Abstract
The past decade has seen the development of an increasing number of techniques to appraise, summarize and assess published study findings. From systematic to synthesis to scoping reviews, these techniques have contributed to evidence-informed policy and practice. We outline a novel method developed to address the limitations of scoping review designs reported in the literature. A critical, participatory and collaborative method was designed to scope the literature on inequities in access to health care services for rural Aboriginal and African Canadians. Specifically, a community-university collaboration permitted a shared discussion and mapping of inequities in access to health care services and information. As a result of shared understandings from storytelling and discussion, bibliographic searches were better directed, taken-for-granted assumptions in the literature more easily located and questioned, and study findings verified by Aboriginal and African Canadian community representatives who also provided insight and oversight of the development of dissemination tools.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson J.M., Rodney P., Reimer-Kirkham S., Browne A.J., Khan K.B., Lynam J.: Inequities in health and healthcare viewed through the ethical lens of critical social justice contextual knowledge for the global priorities ahead. Adv. Nurs. Sci. 32, 282–294 (2009)
Arksey H., O’Malley L.: Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 8, 19–22 (2005)
Armstrong R., Hall B.J., Doyle J., Waters E.: Scoping the scope’ of a cochrane review. J. Publ. Health 33, 147–150 (2011)
Barbour R.: Mixing methods: quality assurance or qualitative quagmire?. Qual. Health Res. 8, 352–361 (1998)
Black N.: Evidence based policy: proceed with care. BMJ 323, 9–275 (2001)
Boyatzis, R.E.: Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Dixon-Woods M., Bonas S., Booth A., Jones D.R., Miller T., Sutton A.J., Shaw R.L., Smith J.A., Young B.: How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective. Qual. Res. 6, 27–44 (2006)
Dixon-Woods M., Fitzpatrick R., Roberts K.: Including qualitative research in systematic reviews: opportunities and problems. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 7, 125–133 (2001)
Dixon-Woods M., Cavers D., Agarwal S., Annandale E., Arthur A., Harvey J., Hsu R., Katbamna S., Olsen R., Smith L., Riley R., Sutton A.J.: Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to health care by vulnerable groups. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 6, 35–47 (2006)
Dobbins M., DeCorby K., Twiddy T.: A knowledge transfer strategy for public health decision makers. Worldviews Evid. Based Nurs. 1, 120–128 (2004)
Dodson L., Piatelli D., Schmalzbauer L.: Researching inequality through interpretive collaborations: Shifting power and the unbroken contract. Qual. Inq. 13, 821–843 (2007)
Eakin J.M., Mykhalovskiy E.: Reframing the evaluation of qualitative health research: reflections on a review of appraisal guidelines in the health sciences. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 9, 187–194 (2003)
Edwards A., Elwyn G., Hood K., Rollnick S.: Judging the ‘weight of evidence’ in systematic reviews: introducing rigour into the qualitative overview stage by assessing signal and noise. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 6, 177–184 (2000)
Estabrooks C.A., Field P.A., Morse J.: Aggregating qualitative findings: an approach to theory development. Qual. Health Res. 4, 503–511 (1994)
Finfgeld-Connett D.: Generalizability and transferability of meta-synthesis research findings. J. Adv. Nurs. 66, 246–254 (2011)
Gardiner S.M.A.: Perfect Moral Storm: The Ethical Tragedy of Climate Change. Oxford University Press, New York (2011)
Haraway D.: Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Stud. 14, 575–599 (1988)
Heyvaert, M., Maes, B., Onghena, P.: Mixed methods research synthesis: definition, framework and potential. Qual. Quant. (2011). doi:10.1007/s11135-011-9538-6
Israel H., Richter R.R.: A guide to understanding meta-analysis. J. Orthop. Sport. Phys. 41, 496–504 (2011)
Kavanagh J., Trouton A., Oakley A., Harden A.: A Scoping Review of the Evidence for Incentives Schemes to Encourage Positive Health and other Social Behaviours in Young People. EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London, London (2005)
Kennedy H.P.: Enhancing Delphi research: methods and results. J. Adv. Nurs. 45, 504–511 (2003)
Klein R.: Evidence and policy: interpreting the Delphic oracle. J. R. Soc. Med. 96, 51–429 (2003)
Landry R., Amara N., Lamari M.: Utilization of social science research knowledge in Canada. Res. Policy 30, 333–349 (2001)
Lavis J., Davies H., Oxman A., Denis J-L., Golden-Biddle K., Ferlie E.: Towards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 10, 35–48 (2005)
Löfmark A., Thorell-Ekstrand I.: An assessment form for clinical education: a Delphi study. J. Adv. Nurs. 3, 291–298 (2004)
Luborsky M.R.: The identification and analysis of themes and patterns. In: Gubrium, J.F., Sankar, A. (eds) Qualitative Methods in Aging Research, pp. 189–210. Sage, Thousand Oaks (1994)
Lykes M.B., Coquillon E.: Participatory and action research and feminisms: toward transformative praxis. In: Hesse-Biber, S.N. (ed) Handbook of Feminist Research: Theory and Praxis, pp. 297–326. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2007)
Okali C., Pawlowski S.: The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Inf. Manag. 42, 15–29 (2004)
Oliver S., Harden A., Rees R., Shepherd J., Brunton G., Garcia J., Oakley A.: An emerging framework for including different types of evidence in systematic reviews for public policy. Evaluation 11, 428–446 (2005)
Reid B., Sinclair M., Barr O.: Reflections on the methodological challenges of understanding a meta-synthesis: a response to Heyman. Soc. Sci. Med. 69, 1577–1579 (2009)
Reimer-Kirkham S., Browne A.J.: Toward a critical theoretical interpretation of social justice discourses in nursing. Adv. Nurs. Sci. 29, 324–339 (2006)
Rumrill P.D., Fitzgerald S.M., Merchant W.R.: Using scoping literature reviews as a means of understanding and interpreting existing literature. Work 35, 399–404 (2010)
Ryan R.E., Kaufman C.A., Hill S.J.: Building blocks for meta-synthesis: data integration tables for summarizing, mapping and synthesizing evidence on interventions for communicating with health consumers. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 9(16), 1471–2288 (2009)
Schütz A.: Collected Papers I: The Problem of Social Reality. Nijhoff, The Hague (1962)
Sheldon T.A.: Editorial: Making evidence synthesis more useful for management and policy-making. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 10, 1–5 (2005)
Suri H., Clarke D.: Advancements in research synthesis methods: from a methodologically inclusive perspective. Rev. Edu. Res. 79, 395–430 (2003)
Voils C.I., Sandelowski M., Barroso J., Hasselblad V.: Making sense of qualitative and quantitative findings in mixed research synthesis studies. Field Methods 20(1), 3–25 (2008)
World Health Organization Commission on Social determinants of Health: Closing the Gap in a Generation: Health Equity Through Action on the Social Determinants of Health. Final Report of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health. WHO, Geneva (2008)
Zimmer L.: Qualitative meta-synthesis: a question of dialoguing with texts. J. Adv. Nurs. 53, 311–318 (2006)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bassett, R., McGibbon, E. A critical participatory and collaborative method for scoping the literature. Qual Quant 47, 3249–3259 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-012-9715-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-012-9715-2