Scoping reviews in health professions education: challenges, considerations and lessons learned about epistemology and methodology
Scoping reviews are increasingly used in health professions education to synthesize research and scholarship, and to report on the depth and breadth of the literature on a given topic. In this Perspective, we argue that the philosophical stance scholars adopt during the execution of a scoping review, including the meaning they attribute to fundamental concepts such as knowledge and evidence, influences how they gather, analyze, and interpret information obtained from a heterogeneous body of literature. We highlight the principles informing scoping reviews and outline how epistemology—the aspect of philosophy that “deals with questions involving the nature of knowledge, the justification of beliefs, and rationality”—should guide methodological considerations, toward the aim of ensuring the production of a high-quality review with defensible and appropriate conclusions. To contextualize our claims, we illustrate some of the methodological challenges we have personally encountered while executing a scoping review on clinical reasoning and reflect on how these challenges could have been reconciled through a broader understanding of the methodology’s philosophical foundation. We conclude with a description of lessons we have learned that might usefully inform other scholars who are considering undertaking a scoping review in their own domains of inquiry.
KeywordsChallenges Epistemology Methodology Methods Scoping Reviews
Partially supported by the Fonds de Recherche du Québec-Santé (FRQ-S) Junior research scholar awards to AT and MY.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Cooper, H. (2010). Applied social research methods series: Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach (4th ed., Vol. 2). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
- Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Jeong, D., Presseau, J., ElChamaa, R., Naumann, D. N., Mascaro, C., et al. (2018). Barriers and facilitators to self-directed learning in continuing professional development for physicians in canada: A scoping review. Academic Medicine,93(8), 1245–1254. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000002237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kastner, M., Antony, J., Soobiah, C., Straus, S. E., & Tricco, A. C. (2016). Conceptual recommendations for selecting the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to answer research questions related to complex evidence. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,73, 43–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.11.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Maggio, L., Thomas, A., & Durning, S. (2019). Knowledge syntheses. In T. Swanwick, K. Forrest, & B. C. O’Brien (Eds.), Understanding Medical Education: Evidence, Theory and Practice, 3rd edition. Edinburgh, UK : Association for the Study of Medical Education. (in review).Google Scholar
- O’Brien, K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D. & Straus, S. (2015). Advancing the field of scoping study methodology: Meeting final report. Toronto, ON. Retrieved 8–9th June, 2015. http://cihrrc.hivandrehab.ca/docs/Scoping-Study-Meeting-Final-Report-CIRCULATED-Sept-22-15.pdf
- O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Baxter, L., Tricco, A. C., et al. (2016). Advancing scoping study methodology: A web-based survey and consultation of perceptions on terminology, definition and methodological steps. BMC Health Services Research,16(1), 305. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1579-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C., McInerney. P., Baldini, S. C., Khalil, H., & Parker, D. (2017). Chapter 11: Scoping reviews. In E. Aromataris, & Z. Munn (Eds.), Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer’s manual. The Joanna Briggs Institute, 2017. Available from https://reviewersmanual.joannabriggs.org/
- Pole, D. (1961). Conditions of rational inquiry: A study in the philosophy of value. London: University of London, Athlone Press.Google Scholar
- Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. Oxford: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Schumann Scheel, L., Peters, M. D. J., & Meinertz Mobjerg, A. C. (2017). Reflection in the training of nurses in clinical practice settings: a scoping review protocol. JBI Database of Systematic Reivews and Implementation Reports,15(12), 2871–2880. https://doi.org/10.11124/jbisrir-2017-003482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- The Joanna Briggs Institute. (2015). ‘Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual’ 2015 edition/supplement. Adelaide: The University of Adelaide. Available at: http://joannabriggs.org/assets/docs/sumari/Reviewers-Manual_Methodology-for-JBI-Scoping-Reviews_2015_v2.pdf. Accessed 5 March 2019.
- Tricco, A. C., Soobiah, C., Antony, J., Cogo, E., MacDonald, H., et al. (2016b). A scoping review identifies multiple emerging knowledge synthesis methods, but few studies operationalise the method. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,73, 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Varpio, L., & MacLeod, A. (in press). Introduction to the philosophy of science series: Harnessing the multidisciplinary edge effect by exploring paradigms, ontologies, epistemologies, axiologies, and methodologies. Academic Medicine.Google Scholar
- Young, M., Thomas, A., Lubarsky, S. E., Gordon, D., Gruppen, L., et al. (2019). Mapping clinical reasoning literature across the Health Professions. BMC Medical Education (in review).Google Scholar