Understanding scoping reviews

Abstract

Background/purpose Scoping review design represents a methodology that allows assessment of emerging evidence, as well as a first step in research development. Despite its increasing use, to date no article reflecting use of scoping review methodology has been submitted for review at JAANP. The purpose of this article is to provide detailed information on scoping reviews, including definition, related processes, and uses, and discuss the relationship to nurse practitioner (NP) practice, policy, education, and research. The longer‐term goal is that NPs will understand the related techniques, consider the methodology as a viable one for NP scholarship, and bring related reports to the forefront of NP publications. Methods This manuscript represents a brief report. Processes to develop the brief include detailed search and review of scoping review literature in CINAHL and PubMed. Both methodologic reports and reviews were included. Definitions and uses of scoping reviews were reviewed. Conclusion The definition and process of scoping review are evolving. Although there is controversy regarding the methodology, there is increasing visibility of scoping review methodology in the published literature since the year 2000, with over 500 published reviews currently available. Implications for practice A well‐executed scoping review has potential to inform NP practice, policy, education, and research.

Nurse‐Led Interventions for Hypertension: A Scoping Review With Implications for Evidence‐Based Practice

“…Nurse involvement in hypertension interventions in East Africa has not been well defined or adequately explored, rendering an integrative review less effective. Scoping reviews are indicated for identifying gaps in evidence, clarifying concepts, and mapping evidence to inform practice in a topic area (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005;Peterson, Pearce, Ferguson, & Langford, 2017;The Joanna Briggs Institute, 2015). A scoping review was selected to provide a wide lens in exploring current hypertension intervention studies and to guide future research that would be inclusive of nurses.…”

Factors that enable effective One Health collaborations - A scoping review of the literature

“…A scoping literature review was conducted to identify key factors that facilitate multisectoral collaborations around major health events such as disease outbreaks using published accounts of actual health events. A scoping review, in contrast to a systematic review, is well-suited for a field such as One Health that is still relatively new and evolving, as the method allows for assessment of emerging evidence, as well as a first step in research development [25][p. 12]. Due to the lack of a common language and framework for describing One Health collaborations, this scoping review builds that foundation by providing a broad overview of One Health collaborations and supporting the synthesis of key concepts, evidence, and research gaps [26,27].…”

Addressing Mental Health in a Changing Climate: Incorporating Mental Health Indicators into Climate Change and Health Vulnerability and Adaptation Assessments

“…It is similar to an evidence mapping review in that a scoping review employs a systematic search for evidence to respond to specific research questions and maps the evidence; going further than a mapping review, a scoping review typically adds a narrative about the evidence [34]. A scoping review differs from a systematic review in that a scoping review does not evaluate the quality of the evidence found in the literature; further, a scoping review may include both peer-reviewed and grey literature [34,35]. This scoping review includes a review of literature on the topic area as well as a review of the theory and methodology applied to the topic area to better understand the current thinking and empirical approach to the study of climate change and psychosocial health.…”