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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Buus, Niels, Nygaard, Lene, Berring, Lene Lauge, Hybholt, Lisbeth, Kamionka, Stine Lundstrøm, Rossen, Camilla Blach, Søndergaard, Rikke, Juel, Anette
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