Explore the vast range of titles available.

Reporting guidelines are knowledge translation tools created by experts to help ensure transparency and completeness of reporting—with the overarching goal to improve the quality and dissemination of health research [5]. [...]of efforts like the EQUATOR Network, scientific journals encourage authors to use reporting guidelines when reporting their findings as supported by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors [13]. Authors of a published systematic review examined the following question, “what is the role and therapeutic strategies of eicosanoid pathways in rheumatoid arthritis,” [28] whereas authors of a scoping review described the research methods of priority-setting exercises for musculoskeletal conditions [29].

Background Scoping reviews are used to identify knowledge gaps, set research agendas, and identify implications for decision-making. The conduct and reporting of scoping reviews is inconsistent in the literature. We conducted a scoping review to identify: papers that utilized and/or described scoping review methods; guidelines for reporting scoping reviews; and studies that assessed the quality of reporting of scoping reviews. Methods We searched nine electronic databases for published and unpublished literature scoping review papers, scoping review methodology, and reporting guidance for scoping reviews. Two independent reviewers screened citations for inclusion. Data abstraction was performed by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. Quantitative (e.g. frequencies of methods) and qualitative (i.e. content analysis of the methods) syntheses were conducted. Results After searching 1525 citations and 874 full-text papers, 516 articles were included, of which 494 were scoping reviews. The 494 scoping reviews were disseminated between 1999 and 2014, with 45 % published after 2012. Most of the scoping reviews were conducted in North America (53 %) or Europe (38 %), and reported a public source of funding (64 %). The number of studies included in the scoping reviews ranged from 1 to 2600 (mean of 118). Using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology guidance for scoping reviews, only 13 % of the scoping reviews reported the use of a protocol, 36 % used two reviewers for selecting citations for inclusion, 29 % used two reviewers for full-text screening, 30 % used two reviewers for data charting, and 43 % used a pre-defined charting form. In most cases, the results of the scoping review were used to identify evidence gaps (85 %), provide recommendations for future research (84 %), or identify strengths and limitations (69 %). We did not identify any guidelines for reporting scoping reviews or studies that assessed the quality of scoping review reporting. Conclusion The number of scoping reviews conducted per year has steadily increased since 2012. Scoping reviews are used to inform research agendas and identify implications for policy or practice. As such, improvements in reporting and conduct are imperative. Further research on scoping review methodology is warranted, and in particular, there is need for a guideline to standardize reporting.

Scoping reviews are an increasingly common approach to evidence synthesis with a growing suite of methodological guidance and resources to assist review authors with their planning, conduct and reporting. The latest guidance for scoping reviews includes the JBI methodology and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses—Extension for Scoping Reviews. This paper provides readers with a brief update regarding ongoing work to enhance and improve the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews as well as information regarding the future steps in scoping review methods development. The purpose of this paper is to provide readers with a concise source of information regarding the difference between scoping reviews and other review types, the reasons for undertaking scoping reviews, and an update on methodological guidance for the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. Despite available guidance, some publications use the term ‘scoping review’ without clear consideration of available reporting and methodological tools. Selection of the most appropriate review type for the stated research objectives or questions, standardised use of methodological approaches and terminology in scoping reviews, clarity and consistency of reporting and ensuring that the reporting and presentation of the results clearly addresses the review’s objective(s) and question(s) are critical components for improving the rigour of scoping reviews. Rigourous, high-quality scoping reviews should clearly follow up to date methodological guidance and reporting criteria. Stakeholder engagement is one area where further work could occur to enhance integration of consultation with the results of evidence syntheses and to support effective knowledge translation. Scoping review methodology is evolving as a policy and decision-making tool. Ensuring the integrity of scoping reviews by adherence to up-to-date reporting standards is integral to supporting well-informed decision-making.

Unprofessional behaviour is a challenge in academic medicine. Given that faculty are role models for trainees, it is critical to identify strategies to manage these behaviours. A scoping review was conducted to identify interventions to prevent and manage unprofessional behaviour in any workplace or professional setting. A search of 14 electronic databases was conducted in March 2016, reference lists of relevant systematic reviews were scanned, and grey literature was searched to identify relevant studies. Experimental and quasi-experimental studies that reported on interventions to prevent or manage unprofessional behaviours were included. Studies that reported impact on any outcome were eligible. Two reviewers independently screened articles and completed data abstraction. Qualitative analysis of the definitions of unprofessional behaviour was conducted. Data were charted to describe the study, participant, intervention and outcome characteristics. 12,482 citations were retrieved; 23 studies with 11,025 participants were included. The studies were 12 uncontrolled before and after studies, 6 controlled before and after studies, 2 cluster-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 1 RCT, 1 non-randomised controlled trial and 1 quasi-RCT. Four constructs were identified in the definitions of unprofessional behaviour: verbal and/or non-verbal acts, repeated acts, power imbalance, and unwelcome behaviour. Interventions most commonly targeted individuals (22 studies, 95.7%) rather than organisations (4 studies, 17.4%). Most studies (21 studies, 91.3%) focused on increasing awareness. The most frequently targeted behaviour change was sexual harassment (4 of 7 studies). Several interventions appear promising in addressing unprofessional behaviour. Most of the studies included single component, in-person education sessions targeting individuals and increasing awareness of unprofessional behaviour. Fewer studies targeted the institutional culture or addressed behaviour change.

ObjectivesTo summarise the current evidence regarding interventions for accurate and timely cancer diagnosis among symptomatic individuals.DesignA scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute’s methodological framework for the conduct of scoping reviews and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist.Data sourcesMEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost) and PsycINFO (Ovid) bibliographic databases, and websites of relevant organisations. Published and unpublished literature (grey literature) of any study type in the English language were searched for from January 2017 to January 2021.Eligibility and criteriaStudy participants were individuals of any age presenting at clinics with symptoms indicative of cancer. Interventions included practice guidelines, care pathways or other initiatives focused on achieving predefined benchmarks or targets for wait times, streamlined or rapid cancer diagnostic services, multidisciplinary teams and patient navigation strategies. Outcomes included accuracy and timeliness of cancer diagnosis.Data extraction and synthesisWe summarised findings graphically and descriptively.ResultsFrom 21 298 retrieved citations, 88 unique published articles and 16 unique unpublished documents (on 18 study reports), met the eligibility for inclusion. About half of the published literature and 83% of the unpublished literature were from the UK. Most of the studies were on interventions in patients with lung cancer. Rapid referral pathways and technology for supporting and streamlining the cancer diagnosis process were the most studied interventions. Interventions were mostly complex and organisation-specific. Common themes among the studies that concluded intervention was effective were multidisciplinary collaboration and the use of a nurse navigator.ConclusionsMultidisciplinary cooperation and involvement of a nurse navigator may be unique features to consider when designing, delivering and evaluating interventions focused on improving accurate and timely cancer diagnosis among symptomatic individuals. Future research should examine the effectiveness of the interventions identified through this review.

IntroductionAdverse events associated with medications are under-reported in postmarketing surveillance systems. A systematic review of published data from 37 studies worldwide (including Canada) found the median under-reporting rate of adverse events to be 94% in spontaneous reporting systems. This scoping review aims to assess the utility of social media and crowd-sourced data to detect and monitor adverse events related to health products including pharmaceuticals, medical devices, biologics and natural health products.Methods and analysisOur review conduct will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methods manual. Literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from inception to 13 May 2016. Additional sources included searches of study registries, conference abstracts, dissertations, as well as websites of international regulatory authorities (eg, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the WHO, European Medicines Agency). Search results will be supplemented by scanning the references of relevant reviews. We will include all publication types including published articles, editorials, websites and book sections that describe use of social media and crowd-sourced data for surveillance of adverse events associated with health products. Two reviewers will perform study selection and data abstraction independently, and discrepancies will be resolved through discussion. Data analysis will involve quantitative (eg, frequencies) and qualitative (eg, content analysis) methods.DisseminationThe summary of results will be sent to Health Canada, who commissioned the review, and other relevant policymakers involved with the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network. We will compile and circulate a 1-page policy brief and host a 1-day stakeholder meeting to discuss the implications, key messages and finalise the knowledge translation strategy. Findings from this review will ultimately inform the design and development of a data analytics platform for social media and crowd-sourced data for pharmacovigilance in Canada and internationally.Registration detailsOur protocol was registered prospectively with the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/kv9hu/).

IntroductionEngaging policymakers, healthcare managers and policy analysts in the conduct of knowledge synthesis can help increase its impact. This is particularly important for knowledge synthesis studies commissioned by decision-makers with limited timelines, as well as reviews of health policy and systems research. A scoping review will be conducted to assess barriers, facilitators, strategies and outcomes of engaging these individuals in the knowledge synthesis process.Methods and analysisWe will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for scoping reviews. Literature searches of electronic databases (eg, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, ERIC, PsycINFO) will be conducted from inception onwards. The electronic search will be supplemented by searching for sources that index unpublished/difficult to locate studies (eg, GreyNet International database), as well as through scanning of reference lists of reviews on related topics. All study designs using either qualitative or quantitative methodologies will be eligible if there is a description of the strategies, barriers or facilitators, and outcomes of engaging policymakers, healthcare managers and policy analysts in the knowledge synthesis process. Screening and data abstraction will be conducted by 2 team members independently after a calibration exercise across the team. A third team member will resolve all discrepancies. We will conduct frequency analysis and thematic analysis to chart and characterise the literature, identifying data gaps and opportunities for future research, as well as implications for policy.Ethics and disseminationThis project was commissioned by the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, WHO. The results will be used by Alliance Review Centers of health policy and systems research in low-income and middle-income countries that are conducting knowledge synthesis to inform health policymaking and decision-making. Our results will also be disseminated through conference presentations, train-the-trainer events, peer-reviewed publication and a 1-page policy brief that will be posted on the authors' websites.

Background The clinical specialty of obstetrics is under particular scrutiny with increasing litigation costs and unnecessary tests and procedures done in attempts to prevent litigation. We aimed to identify reports evaluating or comparing the effectiveness of medical liability reforms and quality improvement strategies in improving litigation-related outcomes in obstetrics. Methods We conducted a rapid scoping review with a 6-week timeline. MEDLINE, EMBASE, LexisNexis Academic, the Legal Scholarship Network, Justis, LegalTrac, QuickLaw, and HeinOnline were searched for publications in English from 2004 until June 2015. The selection criteria for screening were established a priori and pilot-tested. We included reports comparing or evaluating the impact of obstetrics-related medical liability reforms and quality improvement strategies on cost containment and litigation settlement across all countries. All levels of screening were done by two reviewers independently, and discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. In addition, two reviewers independently extracted relevant data using a pre-tested form, and discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. The results were summarized descriptively. Results The search resulted in 2729 citations, of which 14 reports met our eligibility criteria. Several initiatives for improving the medical malpractice litigation system were found, including no-fault approaches, patient safety policy initiatives, communication and resolution, caps on compensation and attorney fees, alternative payment system and liabilities, and limitations on litigation. Conclusions Only a few litigation policies in obstetrics were evaluated or compared. Included documents showed that initiatives to reduce medical malpractice litigation could be associated with a decrease in adverse and malpractice events. However, due to heterogeneous settings (e.g., economic structure, healthcare system) and variation in the outcomes reported, the advantages and disadvantages of initiatives may vary.

Following the publication of the original article [1], it was brought to our attention that the letter 'l' was unfortunately omitted from the word 'health' in the article's title.Following the publication of the original article [1], it was brought to our attention that the letter 'l' was unfortunately omitted from the word 'health' in the article's title.

Background It is unclear how to engage a wide range of knowledge users in research. We aimed to map the evidence on engaging knowledge users with an emphasis on policy-makers, health system managers, and policy analysts in the knowledge synthesis process through a scoping review. Methods We used the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for scoping reviews. Nine electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE), two grey literature sources (e.g., OpenSIGLE), and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews were searched from 1996 to August 2016. We included any type of study describing strategies, barriers and facilitators, or assessing the impact of engaging policy-makers, health system managers, and policy analysts in the knowledge synthesis process. Screening and data abstraction were conducted by two reviewers independently with a third reviewer resolving discrepancies. Frequency and thematic analyses were conducted. Results After screening 8395 titles and abstracts followed by 394 full-texts, 84 unique documents and 7 companion reports fulfilled our eligibility criteria. All 84 documents were published in the last 10 years, and half were prepared in North America. The most common type of knowledge synthesis with knowledge user engagement was a systematic review (36%). The knowledge synthesis most commonly addressed an issue at the level of national healthcare system (48%) and focused on health services delivery (17%) in high-income countries (86%). Policy-makers were the most common (64%) knowledge users, followed by healthcare professionals (49%) and government agencies as well as patients and caregivers (34%). Knowledge users were engaged in conceptualization and design (49%), literature search and data collection (52%), data synthesis and interpretation (71%), and knowledge dissemination and application (44%). Knowledge users were most commonly engaged as key informants through meetings and workshops as well as surveys, focus groups, and interviews either in-person or by telephone and emails. Knowledge user content expertise/awareness was a common facilitator (18%), while lack of time or opportunity to participate was a common barrier (12%). Conclusions Knowledge users were most commonly engaged during the data synthesis and interpretation phases of the knowledge synthesis conduct. Researchers should document and evaluate knowledge user engagement in knowledge synthesis. Registration details Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/4dy53/ ).