This section is dedicated to exploring the scoping review methodology. Previous chapters explored the essential components of the research process, including the Introduction and Literature Review, nested under Health Science Research methods.
A scoping review is a research synthesis methodology designed to map the existing literature on a particular topic. It identifies key concepts, evidence gaps, and provide an overview of the available research evidence.
Primary research involves the generation of new data through direct investigation, while systematic reviews focus on answering specific research questions.
However, scoping reviews add to the vast body of secondary literatures. They are broader and aim to explore the breadth of literature without necessarily assessing the quality of individual studies.
A scoping review is “a form of knowledge synthesis that addresses an exploratory research question aimed at mapping key concepts, types of evidence, and gaps in research related to a defined area or field“ (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005, p. 21).
- Involves a systematic search and selection process.
- Provides a descriptive overview rather than a critical appraisal of evidence.
- Useful for examining the extent, range, and nature of research activity.
The foundational work by Arksey and O’Malley introduced the concept and methodology of scoping reviews in 2005, providing guidance on conducting such reviews and establishing a framework for their implementation. Critiques and discussions about the value and limitations of scoping reviews exist within the academic and research communities, as such, researchers and organizations have further developed and refined the methodology.
Content on this Page
Critiques and Outcomes- Scoping Review Methodology
Purpose and Objectives- Critics argue that scoping reviews may lack a clear focus compared to systematic reviews. The broad nature of scoping reviews might make it challenging to provide specific answers to research questions. Supporters argue that scoping reviews serve a unique purpose by mapping the existing literature, identifying gaps, and providing an overview of a broad topic. They are valuable for research areas where a systematic review may not be feasible or appropriate.
Methodological Rigor- Some express concerns about the variability in the application of scoping review methods, potentially leading to inconsistencies in the results. Advocates emphasize the importance of following established frameworks and guidelines, such as those provided by Arksey and O’Malley and the PRISMA-ScR, to enhance methodological rigor.
Reporting Standards- The development of reporting standards, such as PRISMA-ScR, addresses concerns about transparency and consistency in reporting scoping reviews. Adherence to reporting guidelines contributes to the credibility of scoping review findings.
Complementary Nature- Some scholars emphasize that scoping reviews should be viewed as complementary to systematic reviews rather than as direct substitutes. They serve different purposes, and the choice between them depends on the research question and objectives.
It is noteworthy that, opinions on the value and limitations of scoping reviews may vary. Ongoing discussions within the research community contribute to the continuous improvement of methodologies and practices.
A scoping review protocol is a detailed plan or document that outlines the systematic approach and methods to be followed during the conduct of a scoping review. It serves as a roadmap for researchers, providing transparency and structure to the review process. The scoping review protocol being used by the researcher must be clearly stated in the methodology, and relevant references should be included.
The methodology for scoping reviews developed by Arskey and O’Malley was later refined by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). JBI is known for its comprehensive approach to evidence synthesis, including systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and other types of reviews. The institute has developed frameworks and guidelines for conducting different types of reviews, including scoping reviews.
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) is a reporting guideline developed to enhance the transparency and rigor of scoping reviews. PRISMA-ScR [available here] provides a checklist of essential items that authors should include when reporting the methodology and findings of a scoping review. While Arskey and O’Malley laid the foundation for scoping review methodology, the Joanna Briggs Institute and PRISMA-ScR contribute to the development of standards and guidelines for conducting and reporting scoping reviews. Researchers often use these resources to ensure the methodological rigor and transparent reporting of their scoping reviews.
Before embarking on a scoping review, it’s crucial to check if one has been conducted on your topic. If so, a compelling rationale for a second review must be provided. The terms “review protocol” and “scoping review proposal” are interchangeable, representing the detailed plan guiding the systematic approach to the review. The protocol outlines the research framework, criteria, strategies, and methods. While scoping reviews may not always be formally registered, researchers can enhance transparency by registering protocols on platforms like “Open Science Framework.” If registered, details must be included in the scoping review report for accessibility. The frameworks or models used to define the scope and context of the review as well as refine the review questions will be discussed here.
Defining Scope and Refining Review Questions
A research objective is a specific, clear, and concise goal or aim that a researcher sets out to achieve through a research study. Research objectives outline the purpose of the research, indicating what the researcher intends to accomplish, explore, or investigate during the course of the study. These objectives guide the research process, helping to define the scope of the study and providing a framework for data collection, analysis, and interpretation.
Effective research objectives are typically framed using precise language, are directly related to the research question or problem statement, and are formulated in a way that allows for measurement or assessment. Clear research objectives contribute to the overall rigor and focus of a research study, aiding in the successful attainment of the study’s goals. Additional guidance on writing research aims and objectives including worked examples may be found here. Elements of the chosen review framework or model should be easily identified in the objectives or research questions.
Let us create a review title to help with the exploration: 
Objectives
To systematically map existing community-based mental health interventions targeting adolescents in urban settings.
To synthesize the diverse well-being outcomes measured in the literature as a result of community-based mental health interventions for adolescents in urban areas.
To investigate the geographical distribution, demographic reach, and barriers to access of community-based mental health interventions for adolescents in urban settings.
To explore gaps, trends, and potential areas for future research within the existing body of literature on community-based mental health interventions and their effects on the well-being of adolescents in urban contexts.
Rationale for each Objectives (Included to provide some background/context to the title and objectives)
Objective 1- provides a comprehensive overview of the landscape of community-based mental health interventions for adolescents in urban settings. By systematically mapping these interventions, the review aims to identify the breadth and diversity of existing programs. This helps in understanding the range of approaches and strategies used to address mental health issues among urban adolescents.
Objective 2- addresses the need to synthesize diverse well-being outcomes measured in the literature. By aggregating and summarizing these outcomes, the review seeks to discern patterns and trends in the impact of community-based mental health interventions. This synthesis contributes to understanding the holistic effects on adolescents’ well-being, offering insights into the effectiveness of different interventions.
Objective 3- evaluating the reach and accessibility of community-based mental health interventions is crucial for understanding the extent to which these programs are available and accessible to the target population. This objective focuses on factors such as geographic distribution, demographic reach, and barriers to access. By examining these aspects, the review aims to provide insights into the equity and inclusivity of interventions, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of their impact on diverse urban adolescent populations.
Objective 4- addresses the broader context by exploring gaps, trends, and potential areas for future research. Identifying gaps helps highlight areas where further investigation is needed, while recognizing trends provides a snapshot of the current state of research. This information guides researchers, policymakers, and practitioners in shaping future interventions and research agendas.
Scoping reviews typically do not adhere to a specific study design. Instead, they aim to map the existing literature and identify the key concepts, evidence sources, and research gaps related to a particular topic. Key components of the scoping review process include:
Identifying the Research Question(s) or Objective(s)- Searching for Relevant Studies
- Study Selection
- Data Extraction
- Data Synthesis
- Reporting
Clearly articulate each review question, incorporating key elements such as the target population (adolescents), the intervention (community-based mental health interventions), and the context (urban settings). Utilize precise language to ensure the questions are focused and align with the objectives.
Q1. What are the characteristics and components of existing community-based mental health interventions designed for adolescents in urban settings?
- This question aims to systematically map the interventions, focusing on their features and elements.
Q2. What well-being outcomes are measured in the literature as a result of community-based mental health interventions for adolescents in urban areas?
- This question explores synthesizing diverse well-being outcomes, emphasizing measurement aspects in relevant studies.
Q3. What is the geographical distribution of community-based mental health interventions for urban adolescents, considering demographic reach and barriers to access?
- Investigating the reach and accessibility aspects of interventions in various urban contexts forms the core of this question.
Q4. What gaps, trends, and potential areas for future research exist in the literature on community-based mental health interventions and their effects on the well-being of adolescents in urban contexts?
- This question explores the gaps and trends within the existing body of literature, paving the way for identifying areas requiring further investigation.
Ensure your literature search spans key electronic databases used in scientific research to find optimal evidence for your review questions, especially in health and allied health fields. Familiarize yourself with databases like ProQuest, CINHAL, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library. Select databases based on their relevance to your research topic, considering both sensitivity (comprehensive coverage) and specificity (focus on your topic). Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus are valuable for initial exploration. Disciplinary databases such as ProQuest, EMBASE, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane Library offer subject-specific resources. APA PsycINFO and ScienceDirect cater to psychology and radiography/medical topics, respectively (Aveyard, 2019).
Types of Literature
Scoping reviews can include a range of literature, not limited to primary sources. While primary literature (such as original research articles) is commonly included, scoping reviews may also encompass secondary sources, gray literature, and other types of information. The goal of a scoping review is to map and provide an overview of existing literature on a particular topic, which may involve a broad and inclusive approach to various types of evidence. However, as the reviewer transitions from primary sources to secondary and tertiary sources, validated procedures must be established to prevent duplication, overestimation, and negative impacts on the validity of the findings.
Offer a concise overview of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, detailing the process for source selection. To begin, it is beneficial to specify and justify the inclusion of certain types of literature in the review (refer to sample 1). If you opt for a specific category of literature but choose not to include all types within that category, provide a clear rationale for the exclusion.
Recall this title:
“Examining the Impact of Community-Based Mental Health Interventions on the Well-being of Adolescents in Urban Settings: A Scoping Review“
Sample #1
This review will incorporate primary literature, offering direct and original insights into the impact of community-based mental health interventions on adolescents’ well-being. This category encompasses empirical studies, clinical trials, observational research, and other firsthand investigations conducted by field experts. The focus is on original studies reporting assessments and outcomes of community-based mental health interventions on adolescent well-being.
To maintain the primary nature of the included literature, review articles summarizing existing literature will be excluded. Additionally, editorials or opinion pieces, which provide subjective data rather than empirical evidence and may not directly contribute to the scoping review’s objectives, will also be excluded
The next step involves categorizing the variables in the objectives or research questions (refer to Chapter two – Literature Review, types of variables) and determining their relationships. Utilize the applicable review framework or model for assistance. Utilize visualization methods, such as concept diagrams, to illustrate the alignment between inclusion criteria and the review framework, enhancing overall clarity
Conducting a grey literature search enhances comprehension of the dynamics among the variables, aiding in determining related searches and identifying terms for inclusion or exclusion.
For instance, in our scoping review title, applying the PCC framework may lead to inclusion criteria such as “primary literature reporting on adolescents in urban settings (population and context) AND community-based mental health interventions (Concept).”
See additional [objective(s) and/or review(s) questions-based] inclusion and exclusion criteria in sample 2.
Sample #2
Primary literature focusing on interventions specifically designed for adolescents in urban settings. Studies reporting on a broad range of well-being outcomes resulting from community-based mental health interventions for adolescents in urban areas. Literature addressing the geographical distribution, demographic reach, and barriers to access of community-based mental health interventions for adolescents in urban settings. Research examining gaps, trends, and potential areas for future studies on community-based mental health interventions and their effects on the well-being of adolescents in urban contexts.
Exclude studies not directly related to adolescents in urban settings or community-based mental health interventions. Omit literature with insufficient information on well-being outcomes or lacking a focus on urban contexts. Exclude research that does not provide insights into the geographical distribution, demographic reach, or barriers to access of community-based mental health interventions for adolescents in urban settings. Summary studies where details of what was done and the outcomes are inaccessible.
Specify additional characteristics for eligibility criteria for the sources of evidence, including considerations related to the temporal nature of variables, language, and publication status, providing a rationale for each decision.
Temporal Considerations- Consider the time frame that aligns with the objectives. If the concept under exploration has historical roots, a broader temporal scope might be justified. Alternatively, if assessing recent changes, focusing on the past one or two decades would be appropriate. Adapting the temporal scope based on the nature of the concept ensures relevance to the study objectives and captures the evolution or stability of the variables over time.- Language Considerations– Specify the language for inclusion, aligning with the context of the study population. For example, if the population of interest primarily speaks English, include only evidence provided in English. Restricting the language criteria ensures that the evidence is relevant to the study context and facilitates better comprehension for both researchers and the target population.
- Publication Status- Consider the status of articles included. for example, you might want to include only published and in-press articles. Exclude articles in earlier stages (submitted, under review, in preparation). Prioritizing published and in-press articles enhances the credibility of the evidence, as these have undergone peer review. Excluding articles in earlier stages maintains the standard of rigor and reliability in the review.
Ensure a comprehensive literature search by using retrieval features in databases like ProQuest. Effective searching involves selecting appropriate search tools, such as keywords, subject headings, Boolean operators, combining words, phrase searching, and truncation/wildcard searching. Keywords focus on titles and abstracts, while subject headings use controlled vocabulary for systematic searching. Truncation/wildcards aid in finding similar words. Boolean operators like AND, OR, and NOT refine searches logically. Combining words, using phrases, and proximity searching enhance specificity. Familiarize yourself with these tools to optimize database searches for precise and relevant results (Aceijas, 2011).
Boolean searching, uses logical words or characters (operators) to instruct search engines. Examples include “AND” to find pages with both terms, “OR” for either term, and “NOT” to exclude specific words. AND is inclusive, OR broadens results, and NOT is exclusive. Combining words enhances specificity. 
Proximity searching finds words near each other. Database search engines may be literal, and missing terms in specified areas could yield no results. The Cochrane Library via Wiley stands out, searching the complete text within an article. Some database search engines strictly adhere to entered search terms, focusing on specific areas like title, author, abstract, and subject headings. If any term is missing from these areas, no results are generated, even if the term appears frequently in the article’s text. The Cochrane Library via Wiley is an exception, as it defaults to searching the complete text within an article, offering a broader scope in retrieval.
Developing search terms were covered in Chapter Two, Literature Review. Provide the comprehensive electronic search strategy for a minimum of one database, incorporating any applied restrictions, in a manner that allows for replication. This information maybe tabulated and presented as part of the list of appendices. Example: Table 1. Summary of Records Identified from Database Search
An additional search strategy for a scoping review involves examining the reference lists of the selected articles. This process, often referred to as reference list scanning, entails reviewing the bibliography of chosen articles to identify other relevant studies that may not have been captured through initial database searches. Additionally, the use of snowballing techniques is employed, where researchers trace citations forward from the selected articles to find more recent studies and citations backward to identify older studies. These supplementary methods help ensure a comprehensive exploration of the existing literature beyond the initial database searches, contributing to a more thorough and inclusive scoping review
The identification of studies involves outlining the procedures for choosing sources and type of evidence to be included in the scoping review. Depending on the area of focus and the magnitude of evidence this process can become very tedious. A Reference Management System would be very useful in refining the list of records, removing duplicates, categorizing and storing the data.
Reference Management applications play a crucial role in managing duplicates during the scoping review process, contributing to the efficiency and accuracy of the study identification stage. Some features include:
Importing and Organizing References- Allows users to import references from various databases. It organizes these references into a library, making it easier to manage and track.- Duplicate Detection- Has features to identify and manage duplicate references. When importing records from different databases, it can automatically highlight or eliminate duplicates, saving time and ensuring accuracy.
- Integration with Multiple Databases- Most reference management applications are compatible with many databases, making them versatile for researchers using multiple sources. This integration streamlines the process of importing references from different platforms.
- Database Syncing- Some reference management systems also enable syncing references across devices and platforms. This ensures that changes made (such as marking a record as a duplicate) are reflected universally.
- Application such as EndNote assists in organizing references for citation and bibliography creation, which is an essential part of the scoping review process.
EndNote is a reference management software that allows researchers to organize, store, and manage bibliographic references and citations. One of its key features is its ability to identify and remove duplicate references efficiently, streamlining the process of managing large databases of literature. EndNote provides tools to automatically detect duplicate entries based on various criteria such as title, author, year, and publication details.
Zotero– Similar to EndNote, Zotero is a reference management tool that can help identify and remove duplicate references from a database of literature.
Mendeley is another reference manager that offers duplicate detection and removal functionality, allowing researchers to clean up their reference libraries before conducting further analysis.
RefWorks is a cloud-based reference management system that provides features for identifying and eliminating duplicate references from a database.
Selection typically includes two key stages: screening based on the title of the studies and screening based on the abstracts.
In the first stage, researchers go through the titles of potential studies to determine their relevance to the scoping review’s objectives.
The second stage involves a more in-depth evaluation, where abstracts of the selected studies are assessed to further refine the pool of included evidence.
These screening processes are essential for ensuring that the studies meet the eligibility criteria and align with the scoping review’s focus.
At the end of this phase of the review process you will have sufficient data to partially complete a “PRISMA-ScR flow diagram” as shown in Sample #3.
Using Sample #3 as an example, a total of 200 full-text articles will be screened to determine if they meet the eligibility criteria established for the review. A rationale should be provided for any article excluded at this point during the selection process. This information may be tabulated and presented in the list of appendices however, a summary of this information should be added to the PRISMA-ScR flow diagram as well.
Biases can be introduced into the review process, encompassing factors like grey literature bias, database bias, language bias, inclusion/exclusion criteria bias, timeframe bias, and others. While a rationale with supporting evidence may have been presented for these biases earlier in the methodology, two crucial biases demand particular attention during the article selection process. The first pertains to the application of inclusion/exclusion criteria to the articles being screened, ensuring consistency and avoiding inadvertent biases. The second involves reviewer bias, emphasizing the importance of reviewer awareness and objectivity throughout the selection process. These should be anticipated and the mitigation strategies articulated in the review protocol and final review report.
Inclusion Criteria Bias
Inclusion criteria bias occurs when there is inconsistency or subjectivity in applying the predetermined criteria for including or excluding articles during the screening process. Subjectivity may arise with the interpretations of “synonymous terms or phrases.” This can lead to inadvertent biases in the selection of studies, impacting the overall comprehensiveness and representativeness of the scoping review. To mitigate this:
- Clearly articulate and document inclusion/exclusion criteria to minimize ambiguity and ensure consistent application.
- Conducting calibration exercises among reviewers to enhance agreement and understanding of the criteria.
- Maintaining open communication among the review team including the review supervisor to address any uncertainties or questions regarding the application of the criteria to any specific article(s).
Reviewer Selection Bias
Reviewer bias involves the personal opinions, preferences, or perspectives of the individuals conducting the review influencing the selection process. This bias can introduce subjectivity, potentially impacting the objectivity of study inclusion decisions. Some strategies to circumvent reviewer selection bias include:
- Having multiple independent reviewers assess each article to mitigate the impact of individual biases.
- Providing comprehensive training to reviewers, accompanied by clear guidelines, to promote consistent and objective decision-making.
- Facilitating regular check-ins and discussions among reviewers to identify and address any emerging biases or discrepancies.
Extraction commences with the transfer of research reports into a reference management system, establishing the core of the identified records. The extraction of data/evidence entails translating the identified evidence from diverse research reports into a format aligned with the research objectives/questions. This process is systematic and adheres to standardized procedures. Key procedures include coding, documentation, and quality assessment.
As provided in this example, the completed PRISMA-ScR flow diagram should be available at this stage of the review process. 
Explain the process of transforming extracted data into a visual or tabular format for better understanding. This could involve the use of calibrated forms or pre-tested templates by the research team to ensure consistency. Specify if data charting was carried out independently by individual reviewers or in duplicate by multiple reviewers. The level of independence ensures reliability in the charting process.
Validated Tools
Validated tools for charting data can often be found in methodological literature, research guidelines, or tools developed and shared by reputable organizations involved in evidence synthesis. Always ensure that the tools you use are aligned with the specific requirements of your scoping review and are applicable to the nature of your research question and objectives. Consider consulting with experienced researchers or methodologists for guidance on suitable tools for charting data in your particular context. Here are some sources where you can explore and find validated tools for charting data:
PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews)- PRISMA-ScR provides guidelines for conducting scoping reviews and may include tools or templates for data charting.
- Website: PRISMA-ScR
Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI)
- JBI is known for providing resources and tools for evidence synthesis, including scoping reviews.
- Website: Joanna Briggs Institute
Cochrane Collaboration
- Cochrane may offer tools and guidance on various aspects of evidence synthesis, including scoping reviews.
- Website: Cochrane
EPPI-Centre (Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre)
- EPPI-Centre provides resources for systematic reviews and may include tools relevant to scoping reviews.
- Website: EPPI-Centre
University Libraries and Research Centers
- Some university libraries and research centers may have developed or compiled tools for scoping reviews. Check the websites of academic institutions with expertise in systematic review methodology.
Systematic Review Methodology Journals
- Explore journals that focus on systematic review methodology. Some articles may include supplementary materials or tools used in scoping reviews.
Research Methodology Courses and Workshops
- Courses or workshops on research methodology, systematic reviews, or evidence synthesis may provide insights into charting data, and instructors may share tools.
Obtaining and Confirming Data
Describe any additional steps taken to obtain or confirm data from the original investigators. In the scoping review process, obtaining and confirming data from the original investigators is essential to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the extracted information. This step involves reaching out to the authors of the included studies for additional details, clarifications, or verification of specific data points that may be unclear or incomplete in the published reports.
Scenario
Suppose the scoping review involves examining the impact of community-based mental health interventions on adolescents, and one of the variables of interest is the duration of the interventions. If the duration information is not clearly presented in the published study, the reviewers may contact the corresponding author seeking clarification. The communication should be kept as concise as possible. An example is given in Sample #6.
The goal is to establish clear communication with the authors, seeking additional insights that enhance the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the extracted data. This proactive approach contributes to the overall quality of the scoping review.
Sample #6
“Dear [Author’s Name],
I am conducting a scoping review on community-based mental health interventions for adolescents, and your study [Title of the Study] is included in our review. We are particularly interested in the duration of the interventions, and we noted that this information was not explicitly mentioned in the published report. Could you kindly provide details regarding the duration of the interventions or any relevant information that would help us accurately chart this variable in our review? Your assistance in this matter is highly appreciated.
Thank you,
[Your Name]
[Institutional Affiliation]”
Data Items
These sections are crucial for transparency in the scoping review process and help readers understand how data were managed and interpreted. They also contribute to the overall reliability and validity of the scoping review findings.
List of Variables
Provide a comprehensive list of all variables for which data were sought during the scoping review. For example, in a mental health intervention review, variables might include “Intervention Type,” “Outcome Measures,” and “Demographic Characteristics.” Clearly define each variable to avoid ambiguity and ensure consistency in interpretation.
Assumptions and Simplifications
Outline any assumptions or simplifications made during the data extraction process. These are decisions or generalizations made by the review team to manage diverse study designs, outcomes, or data points. These choices are often necessary to streamline the extraction process, categorize information, and facilitate the synthesis of findings across a heterogeneous body of literature.
Scenario
Consider a scoping review exploring the well-being outcomes of community-based mental health interventions for adolescents in urban settings. The studies included in the review may employ various measures to assess well-being, such as self-reported scales, clinical assessments, and qualitative descriptions. To facilitate the synthesis of this diverse data, the review team might make the following assumptions or simplifications shown in Sample #7.
Acknowledging these assumptions and simplifications, the scoping review team transparently communicates the strategies used to handle complexities inherent in the included studies. This clarity enhances the reproducibility and understanding of the review process, contributing to the robustness of the scoping review outcomes
Sample #7
Outcome Standardization- Assuming that different well-being measures, despite their diversity, can be broadly categorized into common outcome domains (e.g., emotional well-being, social well-being, spiritual well-being, academic well-being).
Time Frame Simplification- Simplifying the reported time frames of interventions into broad categories (e.g., short-term, medium-term, long-term) to allow for a generalized understanding of the temporal impact.
Comparability Assumption- Assuming that different study designs and methodologies, while varied, can be compared at a high level to identify overarching trends and patterns.
Quality Assurance encompasses the implementation of measures to uphold the rigor, transparency, and reliability of the entire review process. Essential elements and strategies for ensuring quality assurance in a scoping review comprise protocol development, team training, pilot testing, regular team meetings, meticulous documentation, quality control checks, peer review, expert consultations, ethical considerations, and comprehensive documentation of limitations. It’s important to note that while these terms are often used interchangeably, quality assurance, quality control (e.g., reliability strategies), quality appraisal, and critical appraisal represent distinct aspects within the review methodology.
In a scoping review methodology, the terms “critical appraisal” and “quality appraisal” are often used to assess the evidence or sources included in the review. Both involve evaluating the merit of the included studies, but they have distinct meanings and purposes:
Critical Appraisal involves a thorough examination and evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of individual studies or sources. It assesses the methodological rigor, internal validity, and relevance of each included study. If critical appraisal was conducted, explain why it was performed on the included sources of evidence. Describe the methods used and how this information influenced any data synthesis. The primary goal of critical appraisal is to determine the trustworthiness and reliability of the evidence presented in each study. It helps reviewers assess the quality of research design, data collection methods, and analysis procedures employed in individual sources.
Quality Appraisal is a broad term that encompasses various dimensions of study quality. It involves evaluating not only methodological rigor but also other factors such as the relevance, credibility, and appropriateness of the included studies. How to do a quality appraisal was covered in Chapter Two- Literature Review. Quality appraisal aims to assess the overall merit and suitability of each study for inclusion in the scoping review. It considers aspects beyond the strict methodological design, including the contribution of the study to the broader research question and its alignment with the review’s objectives.
In many scoping reviews, the emphasis is on providing a comprehensive overview of existing evidence rather than conducting a detailed critical appraisal of each study. Quality appraisal, in this context, helps ensure that included studies contribute meaningfully to the review’s objectives without requiring the same level of scrutiny as in a systematic review or meta-analysis.
To enhance the data synthesis process, it is advisable to align the activities of data extraction and charting closely with the synthesis process. Data synthesis in a scoping review entails organizing, summarizing, and interpreting the information collected from the included studies to address the review’s research questions or objectives. It is essential to acknowledge that scoping reviews typically strive for a narrative and descriptive synthesis, given the diverse nature of included studies. Draft a comprehensive scoping review report that incorporates the synthesis of evidence. Clearly articulate the primary findings, themes, and patterns observed across the included studies.
Summarize the key findings derived from the included studies.- Highlight common themes, patterns, or trends across the literature. Group findings based on identified themes or categories.
- If numerical data are present, provide a high-level summary. Consider using visual aids such as: tables, charts, or diagrams to enhance clarity.
- Highlight divergent results or outliers in the findings.
Discuss the broader significance of the identified findings.- Consider how the findings might impact practitioners, policymakers, or other stakeholders.
- Offer an interpretation of the implications of the identified patterns.
- Consider the broader context and relevance to the field or topic.
- Reflect on how the findings may affect different stakeholders.
Offer Actionable Advice- Provide recommendations for future research, practice, or policy.
Address Research Gaps- Suggest areas where further investigation is needed.
- Highlight areas where additional research is warranted.
- If applicable, suggest implications for practice or policy.
- Clearly articulate actionable steps for future endeavors.
In summarizing the scoping review, it is crucial to offer a concise overview of the study’s main findings, reinforcing key contributions and insights. Reiterate the main findings, reflecting on how well the review addressed its initial objectives. Additionally, consider the broader significance of the scoping review, highlighting its implications and relevance in the larger context. This summarization serves to encapsulate the essence of the review, emphasizing the pivotal points and underlining its significance in contributing to the existing body of knowledge.
Ethical Considerations
Even when focusing solely on primary literature and sources, ethical considerations remain integral to the scoping review process. The review should meticulously examine the ethical dimensions of the original studies included. Dimensions of Ethics in Research were discussed here with additional exploration in Chapter 3-Research Design and Methodology. 
This involves scrutinizing the methods employed by primary studies to obtain informed consent from human subjects, ensuring the protection of participants’ rights, maintaining confidentiality and anonymity, and addressing issues of data transparency. The scoping review must transparently discuss limitations, such as incomplete information on informed consent or challenges in accessing original data, emphasizing their potential ethical implications.
Additionally, the review should address attribution and plagiarism concerns, declaring any conflicts of interest among the review team members, and, when applicable, discussing the peer review process for maintaining ethical rigor. By conscientiously attending to these ethical concepts, the scoping review upholds the principles of integrity, transparency, and respect for ethical standards established in the primary literature it encompasses
Health Science Research Methodology
Click this Icon to return to the Main Page- Health Science Research Methodology
Chapter One- Introduction
Click this Icon to return to Research Methodology Chapter One- Introduction
Chapter Two- Literature Review
Click this Icon to return to Research Methodology Chapter Two- Literature Review
Chapter 3- Research Design and Methodology
Click this Icon to return to Research Methodology Chapter 3- Research Design and Methodology
Chapter Four- Data Analysis and Results
Click this Icon to go to Research Methodology Chapter Four- Data Analysis and Results
References
Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616.
Aceijas, C. (ed.) (2011). Assessing Evidence to improve Population Health and Wellbeing, SAGE Publications, London. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central.
Aveyard, H. (2019) Doing a Literature Review in Health and Social Care: A Practical Guide. 4th Ed. London: Open University Press.
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., … & Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467-473
Published: 2024- 3- 11