Advancing occupational therapy scoping reviews: Recommendations to enhance quality and methodological rigour

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 REHABILITATION
Ted Brown, Louise Gustafsson, Carol McKinstry, Luke Robinson
{"title":"Advancing occupational therapy scoping reviews: Recommendations to enhance quality and methodological rigour","authors":"Ted Brown,&nbsp;Louise Gustafsson,&nbsp;Carol McKinstry,&nbsp;Luke Robinson","doi":"10.1111/1440-1630.70003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Scoping reviews are an increasingly popular methodological approach to collate evidence and synthesise knowledge in many fields including occupational therapy. However, many are published with potential methodological weaknesses. To address this issue, nine methodological recommendations that authors could adopt to improve the quality and rigour of published scoping reviews are proposed based on the authors' opinions and the published evidence.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Overview</h3>\n \n <p>It is suggested that when authors are completing a scoping review, they can consider completing one or more of the following methodological guidelines: (1) refer to the Levac et al.'s (2010) scoping review recommendations, the JBI Scoping Review Protocol, and the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist as methodological guides; (2) include grey literature as a standard component search strategy approach; (3) include thesis and dissertations as recognised sources of evidence; (4) apply a recognised research methodology critical appraisal/quality assessment tools and scales to evidence selected for inclusion in scoping reviews; (5) assign a level of evidence (LoE) framework to the selected evidence; (6) apply a recognised qualitative knowledge syntheses approach to the data extracted; (7) report the steps taken to ensure the trustworthiness of the qualitative knowledge synthesis approach used; (8) include consumer, stakeholder and community consultation; and (9) apply a scoping review-specific critical appraisal/quality assessment tool as a quality assurance activity. The authors are not proposing that the nine recommendations are mandatory, but instead they are methodological guidelines that scoping review authors can incorporate if they choose.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Consumer and Community Involvement</h3>\n \n <p>Consumers and community members were not involved in the writing of the manuscript.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Adopting the suggested methodological recommendations as a regular part of completing occupational therapy-related scoping reviews will increase their quality, precision, and rigour.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55418,"journal":{"name":"Australian Occupational Therapy Journal","volume":"72 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1440-1630.70003","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Occupational Therapy Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1440-1630.70003","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Scoping reviews are an increasingly popular methodological approach to collate evidence and synthesise knowledge in many fields including occupational therapy. However, many are published with potential methodological weaknesses. To address this issue, nine methodological recommendations that authors could adopt to improve the quality and rigour of published scoping reviews are proposed based on the authors' opinions and the published evidence.

Overview

It is suggested that when authors are completing a scoping review, they can consider completing one or more of the following methodological guidelines: (1) refer to the Levac et al.'s (2010) scoping review recommendations, the JBI Scoping Review Protocol, and the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist as methodological guides; (2) include grey literature as a standard component search strategy approach; (3) include thesis and dissertations as recognised sources of evidence; (4) apply a recognised research methodology critical appraisal/quality assessment tools and scales to evidence selected for inclusion in scoping reviews; (5) assign a level of evidence (LoE) framework to the selected evidence; (6) apply a recognised qualitative knowledge syntheses approach to the data extracted; (7) report the steps taken to ensure the trustworthiness of the qualitative knowledge synthesis approach used; (8) include consumer, stakeholder and community consultation; and (9) apply a scoping review-specific critical appraisal/quality assessment tool as a quality assurance activity. The authors are not proposing that the nine recommendations are mandatory, but instead they are methodological guidelines that scoping review authors can incorporate if they choose.

Consumer and Community Involvement

Consumers and community members were not involved in the writing of the manuscript.

Conclusion

Adopting the suggested methodological recommendations as a regular part of completing occupational therapy-related scoping reviews will increase their quality, precision, and rigour.

Abstract Image

推进职业治疗范围审查:提高质量和方法严谨性的建议
在包括职业治疗在内的许多领域,范围评估是一种越来越流行的方法方法,用于整理证据和综合知识。然而,许多发表的论文在方法上存在潜在的弱点。为了解决这一问题,本文根据作者的观点和已发表的证据,提出了作者可以采用的九种方法建议,以提高已发表的范围评价的质量和严谨性。建议作者在完成范围审查时,可以考虑完成以下一项或多项方法指南:(1)参考Levac等人(2010)的范围审查建议、JBI范围审查方案和PRISMA范围审查扩展(PRISMA- scr)清单作为方法指南;(2)将灰色文献作为标准成分搜索策略方法;(3)将论文和学位论文作为公认的证据来源;(4)采用公认的研究方法,关键的评估/质量评估工具和尺度,选择证据纳入范围审查;(5)为选定的证据指定证据级别(LoE)框架;(6)对提取的数据应用公认的定性知识综合方法;(7)报告为确保所使用的定性知识综合方法的可信度而采取的步骤;(8)包括消费者、利益相关者和社区咨询;(9)应用范围审查特定的关键评估/质量评估工具作为质量保证活动。作者并没有提出这9条建议是强制性的,相反,它们是方法学上的指导方针,如果范围评估作者选择的话,可以纳入其中。消费者和社区的参与消费者和社区成员没有参与手稿的撰写。结论:将建议的方法学建议作为完成职业治疗相关范围评估的常规部分,将提高其质量、准确性和严谨性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
16.70%
发文量
69
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Australian Occupational Therapy Journal is a leading international peer reviewed publication presenting influential, high quality innovative scholarship and research relevant to occupational therapy. The aim of the journal is to be a leader in the dissemination of scholarship and evidence to substantiate, influence and shape policy and occupational therapy practice locally and globally. The journal publishes empirical studies, theoretical papers, and reviews. Preference will be given to manuscripts that have a sound theoretical basis, methodological rigour with sufficient scope and scale to make important new contributions to the occupational therapy body of knowledge. AOTJ does not publish protocols for any study design The journal will consider multidisciplinary or interprofessional studies that include occupational therapy, occupational therapists or occupational therapy students, so long as ‘key points’ highlight the specific implications for occupational therapy, occupational therapists and/or occupational therapy students and/or consumers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信