Knowledge Syntheses in Medical Education: Demystifying Scoping Reviews

被引:132
作者
Thomas, Aliki [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Lubarsky, Stuart [2 ,4 ]
Durning, Steven J. [5 ]
Young, Meredith E. [2 ,6 ]
机构
[1] McGill Univ, Sch Phys & Occupat Therapy, Montreal, PQ, Canada
[2] McGill Univ, Ctr Med Educ, Fac Med, Montreal, PQ, Canada
[3] Ctr Interdisciplinary Res Rehabil, Montreal, PQ, Canada
[4] McGill Univ, Neurol, Montreal, PQ, Canada
[5] Univ Heath Sci, Uniformed Serv, Med & Pathol, Bethesda, MD USA
[6] McGill Univ, Dept Med, Montreal, PQ, Canada
关键词
TRANSLATION;
D O I
10.1097/ACM.0000000000001452
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
An unprecedented rise in health professions education (HPE) research has led to increasing attention and interest in knowledge syntheses. There are many different types of knowledge syntheses in common use, including systematic reviews, meta-ethnography, rapid reviews, narrative reviews, and realist reviews. In this Perspective, the authors examine the nature, purpose, value, and appropriate use of one particular method: scoping reviews. Scoping reviews are iterative and flexible and can serve multiple main purposes: to examine the extent, range, and nature of research activity in a given field; to determine the value and appropriateness of undertaking a full systematic review; to summarize and disseminate research findings; and to identify research gaps in the existing literature. Despite the advantages of this methodology, there are concerns that it is a less rigorous and defensible means to synthesize HPE literature. Drawing from published research and from their collective experience with this methodology, the authors present a brief description of scoping reviews, explore the advantages and disadvantages of scoping reviews in the context of HPE, and offer lessons learned and suggestions for colleagues who are considering conducting scoping reviews. Examples of published scoping reviews are provided to illustrate the steps involved in the methodology.
引用
收藏
页码:161 / 166
页数:6
相关论文
共 21 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], J NURS STUD
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2014, Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers' manual
  • [3] [Anonymous], ADV FIELD SCOP STUD
  • [4] [Anonymous], BEST EV MED ED
  • [5] Arksey H., 2005, INT J SOC RES METHOD, V8, P19, DOI 10.1080/1364557032000119616
  • [6] Clinton M, 2000, Aust N Z J Ment Health Nurs, V9, P2, DOI 10.1046/j.1440-0979.2000.00155.x
  • [7] Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting
    Colquhoun, Heather L.
    Levac, Danielle
    O'Brien, Kelly K.
    Straus, Sharon
    Tricco, Andrea C.
    Perrier, Laure
    Kastner, Monika
    Moher, David
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2014, 67 (12) : 1291 - 1294
  • [8] Productivity in medical education research: an examination of countries of origin
    Doja, Asif
    Horsley, Tanya
    Sampson, Margaret
    [J]. BMC MEDICAL EDUCATION, 2014, 14
  • [9] The AMEE Research Committee: Initiatives to stimulate research and practice
    Durning, Steven J.
    Dolmans, Diana H. J. M.
    Cleland, Jennifer
    Mennin, Stewart
    Amin, Zubair
    Gibbs, Trevor J.
    [J]. MEDICAL TEACHER, 2012, 34 (06) : 458 - 461
  • [10] A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies
    Grant, Maria J.
    Booth, Andrew
    [J]. HEALTH INFORMATION AND LIBRARIES JOURNAL, 2009, 26 (02) : 91 - 108