Automation tools to support undertaking scoping reviews.

OBJECTIVE: This paper describes several automation tools and software that can be considered during evidence synthesis projects and provides guidance for their integration in the conduct of scoping reviews. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The guidance presented in this work is adapted from the results of a scoping review and consultations with the JBI Scoping Review Methodology group. RESULTS: This paper describes several reliable, validated automation tools and software that can be used to enhance the conduct of scoping reviews. Developments in the automation of systematic reviews, and more recently scoping reviews, are continuously evolving. We detail several helpful tools in order of the key steps recommended by the JBI's methodological guidance for undertaking scoping reviews including team establishment, protocol development, searching, de-duplication, screening titles and abstracts, data extraction, data charting, and report writing. While we include several reliable tools and software that can be used for the automation of scoping reviews, there are some limitations to the tools mentioned. For example, some are available in English only and their lack of integration with other tools results in limited interoperability. CONCLUSION: This paper highlighted several useful automation tools and software programs to use in undertaking each step of a scoping review. This guidance has the potential to inform collaborative efforts aiming at the development of evidence informed, integrated automation tools and software packages for enhancing the conduct of high-quality scoping reviews.

Large scoping reviews: managing volume and potential chaos in a pool of evidence sources.

Scoping reviews can identify a large number of evidence sources. This commentary describes and provides guidance on planning, conducting, and reporting large scoping reviews. This guidance is informed by experts in scoping review methodology, including JBI (formerly Joanna Briggs Institute) Scoping Review Methodology group members, who have also conducted and reported large scoping reviews. We propose a working definition for large scoping reviews that includes approximately 100 sources of evidence but must also consider the volume of data to be extracted, the complexity of the analyses, and purpose. We pose 6 core questions for scoping review authors to consider when planning, developing, conducting, and reporting large scoping reviews. By considering and addressing these questions, scoping review authors might better streamline and manage the conduct and reporting of large scoping reviews from the planning to publishing stage.

Investigating different typologies for the synthesis of evidence: a scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review is to identify evidence synthesis types and previously proposed classification systems, typologies, or taxonomies that have guided evidence synthesis. INTRODUCTION: Evidence synthesis is a constantly evolving field. There is now a plethora of evidence synthesis approaches used across many different disciplines. Historically, there have been numerous attempts to organize the types and methods of evidence synthesis in the form of classification systems, typologies, or taxonomies. This scoping review will seek to identify all the available classification systems, typologies, or taxonomies; how they were developed; their characteristics; and the types of evidence syntheses included within them. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This scoping review will include discussion papers, commentaries, books, editorials, manuals, handbooks, and guidance from major organizations that describe multiple approaches to evidence synthesis in any discipline. METHODS: The Evidence Synthesis Taxonomy Initiative will support this scoping review. The search strategy will aim to locate both published and unpublished documents utilizing a three-step search strategy. An exploratory search of MEDLINE has identified keywords and MeSH terms. A second search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL with Full Text, ERIC, Scopus, Compendex, and JSTOR will be conducted. The websites of relevant evidence synthesis organizations will be searched. Identified documents will be independently screened, selected, and extracted by two researchers, and the data will be presented in tables and summarized descriptively. DETAILS OF THIS REVIEW PROJECT ARE AVAILABLE AT: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/qwc27.

Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews.

Scoping reviewers often face challenges in the extraction, analysis, and presentation of scoping review results. Using best-practice examples and drawing on the expertise of the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group and an editor of a journal that publishes scoping reviews, this paper expands on existing JBI scoping review guidance. The aim of this article is to clarify the process of extracting data from different sources of evidence; discuss what data should be extracted (and what should not); outline how to analyze extracted data, including an explanation of basic qualitative content analysis; and offer suggestions for the presentation of results in scoping reviews.

Absorptive capacity in the adoption of innovations in health: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review was to explore how absorptive capacity has been conceptualized and measured in studies of innovation adoption in health care organizations. INTRODUCTION: Current literature highlights the need to incorporate knowledge translation processes at the organizational and system level to enhance the adoption of new knowledge into practice. Absorptive capacity is a set of routines and processes characterized by knowledge acquisition, assimilation, transformation, and application. A key concept in organizational learning theory, absorptive capacity is thought to be critical to the adoption of new knowledge and innovations in organizations. To understand how absorptive capacity was conceptualized and measured in health care organizations, it was appropriate to conduct a scoping review to answer our research question. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This scoping review included published and unpublished primary studies (ie, experimental, quasi-experimental, observational, and qualitative study designs), as well as reviews that broadly focused on the adoption of innovations at the organizational level in health care, and framed innovation adoption as processes that rely on organizational learning and absorptive or learning capacity. METHODS: Searches included electronic databases (ie, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus) and gray literature, as well as reference scanning of relevant studies. Study abstracts and full texts were screened for eligibility by two independent reviewers. Data extraction of relevant studies was also done independently by two reviewers. All discrepancies were addressed through discussion or adjudicated by a third reviewer. Synthesis of the extracted data focused on descriptive frequencies and counts of the results. This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). RESULTS: The search strategies identified a total of 7433 citations. Sixteen papers were identified for inclusion, including a set of two companion papers, and data were extracted from 15 studies. We synthesized the objectives of the included studies and identified that researchers focused on at least one of the following aspects: i) exploring pre-existing capacity that affects improvement and innovation in health care settings; ii) describing factors influencing the spread and sustainability of organizations; iii) identifying measures and testing the knowledge application process; and iv) providing construct clarity. No new definitions were identified within this review; instead existing definitions were refined to suit the local context of the health care organization in which they were used. CONCLUSIONS: Given the rapidly changing and evolving nature of health care, it is important to understand both current best practices and an organization's ability to acquire, assimilate, transform, and apply these practices to their specific organization. While much research has gone into developing ways to implement knowledge translation, understanding an organization's internal structures and framework for seeking out and implementing new evidence as it relates to absorptive capacity is still a relatively novel concept.

The role of scoping reviews in reducing research waste.

OBJECTIVES: Scoping reviews and evidence map methodologies are increasingly being used by researchers. The objective of this article is to examine how scoping reviews can reduce research waste. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This article summarizes the key issues facing the research community regarding research waste and how scoping reviews can make an important contribution to the reduction of research waste in both primary and secondary research. RESULTS: The problem of research waste is an enduring challenge for global health, leading to a waste of human and financial resources and producing research outputs that do not provide answers to the most pressing research questions. Research waste occurs within primary research but also in secondary research such as evidence syntheses. The focus of scoping reviews on characterizing the nature of existing evidence on a topic and including all types of evidence, potentially reduces research waste in five ways: (1) identifying key research gaps on a topic, (2) determining appropriate outcome measures, (3) mapping existing methodological approaches, (4) developing a consistent understanding of terms and concepts used in existing evidence, and (5) ensuring scoping reviews do not exacerbate the issue of research waste. CONCLUSION: To ensure that scoping reviews do not themselves end up contributing to research waste, it is important to register the scoping review and to ensure that international reporting standards and methodological guidance are followed.

Access to health and social services by women living on a low income in Canada: a scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review is to map the current evidence about access to health and social services for women living on a low income in Canada. INTRODUCTION: Women, especially those living on a low income, are disproportionately likely to suffer inequities in access to health and social services. There is insufficient understanding of how the interaction of socioeconomic factors and gender can affect women's access to these services. This review will provide an initial picture of what exists in the literature about access to health and social services for women living on a low income in Canada. The results of this scoping review may be used to inform subsequent qualitative and quantitative reviews on this subject. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Literature addressing access to health and social services by women who are 18 years or older and living on a low income in Canada will be considered for inclusion. Health services will include health promotion and disease prevention; treatment of medical conditions; and rehabilitation, palliative, and end-of-life care. Social services are non-medical services designed to help members of a society who may need extra support or are considered to have social or behavioral risk factors. METHODS: We will search relevant electronic databases (eg, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO) and gray literature. The review will include all study designs, including qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods methodologies (excluding economic analyses or clinical practice guideline development documents). Two reviewers will test the screening criteria and data extraction protocol.

Moving from consultation to co-creation with knowledge users in scoping reviews: guidance from the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group.

ABSTRACT: Knowledge user consultation is often limited or omitted in the conduct of scoping reviews. Not including knowledge users within the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews could be due to a lack of guidance or understanding about what consultation requires and the subsequent benefits. Knowledge user engagement in evidence synthesis, including consultation approaches, has many associated benefits, including improved relevance of the research and better dissemination and implementation of research findings. Scoping reviews, however, have not been specifically focused on in terms of research into knowledge user consultation and evidence syntheses. In this paper, we will present JBI's guidance for knowledge user engagement in scoping reviews based on the expert opinion of the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group. We offer specific guidance on how this can occur and provide information regarding how to report and evaluate knowledge user engagement within scoping reviews. We believe that scoping review authors should embed knowledge user engagement into all scoping reviews and strive towards a co-creation model.

What are scoping reviews? Providing a formal definition of scoping reviews as a type of evidence synthesis.

ABSTRACT: Evidence synthesis encompasses a broad range of review types, and scoping reviews are an increasingly popular approach to synthesizing evidence in a number of fields. They sit alongside other evidence synthesis methodologies, such as systematic reviews, qualitative evidence synthesis, realist synthesis, and many more. Until now, scoping reviews have been variously defined in the literature. In this article, we provide the following formal definition for scoping reviews: Scoping reviews are a type of evidence synthesis that aims to systematically identify and map the breadth of evidence available on a particular topic, field, concept, or issue, often irrespective of source (ie, primary research, reviews, non-empirical evidence) within or across particular contexts. Scoping reviews can clarify key concepts/definitions in the literature and identify key characteristics or factors related to a concept, including those related to methodological research.

Methodological quality, guidance, and tools in scoping reviews: a scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review is to identify and report on evidence (such as guidance) or tools regarding methodological quality or risk of bias of scoping reviews. INTRODUCTION: Scoping reviews have gained popularity in recent years but have been criticized for variations in their approaches. This scoping review will examine evidence on the methodological quality of scoping reviews. It will also identify and describe potential methods to inform the development of a tool for appraising the methodological quality of scoping reviews. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider all documents reporting on the development, evaluation, or use of tools addressing the critical appraisal or risk of bias of scoping reviews. The search will seek evidence published from 2005 onwards, corresponding with the publication of Arksey and O'Malley's framework for scoping reviews. METHODS: A three-step search strategy will be used to locate both published and unpublished documents. An initial search of MEDLINE identified keywords and MeSH terms. A second search of MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL will follow. Google and Google Scholar will be searched for difficult-to-locate and unpublished literature. The authors will use their professional networks, social media accounts, and professional newsletters to contact methodologists to obtain any additional materials. Documents will be independently screened, selected, and extracted by two researchers, and the data will be presented in tables.

Experiences of children growing up with a parent who has military-related post-traumatic stress disorder: a qualitative systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to describe the experiences of children growing up in military families with a parent who has military-related post-traumatic stress disorder. INTRODUCTION: Whether serving as a peacekeeper or warrior, military service is both physically and psychologically demanding, increasing exposures to potentially traumatic and morally injurious events and threats to personal safety. Those who have served in the military are at increased risk of developing post-traumatic stress disorder, which includes symptoms such as emotional numbing, withdrawal, and hyperarousal. Research has focused on the experiences of, and impacts on, spouses and partners of military veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder, with quantitative and synthesis studies reporting on measurable impacts on children growing up in military families where a parent is diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review included children who are currently living in, or have grown up in, military families in domestically peaceful nations that deploy their armed forces to global locations of political instability, armed civil conflict, or natural disasters for the purposes of peacekeeping, humanitarian aid, or war. This review also included parents living with post-traumatic stress disorder who speak specifically about the experience of their children. Situations of homeland conflict were excluded. The military families of interest are those with one or more parent with a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder associated with military service. Traumatic experiences leading to post-traumatic stress disorder can be acquired prior to military service or through unrelated experiences, so it cannot be presumed that military service or even combat deployment, in and of itself, causes post-traumatic stress disorder. This review includes the experiences of children currently in childhood as well as adult children of a parent with current or previous military service. METHODS: The following databases were first searched in August 2016 and updated in January 9, 2020: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, CINAHL, PsycINFO, AMED, ERIC, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. This review was conducted in accordance with JBI methodology for systematic reviews of qualitative evidence and with an a priori protocol. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included. The majority of the studies were published after 2006. Elicited through data from adult (n = 65) and adolescent (n = 43) children and/or their parents (n = 65), the review represents the experiences of participants from military families in the United States, Canada, and Australia. There were four synthesized findings: i) Parental post-traumatic stress disorder creates a volatile and distressing climate within the family, eliciting a range of responses from children (87 findings across three categories); ii) Parental post-traumatic stress disorder ripples through the family system, disrupting interpersonal communication and relationships during childhood (57 findings across four categories); iii) Children can experience emotional and psychological difficulties well into adulthood (80 findings across five categories); and iv) Making sense of it all and moving beyond parental post-traumatic stress disorder can take significant time, energy, and support (74 findings across four categories). CONCLUSIONS: The quality of the included studies proved to be high, giving strength to this review. Effective ways of communicating with children about the nature of both the traumatic exposure and the post-traumatic stress disorder itself must be developed. While individuals with post-traumatic stress disorder deserve appropriate interventions to alleviate symptoms and improve functioning, it is not sufficient for recovery from post-traumatic stress disorder either for the individual or for the family who has been deeply affected themselves. Prospective and longitudinal research is needed, ensuring that both the voice of the child and of multiple perspectives within family systems are included and compared.

Practical guide to undertaking scoping reviews for pharmacy clinicians, researchers and policymakers.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Scoping reviews are a valuable evidence synthesis methodology. They can be used to map the evidence related to any topic to allow examination of practice, methods, policy and where (and how) future research could be undertaken. As such, they are a useful form of evidence synthesis for pharmacy clinicians, researchers and policymakers to review a broad range of evidence sources. COMMENT: This commentary presents the most comprehensive and up to date methodology for scoping reviews published by Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). This approach builds upon two older approaches by Arksey and O'Malley, and Levac. To assist reviewers working in the field of pharmacy with planning and conducting scoping reviews, this paper describes how to undertake scoping reviews from inception to publication with specific examples related to pharmacy topics. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: The JBI scoping review methodology is a valuable evidence synthesis approach to the field of pharmacy and therapeutics. This approach can assist pharmacy clinicians, researchers and policymakers to gain an understanding of the extant literature, to identify gaps, to explore concepts, characteristics and to examine current practice.

Undertaking a scoping review: A practical guide for nursing and midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics.

AIM: The aim of this study is to discuss the available methodological resources and best-practice guidelines for the development and completion of scoping reviews relevant to nursing and midwifery policy, practice, and research. DESIGN: Discussion Paper. DATA SOURCES: Scoping reviews that exemplify best practice are explored with reference to the recently updated JBI scoping review guide (2020) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Scoping Review extension (PRISMA-ScR). IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING AND MIDWIFERY: Scoping reviews are an increasingly common form of evidence synthesis. They are used to address broad research questions and to map evidence from a variety of sources. Scoping reviews are a useful form of evidence synthesis for those in nursing and midwifery and present opportunities for researchers to review a broad array of evidence and resources. However, scoping reviews still need to be conducted with rigour and transparency. CONCLUSION: This study provides guidance and advice for researchers and clinicians who are preparing to undertake an evidence synthesis and are considering a scoping review methodology in the field of nursing and midwifery. IMPACT: With the increasing popularity of scoping reviews, criticism of the rigour, transparency, and appropriateness of the methodology have been raised across multiple academic and clinical disciplines, including nursing and midwifery. This discussion paper provides a unique contribution by discussing each component of a scoping review, including: developing research questions and objectives; protocol development; developing eligibility criteria and the planned search approach; searching and selecting the evidence; extracting and analysing evidence; presenting results; and summarizing the evidence specifically for the fields of nursing and midwifery. Considerations for when to select this methodology and how to prepare a review for publication are also discussed. This approach is applied to the disciplines of nursing and midwifery to assist nursing and/or midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics.

Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to describe the updated methodological guidance for conducting a JBI scoping review, with a focus on new updates to the approach and development of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (the PRISMA-ScR). INTRODUCTION: Scoping reviews are an increasingly common approach to informing decision-making and research based on the identification and examination of the literature on a given topic or issue. Scoping reviews draw on evidence from any research methodology and may also include evidence from non-research sources, such as policy. In this manner, scoping reviews provide a comprehensive overview to address broader review questions than traditionally more specific systematic reviews of effectiveness or qualitative evidence. The increasing popularity of scoping reviews has been accompanied by the development of a reporting guideline: the PRISMA-ScR. In 2014, the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group developed guidance for scoping reviews that received minor updates in 2017 and was most recently updated in 2020. The updates reflect ongoing and substantial developments in approaches to scoping review conduct and reporting. As such, the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group recognized the need to revise the guidance to align with the current state of knowledge and reporting standards in evidence synthesis. METHODS: Between 2015 and 2020, the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group expanded its membership; extensively reviewed the literature; engaged via annual face-to-face meetings, regular teleconferences, and email correspondence; sought advice from methodological experts; facilitated workshops; and presented at scientific conferences. This process led to updated guidance for scoping reviews published in the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. The updated chapter was endorsed by JBI's International Scientific Committee in 2020. RESULTS: The updated JBI guidance for scoping reviews includes additional guidance on several methodological issues, such as when a scoping review is (or is not) appropriate, and how to extract, analyze, and present results, and provides clarification for implications for practice and research. Furthermore, it is aligned with the PRISMA-ScR to ensure consistent reporting. CONCLUSIONS: The latest JBI guidance for scoping reviews provides up-to-date guidance that can be used by authors when conducting a scoping review. Furthermore, it aligns with the PRISMA-ScR, which can be used to report the conduct of a scoping review. A series of ongoing and future methodological projects identified by the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group to further refine the methodology are planned.

Conducting high quality scoping reviews-challenges and solutions.

OBJECTIVES: Scoping reviews are being increasingly used by researchers. The objective of this article was to outline some challenges and potential solutions to improve the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The JBI scoping review methodology group consists of 9 experts in the field of scoping reviews. This article summarizes the key issues facing reviewers who conduct scoping reviews and those who use the results from scoping reviews and may engage in consultations during their development. RESULTS: Several key issues have been identified for reviewers as challenges in conducting scoping reviews. Challenges may be faced throughout the conduct of the review, from developing the a priori protocol to finalizing the review report for publication and developing implications or recommendations for research, policy, and practice from the results of the review. Challenges to publishing scoping reviews may stem from a lack of understanding of scoping reviews by journal editors, authors, and peer reviewers to extending the conclusion drawn from these reviews to generate recommendations for practice and policy. CONCLUSION: By identifying and overcoming challenges to the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews, reviewers may better ensure that scoping reviews are effective in meeting the objectives of scoping reviews.

Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to describe the updated methodological guidance for conducting a JBI scoping review, with a focus on new updates to the approach and development of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (the PRISMA-ScR). INTRODUCTION: Scoping reviews are an increasingly common approach to informing decision-making and research based on the identification and examination of the literature on a given topic or issue. Scoping reviews draw on evidence from any research methodology and may also include evidence from non-research sources, such as policy. In this manner, scoping reviews provide a comprehensive overview to address broader review questions than traditionally more specific systematic reviews of effectiveness or qualitative evidence. The increasing popularity of scoping reviews has been accompanied by the development of a reporting guideline: the PRISMA-ScR. In 2014, the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group developed guidance for scoping reviews that received minor updates in 2017 and was most recently updated in 2020. The updates reflect ongoing and substantial developments in approaches to scoping review conduct and reporting. As such, the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group recognized the need to revise the guidance to align with the current state of knowledge and reporting standards in evidence synthesis. METHODS: Between 2015 and 2020, the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group expanded its membership; extensively reviewed the literature; engaged via annual face-to-face meetings, regular teleconferences, and email correspondence; sought advice from methodological experts; facilitated workshops; and presented at scientific conferences. This process led to updated guidance for scoping reviews published in the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. The updated chapter was endorsed by JBI's International Scientific Committee in 2020. RESULTS: The updated JBI guidance for scoping reviews includes additional guidance on several methodological issues, such as when a scoping review is (or is not) appropriate, and how to extract, analyze, and present results, and provides clarification for implications for practice and research. Furthermore, it is aligned with the PRISMA-ScR to ensure consistent reporting. CONCLUSIONS: The latest JBI guidance for scoping reviews provides up-to-date guidance that can be used by authors when conducting a scoping review. Furthermore, it aligns with the PRISMA-ScR, which can be used to report the conduct of a scoping review. A series of ongoing and future methodological projects identified by the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group to further refine the methodology are planned.

Predatory publications in evidence syntheses.

OBJECTIVES: The number of predatory journals is increasing in the scholarly communication realm. These journals use questionable business practices, minimal or no peer review, or limited editorial oversight and, thus, publish articles below a minimally accepted standard of quality. These publications have the potential to alter the results of knowledge syntheses. The objective of this study was to determine the degree to which articles published by a major predatory publisher in the health and biomedical sciences are cited in systematic reviews. METHODS: The authors downloaded citations of articles published by a known predatory publisher. Using forward reference searching in Google Scholar, we examined whether these publications were cited in systematic reviews. RESULTS: The selected predatory publisher published 459 journals in the health and biomedical sciences. Sixty-two of these journal titles had published a total of 120 articles that were cited by at least 1 systematic review, with a total of 157 systematic reviews citing an article from 1 of these predatory journals. DISCUSSION: Systematic review authors should be vigilant for predatory journals that can appear to be legitimate. To reduce the risk of including articles from predatory journals in knowledge syntheses, systematic reviewers should use a checklist to ensure a measure of quality control for included papers and be aware that Google Scholar and PubMed do not provide the same level of quality control as other bibliographic databases.

PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation.

Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.

Experiences of children exposed to parental post-traumatic stress disorder while growing up in military and veteran families: a systematic review protocol.

REVIEW QUESTION/OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to understand how parental Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) might impact children growing up in military and veteran families. The following question will guide and inform the review: What is the experience of children growing up in military families where the military or veteran parent is living with post-traumatic stress disorder?