Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8, 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616.
Bearman, M., & Dawson, P. (2013). Qualitative synthesis and systematic review in health professions education. Medical Education, 47(3), 252–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12092.
Bergman, E., de Feijter, J., Frambach, J., Godefrooij, M., Slootweg, I., Stalmeijer, R., et al. (2012). AM last page: A guide to research paradigms relevant to medical education. Academic Medicine, 87(4), 545. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31824fbc8a.
Campbell, D. (1987). Evolutionary epistemology. In: Evolutionary epistemology, rationality, and the sociology of knowledge, pp. 47–89.
Cook, D. (2016). Tips for a great review article: Crossing methodological boundaries. Medical Education, 50(4), 384–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12983.
Cook, D. A., & West, C. P. (2012). Conducting systematic reviews in medical education: A stepwise approach. Medical Education, 46(10), 943–952. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04328.x.
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.
Cooper, H., & Koenka, A. C. (2012). The overview of reviews: Unique challenges and opportunities when research syntheses are the principal elements of new integrative scholarship. American Psychologist, 67(6), 446–462. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027119.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. London: Sage Publications.
Davis, K., Drey, N., & Gould, D. (2009). What are scoping studies? A review of the nursing literature. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46(10), 1386–1400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.02.010.
Doja, A., Horsley, T., & Sampson, M. (2014). Productivity in medical education research: An examination of countries of origin. BMC Medical Education, 14, 243. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-014-0243-8.
Godfrey-Smith, P. (2003). Theory and reality: An introduction to the philosophy of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.
Hagg, E., Dahinten, V. S., & Currie, L. M. (2018). The emerging use of social media for health-related purposes in low and middle-income countries: A scoping review. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 115, 92–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2018.04.010.
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.
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.
Kelly-Blake, K., Garrison, N. A., Fletcher, F. E., Ajegba, B., Smith, N., et al. (2018). Rationales for expanding minority physician representation in the workforce: A scoping review. Medical Education, 52(9), 925–935. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13618.
Lang, T. A. (2004). The value of systematic reviews as research activities in medical education. Academic Medicine, 79(11), 1067–1072.
Lawrence, C., Mhlaba, T., Stewart, K. A., Moletsane, R., Gaede, B., et al. (2018). The hidden curricula of medical education: A scoping review. Academic Medicine, 93(4), 648–656. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000002004.
Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O’Brien, K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
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).
McGaghie, W. C. (2015). Varieties of integrative scholarship: Why rules of evidence, criteria, and standards matter. Academic Medicine, 90, 294–302. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000585.
Meehl, P. E. (1967). Theory-testing in psychology and physics: A methodological paradox. Philosophy of Science, 34(2), 103–115.
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.
Ossenberg, C., Henderson, A., & Mitchell, M. (2018). What attributes guide best practice for effective feedback? A scoping review. Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-018-9854-x.
Pelaccia, T., Plotnick, L. H., Audétat, M.-C., Nendaz, M., Lubarsky, S., Torabi, N., et al. (2019). A scoping review of physicians' clinical reasoning in emergency departments. Annals of Emergency Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2019.06.023.
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.
Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. Oxford: Basic Books.
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.
Steinert, Y., & Thomas, A. (2016). When I say… literature reviews. Medical Education, 50(4), 398. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12998.
Tang, B., Coret, A., Qureshi, A., Barron, H., Ayala, A. P., et al. (2018). Online lectures in undergraduate medical education: scoping review. JMIR Medical Education, 4(1), e11. https://doi.org/10.2196/mededu.9091.
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.
Thomas, A., Lubarsky, S., Durning, S. J., & Young, M. E. (2017). Knowledge syntheses in medical education: Demystifying scoping reviews. Academic Medicine, 92(2), 161–166. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001452.
Thomas, A., Menon, A., Boruff, J., Rodriguez, A. M., & Ahmed, S. (2014). Applications of social constructivist learning theories in knowledge translationfor healthcare professionals: A scoping review. Implementation Science. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-9-54.
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K., Colquhoun, H., et al. (2016a). A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4.
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.
Tricco, A. C., Tetzlaff, J., & Moher, D. (2011). The art and science of knowledge synthesis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(1), 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.11.007.
Varpio, L., Bader, K. S., Meyer, H. S., Durning, S. J., Artino, A. R., & Hamwey, M. K. (2018). Interprofessional healthcare teams in the military: A scoping literature review. Military Medicine, 183(11–12), e448–e454. https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usy087.
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.
Webster, F., Krueger, P., MacDonald, H., Archibald, D., Telner, D., et al. (2015). A scoping review of medical education research in family medicine. BMC Medical Education, 15, 79. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-015-0350-1.
Williams, B., Reddy, P., Marshall, S., Beovich, B., & McKarney, L. (2017). Simulation and mental health outcomes: A scoping review. Advances in Simulation (London), 2, 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-016-0035-9.
Wong, G., Greenhalgh, T., Westhorp, G., & Pawson, R. (2012). Realist methods in medical education research: What are they and what can they contribute? Medical Education, 46(1), 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04045.x.
Young, M., Thomas, A., Lubarsky, S., Ballard, T., Gordon, D., et al. (2018). Drawing boundaries: The difficulty in defining clinical reasoning. Academic Medicine, 93(7), 990–995. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000002142.
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).
Acknowledgements
None.
Funding
Partially supported by the Fonds de Recherche du Québec-Santé (FRQ-S) Junior research scholar awards to AT and MY.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
Not applicable.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Disclaimer The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Defense or other US Federal agencies.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Thomas, A., Lubarsky, S., Varpio, L. et al. Scoping reviews in health professions education: challenges, considerations and lessons learned about epistemology and methodology. Adv in Health Sci Educ 25, 989–1002 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-019-09932-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-019-09932-2