Article type
Abstract
Background:
Scoping reviews have recently exploded in popularity. Consultation exercises (CEs) have been recommended as a key step in scoping reviews as a way of involving knowledge users (KUs) (e.g., policymakers, patients, and health care professionals) to bring different perspectives and add meaning. However, CEs are not routinely done, and there has been limited exploration of their value and factors to consider in their conduct.
Objectives:
This study aimed to explore the views and experiences of scoping review authors regarding KU CEs within scoping reviews and the barriers and enablers to conducting them.
Methods:
We conducted qualitative interviews with scoping review authors who had previously conducted a CE within their review. We analyzed the data using reflexive thematic analysis.
Results:
We conducted 15 interviews with 16 authors from 6 countries. Analysis is currently being finalized and will be completed before September; therefore, initial results are presented below.
Participants described a variety of approaches for conducting CEs. This included informal individual conversations, collaborative documents, or formalized focus groups conducted at varying stages, such as interwoven throughout the review or one-off consultations at the end.
Participants felt that CEs helped to identify relevant literature, provide additional insights not available within the literature, and improve the review’s impact. Participants felt that CEs helped contextualize findings and provide tangible examples. CEs were felt to be particularly important for scoping reviews given they often focus on exploring a more ambiguous or scant literature base.
Participant views varied regarding whether ethical approval was required, which depended on types of KUs involved and approaches used. Participants felt that factors such as time, cost, the review question, and KU type influenced CE conduct. They felt that step-by-step guidance regarding factors to consider when conducting CEs within scoping reviews was needed.
Conclusions:
CEs are a valuable way of involving KUs in scoping reviews. Our research highlights practical factors to consider and key issues requiring further clarity. These findings can help improve KU involvement in scoping reviews, thus maximizing the potential impact of research for all patients/KUs.
**The wonderful Maureen Smith is a patient partner/co-author and integral part of our team**
Scoping reviews have recently exploded in popularity. Consultation exercises (CEs) have been recommended as a key step in scoping reviews as a way of involving knowledge users (KUs) (e.g., policymakers, patients, and health care professionals) to bring different perspectives and add meaning. However, CEs are not routinely done, and there has been limited exploration of their value and factors to consider in their conduct.
Objectives:
This study aimed to explore the views and experiences of scoping review authors regarding KU CEs within scoping reviews and the barriers and enablers to conducting them.
Methods:
We conducted qualitative interviews with scoping review authors who had previously conducted a CE within their review. We analyzed the data using reflexive thematic analysis.
Results:
We conducted 15 interviews with 16 authors from 6 countries. Analysis is currently being finalized and will be completed before September; therefore, initial results are presented below.
Participants described a variety of approaches for conducting CEs. This included informal individual conversations, collaborative documents, or formalized focus groups conducted at varying stages, such as interwoven throughout the review or one-off consultations at the end.
Participants felt that CEs helped to identify relevant literature, provide additional insights not available within the literature, and improve the review’s impact. Participants felt that CEs helped contextualize findings and provide tangible examples. CEs were felt to be particularly important for scoping reviews given they often focus on exploring a more ambiguous or scant literature base.
Participant views varied regarding whether ethical approval was required, which depended on types of KUs involved and approaches used. Participants felt that factors such as time, cost, the review question, and KU type influenced CE conduct. They felt that step-by-step guidance regarding factors to consider when conducting CEs within scoping reviews was needed.
Conclusions:
CEs are a valuable way of involving KUs in scoping reviews. Our research highlights practical factors to consider and key issues requiring further clarity. These findings can help improve KU involvement in scoping reviews, thus maximizing the potential impact of research for all patients/KUs.
**The wonderful Maureen Smith is a patient partner/co-author and integral part of our team**