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.

The impact of elder abuse training on subacute health providers and older adults: study protocol for a randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: Elder abuse often goes unreported and undetected. Older people may be ashamed, fearful, or otherwise reticent to disclose abuse, and many health providers are not confident in asking about it. In the No More Shame study, we will evaluate a co-designed, multi-component intervention that aims to improve health providers' recognition, response, and referral of elder abuse. METHODS: This is a single-blinded, pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. Ten subacute hospital sites (i.e. clusters) across Australia will be allocated 1:1, stratified by state to a multi-component intervention comprising a training programme for health providers, implementation of a screening tool and use of site champions, or no additional training or support. Outcomes will be collected at baseline, 4 and 9 months. Our co-primary outcomes are change in health providers' knowledge of responding to elder abuse and older people's sense of safety and quality of life. We will include all inpatients at participating sites, aged 65 + (or aged 50 + if Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander), who are able to provide informed consent and all unit staff who provide direct care to older people; a sample size of at least 92 health providers and 612 older people will provide sufficient power for primary analyses. DISCUSSION: This will be one of the first trials in the world to evaluate a multi-component elder abuse intervention. If successful, it will provide the most robust evidence base to date for health providers to draw on to create a safe environment for reporting, response, and referral. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZCTR, ACTRN12623000676617p . Registered 22 June 2023.

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.

Cancer Screening and Prevention in the Transgender and Gender Diverse Population: Considerations and Strategies for Advanced Practice Nurses.

OBJECTIVES: This discussion paper presents recent evidence regarding cancer screening and prevention among the transgender and gender diverse (TGD) community and highlights where and how advanced practice nurses (APNs), particularly those in primary care, can better contribute to closing the gap between healthcare disparities between TGD and cisgendered populations. METHODS: Relevant publications on the topic and professional guidelines and evidence have formed the basis for this discussion paper. RESULTS: TGD individuals are a vulnerable population with unique needs. They remain at risk of cancer and might be at greater risk of developing some cancers compared to cisgendered people but are underscreened. Barriers to gender-affirming care need to be addressed to improve access to prevention and screening services and improve the cancer care experiences and outcomes of TGD people. CONCLUSION: APNs can work in collaboration with TGD individuals and the healthcare system to improve access to culturally safe cancer screening and more effective prevention of cancer and poor cancer outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: APNs have the potential to improve access to cancer screening for TGD people by increasing their understanding of the needs of the population, providing culturally safe care, and advocating for more preventative care and cancer screening. With greater knowledge and understanding of the needs and preferences of TGD people both broadly and in relation to cancer screening and prevention, targeted interventions and care approaches can be implemented. APNs should also aim to conduct evaluations and research into cancer prevention and screening to build the currently limited evidence base and nursing knowledge in this important field.

Culturally safe, appropriate, and high-quality breast cancer screening for transgender people: A scoping review.

Background: There is a recognized need for evidence to inform breast cancer screening guidelines and services for transgender people, who face barriers to accessing appropriate and inclusive health care. Aims: This review summarized evidence for breast cancer risk and screening guidelines in transgender individuals, including the potential impact of gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT); factors that may influence screening decision-making and behaviors; and considerations for providing culturally safe, high-quality screening services. Methods: A protocol was developed based on the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology. Searches were performed in Medline, Emcare, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library for articles reporting information on the provision of culturally safe, high-quality breast cancer screening services for transgender people. Results: We identified 57 sources for inclusion: 13 cross-sectional studies, 6 case reports, 2 case series, 28 review or opinion articles, 6 systematic reviews, 1 qualitative study, and 1 book chapter. Evidence on rates of breast cancer screening among transgender people and the association between GAHT and breast cancer risk was inconclusive. Factors negatively associated with cancer screening behaviors included socioeconomic barriers, stigma, and lack of health provider awareness of transgender health issues. Breast cancer screening recommendations varied and were generally based on expert opinion due to the lack of clear evidence. Considerations for providing culturally safe care to transgender people were identified and mapped to the areas of workplace policies and procedures, patient information, clinic environment, professional conduct, communication, and knowledge and competency. Discussion: Screening recommendations for transgender individuals are complicated by the lack of robust epidemiological data and clear understanding of the role GAHT may play in breast cancer pathogenesis. Guidelines have been developed based on expert opinion and are subsequently not uniform or evidence based. Further work is required to clarify and consolidate recommendations.

Reflection in the training of general practitioners in clinical practice settings: a scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review is to explore formalized methods of reflection that are used in clinical settings in general practice when training medical students, postgraduate trainees, general practitioners, and family physicians. INTRODUCTION: Medical professionals are increasingly required to demonstrate competency in their ability to reflect on clinical practice. To accommodate this, the teaching of reflection is common in medical programs; however, there is a lack of clarity in the literature on how reflection is taught. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will seek evidence describing the tools and approaches to reflection used by medical students, postgraduate trainees, and other registered medical professionals in general practice. The review will also include any evidence from those who teach reflection in a general practice setting. Evidence regarding reflection in training programs for other medical specialties will not be considered for inclusion. METHODS: This review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR), and the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Databases to be searched will include MEDLINE (Ovid), Emcare (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Extracted evidence will be presented using figurative, tabular, and accompanying narrative synthesis, in line with the review questions. REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/uxw7d.

Barriers and enablers of culturally safe care for transgender and gender-diverse people in hospital emergency departments: a scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to identify barriers and enablers of the provision and accessibility of culturally safe care to transgender (trans) and gender-diverse patients in the emergency department. INTRODUCTION: Emergency departments have a unique role in creating patient experiences that influence positive or negative health outcomes. It is vital that emergency departments provide equitable experiences for all patients regardless of gender. Culturally safe care aims to support inclusive, effective, and appropriate care for trans and gender-diverse patients. Identifying the reported barriers and enablers of culturally safe care for trans and gender-diverse people in emergency departments will support knowledge users to advocate for and implement improvements to care. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider studies that describe barriers and enablers of accessing culturally safe care in emergency departments reported by trans and gender-diverse people, their families and loved ones, as well as health care workers involved in the provision of care. English-language, published, and gray literature sources from January 1, 2000, to the present from all countries will be eligible. METHODS: The review will follow the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. Database searches of MEDLINE, Emcare, Embase, ScienceDirect, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and ProQuest will be undertaken. Data will be presented in tabular format or graphs, with an accompanying narrative summary.

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.

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.

Nurse practitioner models of care in aged care: a scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to identify current and potential use of nurse practitioner models of care in aged care and to examine factors that have been linked to their failure or success in terms of establishment, sustainability, and expansion. INTRODUCTION: Nurse practitioners work across a variety of sectors, including aged care. Nurse practitioner models of care have been found to be safe, effective, and highly regarded by clients and patients across many areas. They have particular benefit in areas where access to physicians is challenging, as well as for vulnerable populations. This review will provide a consolidated evidence base to determine the current state of the evidence on nurse practitioner models of care in the aged care sector. INCLUSION CRITERIA: The review will consider studies on nurse practitioner models of care within aged care that report barriers/challenges and facilitators/success factors to their establishment, sustainability, and expansion. Evidence from all countries will be examined. Published and gray literature primary studies in English produced from 2010 onward will be eligible for inclusion. Expert opinion, including literature reviews, commentaries, and discussion, papers will be ineligible. METHODS: This review will utilize the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Databases to be searched include MEDLINE, Emcare, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus. Figurative, tabular, and accompanying narrative synthesis will be used to present the results, in line with the review questions.

Addressing vaccine hesitancy and resistance for COVID-19 vaccines.

The COVID-19 vaccine rollout has had various degrees of success in different countries. Achieving high levels of vaccine coverage is key to responding to and mitigating the impact of the pandemic on health and aged care systems and the community. In many countries, vaccine hesitancy, resistance, and refusal are emerging as significant barriers to immunisation uptake and the relaxation of policies that limit everyday life. Vaccine hesitancy/ resistance/ refusal is complex and multi-faceted. Individuals and groups have diverse and often multiple reasons for delaying or refusing vaccination. These reasons include: social determinants of health, convenience, ease of availability and access, health literacy understandability and clarity of information, judgements around risk versus benefit, notions of collective versus individual responsibility, trust or mistrust of authority or healthcare, and personal or group beliefs, customs, or ideologies. Published evidence suggests that targeting and adapting interventions to particular population groups, contexts, and specific reasons for vaccine hesitancy/ resistance may enhance the effectiveness of interventions. While evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions to address vaccine hesitancy and improve uptake is limited and generally unable to underpin any specific strategy, multi-pronged interventions are promising. In many settings, mandating vaccination, particularly for those working in health or high risk/ transmission industries, has been implemented or debated by Governments, decision-makers, and health authorities. While mandatory vaccination is effective for seasonal influenza uptake amongst healthcare workers, this evidence may not be appropriately transferred to the context of COVID-19. Financial or other incentives for addressing vaccine hesitancy may have limited effectiveness with much evidence for benefit appearing to have been translated across from other public/preventive health issues such as smoking cessation. Multicomponent, dialogue-based (i.e., communication) interventions are effective in addressing vaccine hesitancy/resistance. Multicomponent interventions that encompasses the following might be effective: (i) targeting specific groups such as unvaccinated/under-vaccinated groups or healthcare workers, (ii) increasing vaccine knowledge and awareness, (iii) enhanced access and convenience of vaccination, (iv) mandating vaccination or implementing sanctions against non-vaccination, (v) engaging religious and community leaders, (vi) embedding new vaccine knowledge and evidence in routine health practices and procedures, and (vii) addressing mistrust and improving trust in healthcare providers and institutions via genuine engagement and dialogue. It is universally important that healthcare professionals and representative groups, as often highly trusted sources of health guidance, should be closely involved in policymaker and health authority decisions regarding the establishment and implementation of vaccine recommendations and interventions to address vaccine hesitancy.

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.

Rapid reviews and the methodological rigor of evidence synthesis: a JBI position statement.

ABSTRACT: The demand for rapid reviews has exploded in recent years. A rapid review is an approach to evidence synthesis that provides timely information to decision-makers (eg, health care planners, providers, policymakers, patients) by simplifying the evidence synthesis process. A rapid review is particularly appealing for urgent decisions. JBI is a world-renowned international collaboration for evidence synthesis and implementation methodologies. The principles for JBI evidence synthesis include comprehensiveness, rigor, transparency, and a focus on applicability to clinical practice. As such, JBI has not yet endorsed a specific approach for rapid reviews. In this paper, we compare rapid reviews versus other types of evidence synthesis, provide a range of rapid evidence products, outline how to appraise the quality of rapid reviews, and present the JBI position on rapid reviews. JBI Collaborating Centers conduct rapid reviews for decision-makers in specific circumstances, such as limited time or funding constraints. A standardized approach is not used for these cases;instead, the evidence synthesis methods are tailored to the needs of the decision-maker. The urgent need to deliver timely evidence to decision-makers poses challenges to JBI's mission to produce high-quality, trustworthy evidence. However, JBI recognizes the value of rapid reviews as part of the evidence synthesis ecosystem. As such, it is recommended that rapid reviews be conducted with the same methodological rigor and transparency expected of JBI reviews. Most importantly, transparency is essential, and the rapid review should clearly report where any simplification in the steps of the evidence synthesis process has been taken.

Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to clearly describe how to develop a robust and detailed scoping review protocol, which is the first stage of the scoping review process. This paper provides detailed guidance and a checklist for prospective authors to ensure that their protocols adequately inform both the conduct of the ensuing review and their readership. INTRODUCTION: Scoping reviews are a common approach to evidence synthesis for researchers, clinicians, and policymakers across a variety of fields. Scoping reviews are not concerned with making analytical comparisons based on pooling results data from multiple primary sources of evidence, but rather on collating and describing the evidence and presenting the summation in a clearly illustrated format. Methods for undertaking and reporting scoping reviews continue to be refined. Some prospective reviewers may be uncertain how to plan, structure, and report scoping review protocols, as there is little or no specific guidance for scoping review protocols yet available. METHODS: This guidance was developed by members of the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group based on previous experience and expertise in developing scoping review and evidence synthesis methodologies, protocols, and reviews, as well as through experiences working with and guiding authors to develop scoping review protocols. Elements of a comprehensive scoping review protocol are outlined and explained in detail. CONCLUSION: Knowledge users of evidence syntheses rely on clear and transparent reporting to understand and use the results of published work to drive evidence-based improvements within health care and beyond. It is hoped that readers will be able to use this guidance when developing protocols to assist them in planning future scoping reviews and to carry them out with a high degree of transparency.

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.

Outcome measures of palliative care programs and interventions implemented in nursing homes: a scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to identify and map the outcomes reported from evaluations that measure the effectiveness and acceptability of palliative care programs and interventions in residential aged care facilities. INTRODUCTION: As the population ages, there is increasing attention on implementing new interventions and programs to improve palliative care in residential aged care facilities. However, there is no standard evaluation for intervention implementation. Mapping the outcome measures used in evaluations of diverse palliative care interventions in residential aged care facilities has not been explored recently. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider studies involving older adults (aged 50 years and above) in any country living and receiving care in residential aged care facilities. This review will exclude literature that focuses on other age groups, and people receiving palliative care in other care settings, such as hospitals, palliative care inpatient units, sheltered housing, cancer centers, own homes, and hospices. METHODS: This scoping review will follow the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. This scoping review will identify both published and unpublished (eg, gray literature) primary studies, as well as reviews. The databases to be searched for published studies will include MEDLINE, Emcare, ProQuest, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library. The search will be limited to evidence published in English from 2008 to the present. Visual, tabular, and accompanying narrative summaries will be used to present the results.

Royal Commission into Aged Care recommendations on minimum staff time standard for nursing homes.

The Royal Commission's recommendation for nursing home minimum time standards and the Australian Government's response do not support best practice resident care. We recommend that higher mandated minimum staffing levels and skills mix should be phased in by mid-2026. What is known about the topic? The Australian Government has not committed to fully implementing the Commission's recommendations for mandated minimum staff time standards. What does this paper add? We highlight issues with the Commission's recommendations and the Australian Government's response where they do not support sufficient minimum time to provide best practice care. What are the implications for practitioners? Mandated evidence-based minimum staffing levels and skills mix should be phased in by mid-2026 to support best practice care.

Culturally safe, high-quality breast cancer screening for transgender people: A scoping review protocol.

AIM: To develop evidence-based recommendations for provision of culturally safe, high-quality services for breast cancer screening for transgender people. DESIGN: The scoping review will follow the JBI methodological guidance for scoping reviews. METHODS: A search using MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Ovid), Scopus, the Cochrane Library, including the Cochrane Methodology Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the World Health Organization, Australia Government Department of Health and Google Scholar will be undertaken. The review will include people of any age and ethnicity defined in the source of evidence as transgender. The review will include individuals who have used gender-affirming interventions or not and sources of evidence that report information relevant to the provision of culturally safe, high-quality breast cancer screening services for transgender people. English language sources of evidence published from database inception with information from any country will be eligible for inclusion. Sources will be screened for inclusion by three independent reviewers. Results will be extracted using a purpose-built tool and presented in relation to the review questions and objective in the final report using tables, figures and corresponding narrative. Project funding was approved by the Australian Government Department of Health in June 2020. DISCUSSION: There are a range of factors that impact on the equity of health access and outcomes for people who are not cisgender. Transgender people are at risk of breast cancer but there is relatively little evidence about how their risks may or may not differ substantially from cis-gendered individuals and little guidance for health providers to ensure inclusive, culturally safe, high-quality breast cancer screening services for both transgender males, transgender females and gender diverse people who may not identify as male or as female. IMPACT: It is important to provide culturally safe, high-quality services for breast cancer screening for transgender people.

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.