ABSTRACT
Background: Systematic scoping reviews are a relatively new method of knowledge syntheses that have gained prominence in the field of medical education. Our study evaluates systematic scoping review (SSR) use in Internal Medicine (IM) due to the abundance of prior studies, allowing conclusions to be drawn in parallel to its subspecialty, palliative medicine (PM). PM in particular stands to benefit from our proposed approach, especially with how COVID-19 has forced a change in mentoring structures. It is imperative that the tools used to evaluate mentoring are dynamic and holistic in such turbulent times. Aims: To highlight its features and suitability for the effective study of mentoring, we demonstrate Krishna's Systematic Evidence Based Approach (SEBA) to determine what is known of SSR use in IM. Methods: One team of researchers employed Braun and Clarke's approach to thematic analysis to independently review the articles identified from five bibliographic databases and seven medical education journals on the use of systematic scoping reviews in medical education. A second team of researchers employed Hsieh and Shannon's directed content analysis for concurrent analysis. A third team summarised the included articles. Results: The results of this 'Split Approach' were compared. 3134 abstracts were identified and 62 articles were analysed. Four themes were ascertained from thematic analysis, and one additional category from directed content analysis. These were: characteristics, methodological framework, indications and limitations, use of grey literature, and the structure of systematic scoping reviews. Conclusion: In this paper, we show that the SEBA is more than equipped to fill in the gaps of SSRs in IM education and its subspecialty teachings to allow for its holistic appreciation. In advancing this approach, we also proffer a new tool to assess the quality of grey literature and ensure a balanced perspective in the evaluation of mentoring in PM.