Moving from consultation to co-creation with knowledge users in scoping reviews: guidance from the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group

被引：60
作者：
Pollock, Danielle [1 ]
Alexander, Lyndsay [2 ,3 ]
Munn, Zachary [1 ]
Peters, Micah D. J. [4 ,5 ,6 ]
Khalil, Hanan [7 ,8 ]
Godfrey, Christina M. [9 ]
McInerney, Patricia [10 ]
Synnot, Anneliese [11 ,12 ]
Tricco, Andrea C. [9 ,13 ,14 ,15 ]
机构：
[1] Univ Adelaide, Fac Hlth & Med Sci, JBI, Adelaide, SA, Australia
[2] Robert Gordon Univ, Sch Hlth Sci, Aberdeen, Scotland
[3] Robert Gordon Univ, Scottish Ctr Evidence Based Multiprofess Practice, Aberdeen, Scotland
[4] Univ South Australia, Rosemary Bryant AO Res Ctr, UniSA Clin & Hlth Sci, Adelaide, SA, Australia
[5] Univ Adelaide, Fac Hlth & Med Sci, Sch Nursing, Adelaide, SA, Australia
[6] Univ Adelaide, Ctr Evidence Based Practice South Australia CEPSA, Adelaide, SA, Australia
[7] La Trobe Univ, Sch Psychol & Publ Hlth, Dept Publ Hlth, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[8] Mater Hosp, Queensland Ctr Evidence Based Nursing & Midwifery, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
[9] Queens Univ, Queens Collaborat Hlth Care Qual JBI Ctr Excellen, Sch Nursing, Kingston, ON, Canada
[10] Univ Witwatersrand, Fac Hlth Sci, Wits JBI Ctr Evidence Based Practice JBI Affiliat, Johannesburg, South Africa
[11] La Trobe Univ, Ctr Hlth Commun & Participat, Sch Psychol & Publ Hlth, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[12] Monash Univ, Sch Publ Hlth & Prevent Med, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[13] St Michaels Hosp, Unity Hlth Toronto, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Inst, Toronto, ON, Canada
[14] Univ Toronto, Dalla Lana Sch Publ Hlth, Epidemiol Div, Toronto, ON, Canada
[15] Univ Toronto, Dalla Lana Sch Publ Hlth, Inst Hlth Management Policy & Evaluat, Toronto, ON, Canada
来源：
JBI EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS | 2022年 / 20卷 / 04期
基金：
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词：
engagement; evidence synthesis; knowledge user; methodology; scoping reviews; STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT;
D O I：
10.11124/JBIES-21-00416
中图分类号：
R19 [保健组织与事业（卫生事业管理）];
学科分类号：
摘要：
Knowledge user consultation is often limited or omitted in the conduct of scoping reviews. Not including knowledge users within the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews could be due to a lack of guidance or understanding about what consultation requires and the subsequent benefits. Knowledge user engagement in evidence synthesis, including consultation approaches, has many associated benefits, including improved relevance of the research and better dissemination and implementation of research findings. Scoping reviews, however, have not been specifically focused on in terms of research into knowledge user consultation and evidence syntheses. In this paper, we will present JBI's guidance for knowledge user engagement in scoping reviews based on the expert opinion of the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group. We offer specific guidance on how this can occur and provide information regarding how to report and evaluate knowledge user engagement within scoping reviews. We believe that scoping review authors should embed knowledge user engagement into all scoping reviews and strive towards a co-creation model.
引用
收藏
页码：969 / 979
页数：11
相关论文
共 41 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 2015, PCORI engagement rubric.
  • [2] Arksey H., 2005, INT J SOC RES METHOD, V8, P19, DOI 10.1080/1364557032000119616
  • [3] Practical Guidance for Involving Stakeholders in Health Research
    Concannon, Thomas W.
    Grant, Sean
    Welch, Vivian
    Petkovic, Jennifer
    Selby, Joseph
    Crowe, Sally
    Synnot, Anneliese
    Greer-Smith, Regina
    Mayo-Wilson, Evan
    Tambor, Ellen
    Tugwell, Peter
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2019, 34 (03) : 458 - 463
  • [4] A Systematic Review of Stakeholder Engagement in Comparative Effectiveness and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research
    Concannon, Thomas W.
    Fuster, Melissa
    Saunders, Tully
    Patel, Kamal
    Wong, John B.
    Leslie, Laurel K.
    Lau, Joseph
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2014, 29 (12) : 1692 - 1701
  • [5] Health technologies for the prevention and detection of falls in adult hospital inpatients: a scoping review
    Cooper, Kay
    Pavlova, Anastasia
    Greig, Leon
    Swinton, Paul
    Kirkpatrick, Pamela
    Mitchelhill, Fiona
    Simpson, Susan
    Stephen, Audrey
    Alexander, Lyndsay
    [J]. JBI EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS, 2021, 19 (10) : 2478 - 2658
  • [6] Cottrell E., 2014, Defining the Benefits of Stakeholder Engagement in Systematic Reviews
  • [7] Cottrell E.K., 2015, Dovepress, V5, P13, DOI [10.2147/CER.S69605, DOI 10.2147/CER.S69605]
  • [8] Much at stake: the importance of training and capacity building for stakeholder engagement in evidence synthesis
    Eales, Jacqualyn
    Haddaway, Neal R.
    Webb, J. Angus
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL EVIDENCE, 2017, 6 (01)
  • [9] Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) in health care: a scoping review
    Gagliardi, Anna R.
    Berta, Whitney
    Kothari, Anita
    Boyko, Jennifer
    Urquhart, Robin
    [J]. IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE, 2016, 11
  • [10] Reaching Consensus on Principles of Stakeholder Engagement in Research
    Goodman, Melody S.
    Ackermann, Nicole
    Bowen, Deborah J.
    Thompson, Vetta Sanders
    [J]. PROGRESS IN COMMUNITY HEALTH PARTNERSHIPS-RESEARCH EDUCATION AND ACTION, 2020, 14 (01) : 117 - 127
12345