Article Overview: This research article addresses the persistent lack of universal agreement on terminology, definition, and methodological steps for scoping studies (or reviews). Scoping studies are a recognized method for comprehensively mapping evidence across various study designs to inform future research, programs, and policy. Despite their increasing popularity in health research, with over half of such studies published after 2012, clear criteria to guide their rigor or reporting have not been established.
Purpose of the Study: The primary aim of O’Brien et al.’s study was to understand the experiences and considerations for conducting scoping studies from the perspectives of academic and community partners. Specifically, it sought to describe:
- Experiences, strengths, and challenges encountered during scoping studies.
- Perspectives on the terminology, definition, and methodological steps involved.
Methodology: The authors conducted a cross-sectional web-based survey followed by a multi-stakeholder consultation meeting.
- Participants: Clinicians, educators, researchers, knowledge users, representatives from community-based organizations, graduate students, and policy stakeholders with experience and/or interest in scoping studies from Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
- Survey: An electronic self-reported questionnaire with 22 items covered experiences, strengths, challenges, opinions on terminology, and methodological steps. Of 83 invitations, 54 individuals (65%) completed the questionnaire.
- Consultation Meeting: Survey results were discussed during a 2-day multi-stakeholder meeting to identify key considerations for conducting and reporting scoping studies. This meeting aimed to translate research evidence and establish priorities for future criteria development.
- Data Analysis: Questionnaire data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and content analysis for open-ended responses. Rapporteur notes from the meeting discussions were also analyzed using content analysis.
Key Findings:
- Terminology: No consensus emerged on preferred terminology. While a majority (68%) of survey respondents preferred “scoping review,” viewing it as more consistent with systematic reviews, others preferred “scoping study” due to its analytical component and distinct goals beyond mere literature review, especially when including a consultation phase.
- Strengths and Challenges: Many perceived strengths of scoping studies were also identified as challenges, including their breadth of scope and iterative process.
- Strengths: Ability to provide an overview of evidence, broad scope, flexibility, inclusion of grey literature and diverse study designs, systematic process, and potential for stakeholder engagement.
- Challenges: Difficulty establishing study boundaries due to broad scope and flexibility, increased time and resources for the iterative process, uncertainty about the utility of the final product, lack of detailed methodological guidance (especially for data synthesis), challenges in finding grey literature, and the absence of quality assessment.
- Defining Features: Key defining features comprising a working definition included the exploratory mapping of literature, an iterative process, inclusion of grey literature, no quality assessment of included studies, and an optional consultation phase.
- Methodological Steps: Scoping studies were generally viewed as systematic, rigorous, and transparent, but with flexibility. The consultation phase was seen as a distinct, formalized stage involving key informants and requiring formal recruitment, data collection, qualitative analysis, and potentially ethics board review, going beyond informal consultation. The absence of methodological quality assessment was considered a distinct feature, although its value in certain contexts was debated.
Conclusion and Significance: The study highlights the ongoing lack of consensus on scoping terminology, definition, and methodological steps, attributed partly to the diverse disciplines adopting this methodology for varied purposes. The findings provide valuable insights and key considerations for researchers, clinicians, and knowledge users engaging in this methodology, emphasizing the need for clarity and consistent language to ensure methodological rigor. Further work is needed to establish clear guidelines for reporting and methodological quality assessment of scoping studies
Reference: O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Baxter, L., Tricco, A. C., Straus, S., Wickerson, L., Nayar, A., Moher, D., & O’Malley, L. (2016). Advancing scoping study methodology: A web-based survey and consultation of perceptions on terminology, definition and methodological steps. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 16(1), 1579-z. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1579-z.
