Suppr超能文献

阿特金和奥马利的范围综述咨询实践:批判性评价。

Arksey and O'Malley's consultation exercise in scoping reviews: A critical review.

机构信息

Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Department of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.

出版信息

J Adv Nurs. 2022 Aug;78(8):2304-2312. doi: 10.1111/jan.15265. Epub 2022 Apr 22.

Abstract

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 O'Malley 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 study's 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'.

摘要

目的

探索在最近的范围综述便利样本中如何描述咨询活动。

设计

批判性文献综述。

数据来源

我们于 2020 年 7 月在 PsycINFO、Embase、CINAHL 和 PubMed 中进行了搜索。我们的纳入标准是一篇同行评议的期刊文章,报告了丹麦语、英语、挪威语或瑞典语的范围综述。

审查方法

我们确定了一份便利样本的文章(n=66),报告了咨询活动是范围综述的一部分。对咨询的描述进行了图表绘制、总结和批判性讨论。

结果

当前的分析表明,在样本范围内的综述中,没有就如何进行和报告咨询活动达成广泛接受的共识。利益相关者咨询过程的报告往往简短而笼统,而且往往没有报告利益相关者咨询过程的效果。此外,没有讨论将利益相关者的声音与综述结果混合的主要理论问题。

结论

发现常规的研究伦理和研究方法经常被搁置,这可能表明利益相关者顾问处于危险的境地,因为研究人员和利益相关者顾问之间存在权力失衡。我们建议,只有当咨询活动真正邀请参与并报告替代声音的效果时,才应包括咨询活动。

影响

范围综述在多个学科中很常见,但它们往往缺乏定义和方法上的清晰度。在他们对范围研究的有影响力的方法中,Arksey 和 O'Malley 引入了一个可选的“咨询活动”,这被认为是一个有价值的工具,可以用于加强范围研究的过程和结果,并支持研究结果及其影响的传播。然而,关于如何在范围研究/综述中操作利益相关者的咨询,目前还没有明确的概述。本文包括对咨询活动的建议,包括鼓励从“咨询”向“参与”的理想转变。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d7c2/9545832/6c870fb2b038/JAN-78-2304-g002.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验