Cargando…

Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review

OBJECTIVES: Over the last two decades, the number of scoping reviews in core medical education journals has increased by 4200%. Despite this growth, research on scoping reviews provides limited information about their nature, including how they are conducted or why medical educators undertake this k...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Maggio, Lauren A., Larsen, Kelsey, Thomas, Aliki, Costello, Joseph A., Artino, Anthony R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8247025/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33300124
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/medu.14431
_version_ 1783716436884062208
author Maggio, Lauren A.
Larsen, Kelsey
Thomas, Aliki
Costello, Joseph A.
Artino, Anthony R.
author_facet Maggio, Lauren A.
Larsen, Kelsey
Thomas, Aliki
Costello, Joseph A.
Artino, Anthony R.
author_sort Maggio, Lauren A.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Over the last two decades, the number of scoping reviews in core medical education journals has increased by 4200%. Despite this growth, research on scoping reviews provides limited information about their nature, including how they are conducted or why medical educators undertake this knowledge synthesis type. This gap makes it difficult to know where the field stands and may hamper attempts to improve the conduct, reporting and utility of scoping reviews. Thus, this review characterises the nature of medical education scoping reviews to identify areas for improvement and highlight future research opportunities. METHOD: The authors searched PubMed for scoping reviews published between 1/1999 and 4/2020 in 14 medical education journals. The authors extracted and summarised key bibliometric data, the rationales given for conducting a scoping review, the research questions and key reporting elements as described in the PRISMA‐ScR. Rationales and research questions were mapped to Arksey and O'Malley's reasons for conducting a scoping review. RESULTS: One hundred and one scoping reviews were included. On average, 10.1 scoping reviews (SD = 13.1, median = 4) were published annually with the most reviews published in 2019 (n = 42). Authors described multiple reasons for undertaking scoping reviews; the most prevalent being to summarise and disseminate research findings (n = 77). In 11 reviews, the rationales for the scoping review and the research questions aligned. No review addressed all elements of the PRISMA‐ScR, with few authors publishing a protocol (n = 2) or including stakeholders (n = 20). Authors identified shortcomings of scoping reviews, including lack of critical appraisal. CONCLUSIONS: Scoping reviews are increasingly conducted in medical education and published by most core journals. Scoping reviews aim to map the depth and breadth of emerging topics; as such, they have the potential to play a critical role in the practice, policy and research of medical education. However, these results suggest improvements are needed for this role to be fully realised.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8247025
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82470252021-07-02 Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review Maggio, Lauren A. Larsen, Kelsey Thomas, Aliki Costello, Joseph A. Artino, Anthony R. Med Educ Medical Education in Review OBJECTIVES: Over the last two decades, the number of scoping reviews in core medical education journals has increased by 4200%. Despite this growth, research on scoping reviews provides limited information about their nature, including how they are conducted or why medical educators undertake this knowledge synthesis type. This gap makes it difficult to know where the field stands and may hamper attempts to improve the conduct, reporting and utility of scoping reviews. Thus, this review characterises the nature of medical education scoping reviews to identify areas for improvement and highlight future research opportunities. METHOD: The authors searched PubMed for scoping reviews published between 1/1999 and 4/2020 in 14 medical education journals. The authors extracted and summarised key bibliometric data, the rationales given for conducting a scoping review, the research questions and key reporting elements as described in the PRISMA‐ScR. Rationales and research questions were mapped to Arksey and O'Malley's reasons for conducting a scoping review. RESULTS: One hundred and one scoping reviews were included. On average, 10.1 scoping reviews (SD = 13.1, median = 4) were published annually with the most reviews published in 2019 (n = 42). Authors described multiple reasons for undertaking scoping reviews; the most prevalent being to summarise and disseminate research findings (n = 77). In 11 reviews, the rationales for the scoping review and the research questions aligned. No review addressed all elements of the PRISMA‐ScR, with few authors publishing a protocol (n = 2) or including stakeholders (n = 20). Authors identified shortcomings of scoping reviews, including lack of critical appraisal. CONCLUSIONS: Scoping reviews are increasingly conducted in medical education and published by most core journals. Scoping reviews aim to map the depth and breadth of emerging topics; as such, they have the potential to play a critical role in the practice, policy and research of medical education. However, these results suggest improvements are needed for this role to be fully realised. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-12-30 2021-06 /pmc/articles/PMC8247025/ /pubmed/33300124 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/medu.14431 Text en © 2020 Association for the Study of Medical Education and John Wiley & Sons Ltd https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Medical Education in Review
Maggio, Lauren A.
Larsen, Kelsey
Thomas, Aliki
Costello, Joseph A.
Artino, Anthony R.
Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review
title Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review
title_full Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review
title_fullStr Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review
title_full_unstemmed Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review
title_short Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review
title_sort scoping reviews in medical education: a scoping review
topic Medical Education in Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8247025/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33300124
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/medu.14431
work_keys_str_mv AT maggiolaurena scopingreviewsinmedicaleducationascopingreview
AT larsenkelsey scopingreviewsinmedicaleducationascopingreview
AT thomasaliki scopingreviewsinmedicaleducationascopingreview
AT costellojosepha scopingreviewsinmedicaleducationascopingreview
AT artinoanthonyr scopingreviewsinmedicaleducationascopingreview