Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2025
Scoping review authors view knowledge user consultations as beneficial but not without challenges: a qualitative study.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Toomey Elaine, Dabbagh Armaghan, Houghton Catherine, O'Connell Niamh, O'Meara Ciara, Pollock Danielle, Smith Maureen, Tricco Andrea C, Colquhoun Heather
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Scoping reviews are a popular and influential form of evidence synthesis. Guidance has previously highlighted the importance of conducting knowledge user (KU) consultations within scoping reviews; however, their use has been limited to date, and the guidance is not clear regarding their methodology and indications for use. This has led to methodological ambiguity and uncertainty regarding KU consultation. We aimed to explore the views and experiences of scoping review authors on using KU consultations within scoping reviews.
METHODS: A descriptive qualitative study design was used. We recruited scoping review authors who had previously conducted a KU consultation to participate in individual semi-structured interviews focusing on the conduct, value, utility, and impact of KU consultations within scoping reviews and the barriers and enablers to conducting them. We used reflexive thematic analysis to analyze interviews.
RESULTS: We conducted 15 interviews with 16 participants (one dyad). We identified three main themes; 'Motivations to Do KU Consultations in Scoping Reviews', 'The Who, What, and How of Doing Consultations in Scoping Reviews', and 'Fostering Growth: Lessons Learned and Future Steps'.
CONCLUSION: Authors view KU consultations as a valuable methodological component of scoping reviews; however, sufficient resources and capacity are needed to conduct them. There is also a lack of clarity and consensus regarding what defines a consultation and how best to conduct them, particularly alongside other forms of KU involvement. Further guidance is needed to clarify the role of KU consultations within scoping reviews.
PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Scoping reviews are a way of summarizing knowledge on a particular topic. In this study, we looked at how researchers use "knowledge user consultations" in scoping reviews. Knowledge users (KU) are people such as patients, policymakers, and health-care providers who can use the results of the research findings. Although using KU consultations in scoping reviews is recommended, it is not often done, and there is confusion about how and when to do it. We interviewed 16 researchers who have done KU consultations as part of a scoping review. From these interviews, we found three key themes: 'Motivations to Do KU Consultations in Scoping Reviews', 'The Who, What, and How of Doing Consultations in Scoping Reviews', and 'Fostering Growth: Lessons Learned and Future Steps'. Overall, researchers felt that KU consultations are useful and add value, but they also said more resources and clearer guidance are needed to do them properly. There is still a lot of uncertainty about what counts as a consultation and how it should be done. More detailed and practical guidance would help make this process clearer for future research.
METHODS: A descriptive qualitative study design was used. We recruited scoping review authors who had previously conducted a KU consultation to participate in individual semi-structured interviews focusing on the conduct, value, utility, and impact of KU consultations within scoping reviews and the barriers and enablers to conducting them. We used reflexive thematic analysis to analyze interviews.
RESULTS: We conducted 15 interviews with 16 participants (one dyad). We identified three main themes; 'Motivations to Do KU Consultations in Scoping Reviews', 'The Who, What, and How of Doing Consultations in Scoping Reviews', and 'Fostering Growth: Lessons Learned and Future Steps'.
CONCLUSION: Authors view KU consultations as a valuable methodological component of scoping reviews; however, sufficient resources and capacity are needed to conduct them. There is also a lack of clarity and consensus regarding what defines a consultation and how best to conduct them, particularly alongside other forms of KU involvement. Further guidance is needed to clarify the role of KU consultations within scoping reviews.
PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Scoping reviews are a way of summarizing knowledge on a particular topic. In this study, we looked at how researchers use "knowledge user consultations" in scoping reviews. Knowledge users (KU) are people such as patients, policymakers, and health-care providers who can use the results of the research findings. Although using KU consultations in scoping reviews is recommended, it is not often done, and there is confusion about how and when to do it. We interviewed 16 researchers who have done KU consultations as part of a scoping review. From these interviews, we found three key themes: 'Motivations to Do KU Consultations in Scoping Reviews', 'The Who, What, and How of Doing Consultations in Scoping Reviews', and 'Fostering Growth: Lessons Learned and Future Steps'. Overall, researchers felt that KU consultations are useful and add value, but they also said more resources and clearer guidance are needed to do them properly. There is still a lot of uncertainty about what counts as a consultation and how it should be done. More detailed and practical guidance would help make this process clearer for future research.