土著信息范围界定审查研究方法:推进范围界定审查的科学化。

IF 6.3 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Wanda Phillips-Beck, Bryden L J Bukich, Kellie Thiessen, Josée G Lavoie, Annette Schultz, Julianne Sanguins, Geraldine Beck, Brenda Longclaws, Geraldine Shingoose, Matta Palmer, Janice Linton, Bekelu Negash, Taylor Morriseau
{"title":"土著信息范围界定审查研究方法:推进范围界定审查的科学化。","authors":"Wanda Phillips-Beck, Bryden L J Bukich, Kellie Thiessen, Josée G Lavoie, Annette Schultz, Julianne Sanguins, Geraldine Beck, Brenda Longclaws, Geraldine Shingoose, Matta Palmer, Janice Linton, Bekelu Negash, Taylor Morriseau","doi":"10.1186/s13643-024-02586-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Historically, Indigenous voices have been silent in health research, reflective of colonial academic institutions that privilege Western ways of knowing. However, Indigenous methodologies and methods with an emphasis on the active involvement of Indigenous peoples and centering Indigenous voices are gaining traction in health education and research. In this paper, we map each phase of our scoping review process and weave Indigenous research methodologies into Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) framework for conducting scoping reviews.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Guided by an advisory circle consisting of Indigenous Knowledge Keepers and allied scholars, we utilized both Indigenous and Western methods to conduct a scoping review. As such, a circle of Knowledge Keepers provided guidance and informed our work, while our methods of searching and scoping the literature remained consistent with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. In keeping with an Indigenous methodology, the scoping review protocol was not registered allowing for an organic development of the research process.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We built upon Arksey and O'Malley's 5-stages and added an additional 3 steps for a combined 8-stage model to guide our research: (1) Exploration and Listening, (2) Doing the Groundwork, (3) Identifying and Refining the Research Question, (4) Identifying Relevant Studies, (5) Study Selection, (6) Mapping Data, (7) Collating, Summarizing and Synthesizing the Data, and lastly, (8) Sharing and Making Meaning. Engagement and listening, corresponding to Arksey and O'Malley (2005)'s optional \"consultation stage,\" was embedded throughout, but with greater intensity in stages 1 and 8.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>An Indigenous approach to conducting a scoping review includes forming a team with a wide array of experience in both Indigenous and Western methodologies, meaningful Indigenous representation, and inclusion of Indigenous perspectives to shape the analysis and presentation of findings. Engaging Indigenous peoples throughout the entire research process, listening, and including Indigenous voices and perspectives is vital in reconciliation research, producing both credible and useable information for both Indigenous communities and academia. Our Indigenous methodology for conducting a scoping review can serve as a valuable framework for summarizing Indigenous health-related research.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11247733/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Indigenous-informed scoping review study methodology: advancing the science of scoping reviews.\",\"authors\":\"Wanda Phillips-Beck, Bryden L J Bukich, Kellie Thiessen, Josée G Lavoie, Annette Schultz, Julianne Sanguins, Geraldine Beck, Brenda Longclaws, Geraldine Shingoose, Matta Palmer, Janice Linton, Bekelu Negash, Taylor Morriseau\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13643-024-02586-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Historically, Indigenous voices have been silent in health research, reflective of colonial academic institutions that privilege Western ways of knowing. However, Indigenous methodologies and methods with an emphasis on the active involvement of Indigenous peoples and centering Indigenous voices are gaining traction in health education and research. In this paper, we map each phase of our scoping review process and weave Indigenous research methodologies into Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) framework for conducting scoping reviews.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Guided by an advisory circle consisting of Indigenous Knowledge Keepers and allied scholars, we utilized both Indigenous and Western methods to conduct a scoping review. As such, a circle of Knowledge Keepers provided guidance and informed our work, while our methods of searching and scoping the literature remained consistent with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. In keeping with an Indigenous methodology, the scoping review protocol was not registered allowing for an organic development of the research process.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We built upon Arksey and O'Malley's 5-stages and added an additional 3 steps for a combined 8-stage model to guide our research: (1) Exploration and Listening, (2) Doing the Groundwork, (3) Identifying and Refining the Research Question, (4) Identifying Relevant Studies, (5) Study Selection, (6) Mapping Data, (7) Collating, Summarizing and Synthesizing the Data, and lastly, (8) Sharing and Making Meaning. Engagement and listening, corresponding to Arksey and O'Malley (2005)'s optional \\\"consultation stage,\\\" was embedded throughout, but with greater intensity in stages 1 and 8.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>An Indigenous approach to conducting a scoping review includes forming a team with a wide array of experience in both Indigenous and Western methodologies, meaningful Indigenous representation, and inclusion of Indigenous perspectives to shape the analysis and presentation of findings. Engaging Indigenous peoples throughout the entire research process, listening, and including Indigenous voices and perspectives is vital in reconciliation research, producing both credible and useable information for both Indigenous communities and academia. Our Indigenous methodology for conducting a scoping review can serve as a valuable framework for summarizing Indigenous health-related research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22162,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Systematic Reviews\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11247733/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Systematic Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02586-1\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02586-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:从历史上看,土著人的声音在健康研究中一直是沉默的,这反映了殖民地学术机构对西方认知方式的偏爱。然而,强调原住民积极参与、以原住民的声音为中心的原住民方法论和方法在健康教育和研究中正日益受到重视。在本文中,我们描绘了范围界定审查过程的每个阶段,并将土著研究方法纳入 Arksey 和 O'Malley (2005) 的范围界定审查框架:方法:在由土著知识守护者和相关学者组成的顾问圈的指导下,我们利用土著和西方方法进行了范围界定审查。因此,知识守护者顾问团为我们的工作提供了指导和信息,而我们的文献搜索和范围界定方法则与 PRISMA-ScR 指南保持一致。为了与本土方法保持一致,我们没有对范围界定审查协议进行登记,从而使研究过程得以有机发展:我们在 Arksey 和 O'Malley 的 5 个阶段的基础上又增加了 3 个步骤,形成了一个 8 个阶段的综合模型来指导我们的研究:(1) 探索与倾听,(2) 做好基础工作,(3) 确定并完善研究问题,(4) 确定相关研究,(5) 选择研究,(6) 绘制数据图,(7) 整理、归纳并综合数据,最后是 (8) 分享并创造意义。参与和倾听,相当于 Arksey 和 O'Malley(2005 年)的可选 "咨询阶段",贯穿始终,但在第 1 阶段和第 8 阶段更为密集:土著人进行范围界定审查的方法包括组建一个在土著人和西方方法论方面都具有广泛经验的团队,有意义的土著人代表,以及纳入土著人的观点以形成分析和结果陈述。让原住民参与整个研究过程,倾听并纳入原住民的声音和观点,这对和解研究至关重要,可为原住民社区和学术界提供可信和可用的信息。我们开展范围审查的土著方法可作为总结土著健康相关研究的宝贵框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
An Indigenous-informed scoping review study methodology: advancing the science of scoping reviews.

Background: Historically, Indigenous voices have been silent in health research, reflective of colonial academic institutions that privilege Western ways of knowing. However, Indigenous methodologies and methods with an emphasis on the active involvement of Indigenous peoples and centering Indigenous voices are gaining traction in health education and research. In this paper, we map each phase of our scoping review process and weave Indigenous research methodologies into Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) framework for conducting scoping reviews.

Methods: Guided by an advisory circle consisting of Indigenous Knowledge Keepers and allied scholars, we utilized both Indigenous and Western methods to conduct a scoping review. As such, a circle of Knowledge Keepers provided guidance and informed our work, while our methods of searching and scoping the literature remained consistent with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. In keeping with an Indigenous methodology, the scoping review protocol was not registered allowing for an organic development of the research process.

Results: We built upon Arksey and O'Malley's 5-stages and added an additional 3 steps for a combined 8-stage model to guide our research: (1) Exploration and Listening, (2) Doing the Groundwork, (3) Identifying and Refining the Research Question, (4) Identifying Relevant Studies, (5) Study Selection, (6) Mapping Data, (7) Collating, Summarizing and Synthesizing the Data, and lastly, (8) Sharing and Making Meaning. Engagement and listening, corresponding to Arksey and O'Malley (2005)'s optional "consultation stage," was embedded throughout, but with greater intensity in stages 1 and 8.

Conclusion: An Indigenous approach to conducting a scoping review includes forming a team with a wide array of experience in both Indigenous and Western methodologies, meaningful Indigenous representation, and inclusion of Indigenous perspectives to shape the analysis and presentation of findings. Engaging Indigenous peoples throughout the entire research process, listening, and including Indigenous voices and perspectives is vital in reconciliation research, producing both credible and useable information for both Indigenous communities and academia. Our Indigenous methodology for conducting a scoping review can serve as a valuable framework for summarizing Indigenous health-related research.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Systematic Reviews
Systematic Reviews Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
241
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal publishes high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modelling. At this time Systematic Reviews does not accept reviews of in vitro studies. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.
×
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