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

Abstract

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.

Applying Patient and Public Involvement in preclinical research: A co‐created scoping review

“…While the search strategy aimed to capture as much PPI literature as possible, and an updated search was conducted in August 2021 to capture updated search terms, some eligible studies may have been missed. Subsequent to our planning and completion of this review, specific JBI guidance on involving knowledge users has been published 35 . We involved the PPI Advisory Panel members in most elements of the study, but not the screening and data extraction steps.…”

“…Subsequent to our planning and completion of this review, specific JBI guidance on involving knowledge users has been published. 35 We involved the PPI Advisory Panel members in most elements of the study, but not the screening and data extraction steps. It may be possible to further deepen involvement in future reviews by involving PPI Advisory Panel members in all stages as per the recent JBI guidance.…”

Swimming and the human microbiome at the intersection of sports, clinical, and environmental sciences: A scoping review of the literature

“…We devised the present review as scoping review, in that the research question was broad and intersectional, across several disciplines (sports sciences, microbiology, biotechnology, and molecular biology). A scoping review is an innovative technique to rapidly synthesize and map the literature on a designated topic in terms of major concepts, sources, and types of evidence ( Arksey and O’Malley, 2005 ; Khalil and Tricco, 2022 ; Pollock et al, 2022 ). Several methodologies and guidelines exist: in particular, we leveraged Arksey and O’Malley’s six-stage approach ( Arksey and O’Malley, 2005 ).…”

Academic-practice partnerships in evidence-based nursing practice: a scoping review protocol

“…They have been involved in defining and aligning the study objectives and research questions, developing and aligning the inclusion criteria with the objective/s and question/s and developing search strategies and data extraction forms. They will also participate in data extraction checks and presentation of the evidence in our scoping review 32. Furthermore, the knowledge users will assist in presenting key information and the practical implications of the results of the scoping review 24…”

“…They will also participate in data extraction checks and presentation of the evidence in access our scoping review. 32 Furthermore, the knowledge users will assist in presenting key information and the practical implications of the results of the scoping review. 24 Ethics and dissemination This study does not involve human participants or unpublished secondhand data.…”