ABSTRACT
Objective@#We aimed to provide practical guidance on the scoping review process, building on the methodologies and general steps outlined by Arksey and O’Malley, Levac et al. and The Joanna Briggs Institute. @*Methods@#We reviewed the methodologies of three scoping studies conducted by the authors in the College of Public Health, University of the Philippines Manila between 2016 and 2017. For each project, we outlined the steps, tools utilized, good practices performed, challenges encountered, and recommendations for improving the scoping review process in relation to existing guidelines. We compared the similarities and differences across the three reviews and guidelines to come up with a list of good practices and recommendations. @*Results@#We propose an expanded 10-step and iterative framework based on our analysis of three scoping studies: Define your research question; 2. Specify your research statement according to population, concept, and context; Prepare the necessary tools, forms, and software packages; 4. Assemble your expert panel and/or consultants; Develop your search strategy; 6. Implement the search strategy and retrieve identified studies; 7. Screen and assess studies for inclusion in the scoping review; 8. Chart the data; 9. Synthesize your results; and 10. Prepare your final report. @*Conclusion@#Scoping reviews as a method of evidence synthesis are increasingly gaining popularity among researchers due to the scope of what can be reviewed in a relatively short amount of time. With only three scoping studies informing our proposed methodology, other issues and challenges in the conduct of a scoping review may have been missed in the expanded framework presented in this paper. We suggest future studies to apply existing scoping review methodologies, to further enhance this rapidly evolving framework in research, policy, and practice.
Subject(s)
Review , MethodsABSTRACT
@#<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>INTRODUCTION:</strong> This paper documents the variations in the diagnosis and management of multibacillary leprosy patients in three of the biggest case-holding hospitals in Metro Manila. Furthermore, we aimed to discuss the implications of these variations on the country's leprosy control and elimination program.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b>METHODS:</b> Focus group discussions (FGD) were conducted with 23 health professionals composed of doctors and nurses with at least a year of experience in managing leprosy patients. The topics included procedures on patient diagnosis and management such as treatment duration, patient follow-up and definitions of treatment completion and default. The FGD participants provided suggestions to improve treatment compliance of patients. Their responses were compared with the World Health Organization (WHO) standards and/or the 2002 DOH Manual of Operating Procedures (MOP) for leprosy. Transcripts of the recordings of the FGDs were prepared and thematic analysis was then performed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b>RESULTS:</b> There were variations in the hospitals' procedures to diagnose leprosy, in treatment duration, and in patient follow-up. Definitions for treatment completion and default differed not just between hospitals but also with the WHO guidelines and the 2002 MOP. Hospitals extended treatment up to 24 or even 36 months, despite the 12 months stipulated in the MOP. Two hospitals required a slit skin smear and skin biopsy in diagnosis, despite the MOP and WHO provisions that these were not mandatory. One hospital defined default as three consecutive months without treatment, which was different from the MOP and WHO standards and from the other hospitals.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>CONCLUSION:</strong> Given the variations in patient management, we recommended that the effectiveness of the standard treatment relative to other regimens being practiced by specialists be evaluated.</p>