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