. Study selection and review will be carried out independently by two researchers, with discrepancies resolved by a third. Data charting and synthesis will involve sub-dividing relevant sources of evidence, and synthesising data into three categories: i) acute stroke care; ii) non-acute stroke care; and iii) audit data collection procedures and resourcing. Data will be charted using a standardised form specific to each category. Consultation with knowledge users will be conducted at all stages of the scoping review. Discussion This scoping review will contribute to a larger project aimed at developing an internationally benchmarked stroke audit tool that will be used prospectively to collect data on all stroke admissions in Ireland, encompassing both acute and non-acute data items.

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

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.

scholarly journals The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: A Scoping Review Protocol

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 186-197
Author(s):  
Nancy Chick ◽  
Lorelli Nowell ◽  
Bartlomiej Lenart
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
Systematic Approach ◽  
Careful Planning ◽  
Scholarship Of Teaching ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Review Protocol

Scoping reviews offer a rigorous and systematic approach to examining the range and nature of literature in a particular field, identifying the existing literature and highlighting gaps where further exploration is required (Arksey & 0'Malley, 2005; Levac, Colquhoun, & O'Brien, 2010). In this article, we share our scoping review protocol—the explicit, step-by-step description of the plan for conducting the review, published separately and before completing the review. This genre of public documentation of our process is essential in scoping reviews to support careful planning and documentation, enable others to compare the protocol and completed review, support others in evaluating and/or replicating its methods, and encourage collaboration and development of follow-up research on the field (Shamseer et al, 2015).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document