↓ Skip to main content

Advancing scoping study methodology: a web-based survey and consultation of perceptions on terminology, definition and methodological steps

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
186 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
527 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Advancing scoping study methodology: a web-based survey and consultation of perceptions on terminology, definition and methodological steps
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1579-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kelly K. O’Brien, Heather Colquhoun, Danielle Levac, Larry Baxter, Andrea C. Tricco, Sharon Straus, Lisa Wickerson, Ayesha Nayar, David Moher, Lisa O’Malley

Abstract

Scoping studies (or reviews) are a method used to comprehensively map evidence across a range of study designs in an area, with the aim of informing future research practice, programs and policy. However, no universal agreement exists on terminology, definition or methodological steps. Our aim was to understand the experiences of, and considerations for conducting scoping studies from the perspective of academic and community partners. Primary objectives were to 1) describe experiences conducting scoping studies including strengths and challenges; and 2) describe perspectives on terminology, definition, and methodological steps. We conducted a cross-sectional web-based survey with clinicians, educators, researchers, knowledge users, representatives from community-based organizations, graduate students, and policy stakeholders with experience and/or interest in conducting scoping studies to gain an understanding of experiences and perspectives on the conduct and reporting of scoping studies. We administered an electronic self-reported questionnaire comprised of 22 items related to experiences with scoping studies, strengths and challenges, opinions on terminology, and methodological steps. We analyzed questionnaire data using descriptive statistics and content analytical techniques. Survey results were discussed during a multi-stakeholder consultation to identify key considerations in the conduct and reporting of scoping studies. Of the 83 invitations, 54 individuals (65 %) completed the scoping questionnaire, and 48 (58 %) attended the scoping study meeting from Canada, the United Kingdom and United States. Many scoping study strengths were dually identified as challenges including breadth of scope, and iterative process. No consensus on terminology emerged, however key defining features that comprised a working definition of scoping studies included the exploratory mapping of literature in a field; iterative process, inclusion of grey literature; no quality assessment of included studies, and an optional consultation phase. We offer considerations for the conduct and reporting of scoping studies for researchers, clinicians and knowledge users engaging in this methodology. Lack of consensus on scoping terminology, definition and methodological steps persists. Reasons for this may be attributed to diversity of disciplines adopting this methodology for differing purposes. Further work is needed to establish guidelines on the reporting and methodological quality assessment of scoping studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 527 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 2 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 522 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 90 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 87 17%
Researcher 48 9%
Student > Bachelor 33 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 31 6%
Other 106 20%
Unknown 132 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 96 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 89 17%
Social Sciences 59 11%
Psychology 31 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 16 3%
Other 90 17%
Unknown 146 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 August 2023.
All research outputs
#2,185,986
of 24,319,828 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#862
of 8,194 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,725
of 372,606 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#26
of 221 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,319,828 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,194 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 372,606 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 221 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.