Cargando…
Arksey and O′Malleyʼs consultation exercise in scoping reviews: A critical review
AIMS: To explore how consultation exercises were described in a convenience sample of recent scoping reviews. DESIGN: Critical literature review. DATA SOURCES: We searched PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL and PubMed in July 2020. Our inclusion criterion was a peer‐reviewed journal article reporting a scopin...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9545832/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35451517 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jan.15265 |
_version_ | 1784804905497657344 |
---|---|
author | Buus, Niels Nygaard, Lene Berring, Lene Lauge Hybholt, Lisbeth Kamionka, Stine Lundstrøm Rossen, Camilla Blach Søndergaard, Rikke Juel, Anette |
author_facet | Buus, Niels Nygaard, Lene Berring, Lene Lauge Hybholt, Lisbeth Kamionka, Stine Lundstrøm Rossen, Camilla Blach Søndergaard, Rikke Juel, Anette |
author_sort | Buus, Niels |
collection | PubMed |
description | AIMS: To explore how consultation exercises were described in a convenience sample of recent scoping reviews. DESIGN: Critical literature review. DATA SOURCES: We searched PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL and PubMed in July 2020. Our inclusion criterion was a peer‐reviewed journal article reporting a scoping review in Danish, English, Norwegian or Swedish. REVIEW METHODS: We identified a convenience sample of articles (n = 66) reporting a consultation exercise as part of a scoping review. The descriptions of the consultation were charted, summarized and critically discussed. RESULTS: The current analysis showed no widely accepted consensus on how to approach and report a consultation exercise in the sample of scoping reviews. The reports of stakeholder consultation processes were often brief and general, and often there were no reports of the effects of the stakeholder consultation processes. Further, there was no discussion of the principal theoretical problems mixing stakeholder voices and review findings. CONCLUSION: The finding that conventional research ethics and research methods often were suspended could indicate that the stakeholder consultants were in a precarious position because of power imbalances between researchers and stakeholder consultants. We suggest that a consultation exercise should only be included when it genuinely invites participation and reports on the effect of alternative voices. IMPACT: Scoping reviews are common across a range of disciplines, but they often lack definitional and methodological clarity. In their influential approach to scoping studies, Arksey and OʼMalley introduced an optional ‘consultation exercise’, which has been heralded as a valuable tool that can be used to strengthen the process and outcome of a scoping study and to support the dissemination of the studyʼs findings and its implications. However, there is no clear outline on about how to operationalize consultations of stakeholders in scoping studies/reviews. This article includes recommendations for consultation exercises, including encouraging an aspirational move from ‘consultation’ to ‘participation’. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9545832 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-95458322022-10-14 Arksey and O′Malleyʼs consultation exercise in scoping reviews: A critical review Buus, Niels Nygaard, Lene Berring, Lene Lauge Hybholt, Lisbeth Kamionka, Stine Lundstrøm Rossen, Camilla Blach Søndergaard, Rikke Juel, Anette J Adv Nurs Reviews AIMS: To explore how consultation exercises were described in a convenience sample of recent scoping reviews. DESIGN: Critical literature review. DATA SOURCES: We searched PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL and PubMed in July 2020. Our inclusion criterion was a peer‐reviewed journal article reporting a scoping review in Danish, English, Norwegian or Swedish. REVIEW METHODS: We identified a convenience sample of articles (n = 66) reporting a consultation exercise as part of a scoping review. The descriptions of the consultation were charted, summarized and critically discussed. RESULTS: The current analysis showed no widely accepted consensus on how to approach and report a consultation exercise in the sample of scoping reviews. The reports of stakeholder consultation processes were often brief and general, and often there were no reports of the effects of the stakeholder consultation processes. Further, there was no discussion of the principal theoretical problems mixing stakeholder voices and review findings. CONCLUSION: The finding that conventional research ethics and research methods often were suspended could indicate that the stakeholder consultants were in a precarious position because of power imbalances between researchers and stakeholder consultants. We suggest that a consultation exercise should only be included when it genuinely invites participation and reports on the effect of alternative voices. IMPACT: Scoping reviews are common across a range of disciplines, but they often lack definitional and methodological clarity. In their influential approach to scoping studies, Arksey and OʼMalley introduced an optional ‘consultation exercise’, which has been heralded as a valuable tool that can be used to strengthen the process and outcome of a scoping study and to support the dissemination of the studyʼs findings and its implications. However, there is no clear outline on about how to operationalize consultations of stakeholders in scoping studies/reviews. This article includes recommendations for consultation exercises, including encouraging an aspirational move from ‘consultation’ to ‘participation’. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-04-22 2022-08 /pmc/articles/PMC9545832/ /pubmed/35451517 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jan.15265 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Journal of Advanced Nursing published by 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 | Reviews Buus, Niels Nygaard, Lene Berring, Lene Lauge Hybholt, Lisbeth Kamionka, Stine Lundstrøm Rossen, Camilla Blach Søndergaard, Rikke Juel, Anette Arksey and O′Malleyʼs consultation exercise in scoping reviews: A critical review |
title | Arksey and O′Malleyʼs consultation exercise in scoping reviews: A critical review |
title_full | Arksey and O′Malleyʼs consultation exercise in scoping reviews: A critical review |
title_fullStr | Arksey and O′Malleyʼs consultation exercise in scoping reviews: A critical review |
title_full_unstemmed | Arksey and O′Malleyʼs consultation exercise in scoping reviews: A critical review |
title_short | Arksey and O′Malleyʼs consultation exercise in scoping reviews: A critical review |
title_sort | arksey and o′malleyʼs consultation exercise in scoping reviews: a critical review |
topic | Reviews |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9545832/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35451517 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jan.15265 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT buusniels arkseyandomalleyʼsconsultationexerciseinscopingreviewsacriticalreview AT nygaardlene arkseyandomalleyʼsconsultationexerciseinscopingreviewsacriticalreview AT berringlenelauge arkseyandomalleyʼsconsultationexerciseinscopingreviewsacriticalreview AT hybholtlisbeth arkseyandomalleyʼsconsultationexerciseinscopingreviewsacriticalreview AT kamionkastinelundstrøm arkseyandomalleyʼsconsultationexerciseinscopingreviewsacriticalreview AT rossencamillablach arkseyandomalleyʼsconsultationexerciseinscopingreviewsacriticalreview AT søndergaardrikke arkseyandomalleyʼsconsultationexerciseinscopingreviewsacriticalreview AT juelanette arkseyandomalleyʼsconsultationexerciseinscopingreviewsacriticalreview |