Advancing occupational therapy scoping reviews: Recommendations to enhance quality and methodological rigour

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 REHABILITATION Australian Occupational Therapy Journal Pub Date : 2025-02-20 DOI:10.1111/1440-1630.70003
Ted Brown, Louise Gustafsson, Carol McKinstry, Luke Robinson
{"title":"Advancing occupational therapy scoping reviews: Recommendations to enhance quality and methodological rigour","authors":"Ted Brown,&nbsp;Louise Gustafsson,&nbsp;Carol McKinstry,&nbsp;Luke Robinson","doi":"10.1111/1440-1630.70003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Scoping reviews are an increasingly popular methodological approach to collate evidence and synthesise knowledge in many fields including occupational therapy. However, many are published with potential methodological weaknesses. To address this issue, nine methodological recommendations that authors could adopt to improve the quality and rigour of published scoping reviews are proposed based on the authors' opinions and the published evidence.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Overview</h3>\n \n <p>It is suggested that when authors are completing a scoping review, they can consider completing one or more of the following methodological guidelines: (1) refer to the Levac et al.'s (2010) scoping review recommendations, the JBI Scoping Review Protocol, and the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist as methodological guides; (2) include grey literature as a standard component search strategy approach; (3) include thesis and dissertations as recognised sources of evidence; (4) apply a recognised research methodology critical appraisal/quality assessment tools and scales to evidence selected for inclusion in scoping reviews; (5) assign a level of evidence (LoE) framework to the selected evidence; (6) apply a recognised qualitative knowledge syntheses approach to the data extracted; (7) report the steps taken to ensure the trustworthiness of the qualitative knowledge synthesis approach used; (8) include consumer, stakeholder and community consultation; and (9) apply a scoping review-specific critical appraisal/quality assessment tool as a quality assurance activity. The authors are not proposing that the nine recommendations are mandatory, but instead they are methodological guidelines that scoping review authors can incorporate if they choose.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Consumer and Community Involvement</h3>\n \n <p>Consumers and community members were not involved in the writing of the manuscript.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Adopting the suggested methodological recommendations as a regular part of completing occupational therapy-related scoping reviews will increase their quality, precision, and rigour.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55418,"journal":{"name":"Australian Occupational Therapy Journal","volume":"72 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1440-1630.70003","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Occupational Therapy Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1440-1630.70003","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Scoping reviews are an increasingly popular methodological approach to collate evidence and synthesise knowledge in many fields including occupational therapy. However, many are published with potential methodological weaknesses. To address this issue, nine methodological recommendations that authors could adopt to improve the quality and rigour of published scoping reviews are proposed based on the authors' opinions and the published evidence.

Overview

It is suggested that when authors are completing a scoping review, they can consider completing one or more of the following methodological guidelines: (1) refer to the Levac et al.'s (2010) scoping review recommendations, the JBI Scoping Review Protocol, and the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist as methodological guides; (2) include grey literature as a standard component search strategy approach; (3) include thesis and dissertations as recognised sources of evidence; (4) apply a recognised research methodology critical appraisal/quality assessment tools and scales to evidence selected for inclusion in scoping reviews; (5) assign a level of evidence (LoE) framework to the selected evidence; (6) apply a recognised qualitative knowledge syntheses approach to the data extracted; (7) report the steps taken to ensure the trustworthiness of the qualitative knowledge synthesis approach used; (8) include consumer, stakeholder and community consultation; and (9) apply a scoping review-specific critical appraisal/quality assessment tool as a quality assurance activity. The authors are not proposing that the nine recommendations are mandatory, but instead they are methodological guidelines that scoping review authors can incorporate if they choose.

Consumer and Community Involvement

Consumers and community members were not involved in the writing of the manuscript.

Conclusion

Adopting the suggested methodological recommendations as a regular part of completing occupational therapy-related scoping reviews will increase their quality, precision, and rigour.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
16.70%
发文量
69
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Australian Occupational Therapy Journal is a leading international peer reviewed publication presenting influential, high quality innovative scholarship and research relevant to occupational therapy. The aim of the journal is to be a leader in the dissemination of scholarship and evidence to substantiate, influence and shape policy and occupational therapy practice locally and globally. The journal publishes empirical studies, theoretical papers, and reviews. Preference will be given to manuscripts that have a sound theoretical basis, methodological rigour with sufficient scope and scale to make important new contributions to the occupational therapy body of knowledge. AOTJ does not publish protocols for any study design The journal will consider multidisciplinary or interprofessional studies that include occupational therapy, occupational therapists or occupational therapy students, so long as ‘key points’ highlight the specific implications for occupational therapy, occupational therapists and/or occupational therapy students and/or consumers.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Advancing occupational therapy scoping reviews: Recommendations to enhance quality and methodological rigour Correction to ‘A systematic review of psychometric properties of questionnaires assessing activities of daily living among older adults with neurocognitive disorders’ The effects of crafts-based interventions on mental health and well-being: A systematic review Assessment of older adults' decision-making capacity for independent living: Findings from a nominal group technique meeting in Ireland
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1