A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews.

BACKGROUND: Scoping reviews are used to identify knowledge gaps, set research agendas, and identify implications for decision-making. The conduct and reporting of scoping reviews is inconsistent in the literature. We conducted a scoping review to identify: papers that utilized and/or described scoping review methods; guidelines for reporting scoping reviews; and studies that assessed the quality of reporting of scoping reviews. METHODS: We searched nine electronic databases for published and unpublished literature scoping review papers, scoping review methodology, and reporting guidance for scoping reviews. Two independent reviewers screened citations for inclusion. Data abstraction was performed by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. Quantitative (e.g. frequencies of methods) and qualitative (i.e. content analysis of the methods) syntheses were conducted. RESULTS: After searching 1525 citations and 874 full-text papers, 516 articles were included, of which 494 were scoping reviews. The 494 scoping reviews were disseminated between 1999 and 2014, with 45% published after 2012. Most of the scoping reviews were conducted in North America (53%) or Europe (38%), and reported a public source of funding (64%). The number of studies included in the scoping reviews ranged from 1 to 2600 (mean of 118). Using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology guidance for scoping reviews, only 13% of the scoping reviews reported the use of a protocol, 36% used two reviewers for selecting citations for inclusion, 29% used two reviewers for full-text screening, 30% used two reviewers for data charting, and 43% used a pre-defined charting form. In most cases, the results of the scoping review were used to identify evidence gaps (85%), provide recommendations for future research (84%), or identify strengths and limitations (69%). We did not identify any guidelines for reporting scoping reviews or studies that assessed the quality of scoping review reporting. CONCLUSION: The number of scoping reviews conducted per year has steadily increased since 2012. Scoping reviews are used to inform research agendas and identify implications for policy or practice. As such, improvements in reporting and conduct are imperative. Further research on scoping review methodology is warranted, and in particular, there is need for a guideline to standardize reporting.

Confronting inequities: A scoping review of the literature on pharmacist practice and health-related disparities.

BACKGROUND: An expanding body of literature is exploring the presence and impact of health and health care disparities among marginalized populations. This research challenges policy makers, health professionals, and scholars to examine how unjust and avoidable inequities are created at the societal, institutional, and individual level, and explore strategies for mitigating challenges. OBJECTIVES: Recognizing the significance of this broader conversation, this scoping review provides an overview of pharmacy-specific research attentive to health-related disparities. METHODS: Following Arksey and O'Malley's framework, a rigorous screening process yielded 93 peer-reviewed and 23 grey literature articles, each analyzed for core themes. RESULTS: Lending critical insight to how pharmacy practice researchers are conceptualizing and measuring health inequities, this review highlights three paths of inquiry evident across this literature, including research focused on what pharmacists know about marginalized groups, how pharmacists perceive these groups, and how they provide services. Striving to drive research and practice forward, this review details research gaps and opportunities, including a need to expand the scope of research and integrate knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: As pharmacists endeavor to provide equitable and impactful patient care, it is essential to understand challenges, and build strong evidence for meaningful action.