Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 1 Experiences with Scoping Studies among Scoping Survey Respondents (n = 54 participants)

From: Advancing scoping study methodology: a web-based survey and consultation of perceptions on terminology, definition and methodological steps

Scoping study experience Number (%)
 Ever involved in conducting a scoping study 46 (85 %)
 Engaged in a stakeholder consultation as part of the scoping study process 19/46 (41 %)
 Ever published a scoping study in a peer-reviewed journal
  Published 22 (41 %)
  In Press 3 (6 %)
  In Preparation 9 (17 %)
  No 20 (37 %)
 Number of Scoping Studies Completed  
  None 7 (13 %)
  1 14 (26 %)
  2 8 (15 %)
  3 9 (17 %)
  4 6 (11 %)
  5 or more 10 (18 %)
 Purpose for Conducting a Scoping Study
  To determine the extent, range, nature of research activity 49 (91 %)
  To identify research gaps in existing literature 46 (85 %)
  To identify and summarize research evidence on a topic 45 (83 %)
  To summarize and disseminate research findings 35 (65 %)
  To determine value of undertaking a full systematic review 24 (44 %)
  Other (e.g. gather ideas for educational strategies, develop evidence-based recommendations, to establish recommendations for future research, inform program development, academic requirement, inform policy makers, conduct review of policies, identify models of care) 11 (20 %)
 Amount of Time Allocated to Conduct One Scoping Study
  0–3 months 7 (14 %)
  6 months or less 9 (18 %)
  6–12 months 28 (49 %)
  > 1 year 6 (12 %)
  Not applicable or ‘it depends’ 4 (8 %)
 Amount of Time it Actually Took to Conduct One Scoping Study
  0–3 months 6 (11 %)
  6 months or less 6 (11 %)
  6–12 months 21 (39 %)
  > 1 year 11 (20 %)
  Not applicable or ‘it depends’ 10 (18 %)
 Had Funding to Support the Conduct and Reporting of the Scoping Study 24 (44 %)
Scoping Study Framework
 Number of Respondents Used a Published Methodology 35 (65 %)
 Type of Scoping Study Methodology Used  
 Arksey and O’Malley (2005) [2] 31 (57 %)
 Levac et al. (2010) [8] 21 (39 %)
 Davis et al. (2009) [18] 5 (9 %)
 Armstrong et al. (2011) [19] 3 (6 %)
 Other (e.g. Daudt et al. (2013) [9], Anderson et al. (2008) [20], Wilson (2010) [21], Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) [22], Bragge (2011) [23]) 5 (9 %)