Davis Kathy, Drey Nick, Gould Dinah
Consortium for Health Care Research, City University, Philpot Street, London E1 2 EA, United Kingdom.
Int J Nurs Stud. 2009 Oct;46(10):1386-400. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.02.010. Epub 2009 Mar 27.
Scoping studies are increasingly undertaken as distinct activities. The interpretation, methodology and expectations of scoping are highly variable. This suggests that conceptually, scoping is a poorly defined ambiguous term. The distinction between scoping as an integral preliminary process in the development of a research proposal or a formative, methodologically rigorous activity in its own right has not been extensively examined.
The aim of this review is to explore the nature and status of scoping studies within the nursing literature and develop a working definition to ensure consistency in the future use of scoping as a research related activity.
This paper follows an interpretative scoping review methodology.
An explicit systematic search strategy included literary and web-based key word searches and advice from key researchers. Electronic sources included bibliographic and national research register databases and a general browser.
The scoping studies varied widely in terms of intent, procedural and methodological rigor. An atheoretical stance was common although explicit conceptual clarification and development of a topic was limited. Four different levels of inquiry ranging from preliminary descriptive surveys to more substantive conceptual approaches were conceptualised. These levels reflected differing dimensional distinctions in which some activities constitute research whereas in others the scoping activities appear to fall outside the remit of research. Reconnaissance emerges as a common synthesising construct to explain the purpose of scoping.
Scoping studies in relation to nursing are embryonic and continue to evolve. Its main strengths lie in its ability to extract the essence of a diverse body of evidence giving it meaning and significance that is both developmental and intellectually creative. As with other approaches to research and evidence synthesis a more standardized approach is required.
范围界定研究正日益作为独立活动开展。范围界定的解释、方法和预期差异很大。这表明，从概念上讲，范围界定是一个定义不明确的模糊术语。范围界定作为研究计划制定中不可或缺的初步过程与作为一项自成一体、方法严谨的形成性活动之间的区别尚未得到广泛研究。
本综述的目的是探讨护理文献中范围界定研究的性质和地位，并制定一个实用定义，以确保未来将范围界定作为一项与研究相关的活动使用时的一致性。
本文采用解释性范围界定综述方法。
明确的系统检索策略包括文献和基于网络的关键词检索以及关键研究人员的建议。电子来源包括书目数据库、国家研究注册数据库和通用浏览器。
范围界定研究在意图、程序和方法严谨性方面差异很大。尽管明确的概念澄清和主题发展有限，但无理论立场很常见。概念化了从初步描述性调查到更具实质性概念方法的四种不同探究水平。这些水平反映了不同的维度区别，其中一些活动构成研究，而在其他活动中，范围界定活动似乎不属于研究范畴。侦察作为解释范围界定目的的常见综合概念出现。
与护理相关的范围界定研究尚处于萌芽阶段且仍在不断发展。其主要优势在于能够提取大量不同证据的精髓，赋予其发展性和智力创造性的意义和重要性。与其他研究和证据综合方法一样，需要一种更标准化的方法。
