Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: an increasing number of systematic reviews are being published; 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, these studies 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 early career researchers (ECRs).
Objectives: to systematically discover, collect and synthesize the challenges, opportunities and level of preparedness of ECRs when conducting scoping and systematic reviews in the health sciences; to raise awareness about the challenges faced by ECRs, and to work with librarians, researchers, faculty, and other stakeholders on ways to address these challenges, leverage existing opportunities and develop new ones; to enhance librarian support to ECRs through an improved understanding of the challenges that ECRs face at each step of the review process, and also by developing ways to overcome these challenges to facilitate how ECRs undertake systematic or scoping review processes.
Methods: we followed the methodological framework described by Arksey and O'Malley (2005), along with refinements proposed to this framework by Colquhoun et al. (2014), as well as the PRISMA-ScR statement. We conducted comprehensive literature searches in: MEDLINE (via OVID), Embase (via Ovid), CINAHL (via EBSCOHost), PsycINFO (via Ovid), ERIC (via Ovid), Education Source (via EBSCOHost), and Library, Information and Technology Abstracts(LISTA; via EBSCOHost). Search strategies were peer reviewed using the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) tool. We crowdsourced synonyms for the term 'early career researcher' from social platforms including Facebook and Twitter. Two independent review authors screened citations for inclusion. Two independent review authors performed first and second level of screening and data abstraction.
Results: we included six articles after screening 10,232 titles and abstracts and 144 full-text articles.
Conclusions: we will present the conclusions of this study at the 26th Cochrane Colloquium.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: we crowdsourced synonyms for 'early career researchers' openly, using social media platforms (Twitter, Linkedin, Facebook), and will include patients and consumers in the last phase of the scoping review: consultation with stakeholders.
Objectives: to systematically discover, collect and synthesize the challenges, opportunities and level of preparedness of ECRs when conducting scoping and systematic reviews in the health sciences; to raise awareness about the challenges faced by ECRs, and to work with librarians, researchers, faculty, and other stakeholders on ways to address these challenges, leverage existing opportunities and develop new ones; to enhance librarian support to ECRs through an improved understanding of the challenges that ECRs face at each step of the review process, and also by developing ways to overcome these challenges to facilitate how ECRs undertake systematic or scoping review processes.
Methods: we followed the methodological framework described by Arksey and O'Malley (2005), along with refinements proposed to this framework by Colquhoun et al. (2014), as well as the PRISMA-ScR statement. We conducted comprehensive literature searches in: MEDLINE (via OVID), Embase (via Ovid), CINAHL (via EBSCOHost), PsycINFO (via Ovid), ERIC (via Ovid), Education Source (via EBSCOHost), and Library, Information and Technology Abstracts(LISTA; via EBSCOHost). Search strategies were peer reviewed using the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) tool. We crowdsourced synonyms for the term 'early career researcher' from social platforms including Facebook and Twitter. Two independent review authors screened citations for inclusion. Two independent review authors performed first and second level of screening and data abstraction.
Results: we included six articles after screening 10,232 titles and abstracts and 144 full-text articles.
Conclusions: we will present the conclusions of this study at the 26th Cochrane Colloquium.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: we crowdsourced synonyms for 'early career researchers' openly, using social media platforms (Twitter, Linkedin, Facebook), and will include patients and consumers in the last phase of the scoping review: consultation with stakeholders.
PDF