Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Sep 29;20(1):242.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-01127-3.

Advancing methodology for scoping reviews: recommendations arising from a scoping literature review (SLR) to inform transformation of Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services

Joanna K Anderson  1 , Emma Howarth  2 , Maris Vainre  2 , Ayla Humphrey  2 , Peter B Jones  2 , Tamsin J Ford  2
Affiliations

Advancing methodology for scoping reviews: recommendations arising from a scoping literature review (SLR) to inform transformation of Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services

Joanna K Anderson et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. .

Abstract

Background: There is consensus that health services commissioning and clinical practice should be driven by scientific evidence. However, workload pressures, accessibility of peer reviewed publications and skills to find, appraise, and synthesise relevant evidence are often cited as barriers to uptake of research evidence by practitioners and commissioners alike. In recent years a growing requirement for rapid evidence synthesis to inform commissioning decisions about healthcare service delivery and provision of care contributed to an increasing popularity of scoping literature reviews (SLRs). Yet, comprehensive guidelines for conducting and reporting SLRs are still relatively scarce.

Methods: The exemplar review used as a worked example aimed to provide a readily available, comprehensive, and user-friendly repository of research evidence for local commissioners to help them make evidence-informed decisions about redesigning East of England Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services. In conducting the review, we were broadly guided by Arksey and O'Malley's framework, however some modifications were made at different stages to better reflect the largely pragmatic objective of this review. This paper compares the methodology used with existing methodological frameworks for scoping studies, to add to the existing knowledge base.

Results: We proposed the following advancements to the existing SLR frameworks: (i) Assemble a research team with complementary skills and expertise; (ii); Draw on expertise of external partners, particularly practitioners, decision-makers and commissioners who will be translating findings into practice; (iii) Pre-register the review protocol. Keep a detailed record of all steps and decisions and consider how they would impact on generalisability and utility of review findings; (iv) Use systematic procedures for literature searchers, selection of studies, data extraction and analysis; (v) If feasible, appraise the quality of included evidence; (vi) Be transparent about limitations of findings.

Conclusions: Despite some methodological limitations, scoping literature reviews are a useful method of rapidly synthesising a large body of evidence to inform commissioning and transformation of CAMHS. SLRs allow researchers to start with a broader questions, to explore the issue from different perspectives and perhaps find more comprehensive solutions that are not only effective, but also accounted for their feasibility and acceptability to key stakeholders.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Process of defining coverage of the SLR
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Grouping of papers for preliminary data synthesises
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Curtis K, Fulton E, Brown K. Factors influencing application of behavioural science evidence by public health decision-makers and practitioners, and implications for practice. Prev Med Rep. 2018;12:106–115. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2018.08.012. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bach-Mortensen AM, Lange BC, Montgomery P. Barriers and facilitators to implementing evidence-based interventions among third sector organisations: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):103. doi: 10.1186/s13012-018-0789-7. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Barr-Walker J. Evidence-based information needs of public health workers: a systematized review. J Med Libr Assoc. 2017;105(1):69. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Van Der Graaf P, Cheetham M, McCabe K, Rushmer R. Localising and tailoring research evidence helps public health decision making. Health Inf Libr J. 2018;35(3):202–212. doi: 10.1111/hir.12219. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wilson P, Farley K, Bickerdike L, Booth A, Chambers D, Thompson C, et al., editors. Effects of a Demand-Led Evidence Briefing Service on the Uptake and Use of Research Evidence By Commissioners of Health Services. 9th Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation; 2016: AcademyHealth. - PubMed

Publication types