Moving from consultation to co-creation with knowledge users in scoping reviews: guidance from the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group

Danielle Pollock; Lyndsay Alexander; Zachary Munn; Micah D J Peters; Hanan Khalil; Christina M Godfrey; Patricia McInerney; Anneliese Synnot; Andrea C Tricco

doi:10.11124/JBIES-21-00416

Moving from consultation to co-creation with knowledge users in scoping reviews: guidance from the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group

JBI Evid Synth. 2022 Apr 1;20(4):969-979. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-21-00416.

Authors

Danielle Pollock¹, Lyndsay Alexander^{2

3}, Zachary Munn¹, Micah D J Peters^{4

5

6}, Hanan Khalil^{7

8}, Christina M Godfrey⁹, Patricia McInerney¹⁰, Anneliese Synnot^{11

12}, Andrea C Tricco^{9

13

14}

Affiliations

¹ JBI, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
² School of Health Sciences, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, UK.
³ The Scottish Centre for Evidence-based Multi-professional Practice: a JBI Centre of Excellence, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, UK.
⁴ University of South Australia, UniSA Clinical and Health Sciences, Rosemary Bryant AO Research Centre, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
⁵ School of Nursing, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
⁶ The Centre for Evidence-based Practice South Australia (CEPSA): A JBI Centre of Excellence, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
⁷ School of Psychology and Public Health, Department of Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Vic, Australia.
⁸ The Queensland Centre for Evidence Based Nursing and Midwifery: A JBI Centre of Excellence, Mater Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
⁹ Queen's Collaboration for Health Care Quality: A JBI Centre of Excellence, School of Nursing, Queen's University Kingston, ON, Canada.
¹⁰ The Wits-JBI Centre for Evidence-Based Practice: A JBI Affiliated Group, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
¹¹ Centre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Vic, Australia.
¹² School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Vic, Australia.
¹³ Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
¹⁴ Epidemiology Division and Institute of Health Management, Policy, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.

PMID: 35477565
DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-21-00416

Abstract

Knowledge user consultation is often limited or omitted in the conduct of scoping reviews. Not including knowledge users within the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews could be due to a lack of guidance or understanding about what consultation requires and the subsequent benefits. Knowledge user engagement in evidence synthesis, including consultation approaches, has many associated benefits, including improved relevance of the research and better dissemination and implementation of research findings. Scoping reviews, however, have not been specifically focused on in terms of research into knowledge user consultation and evidence syntheses. In this paper, we will present JBI's guidance for knowledge user engagement in scoping reviews based on the expert opinion of the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group. We offer specific guidance on how this can occur and provide information regarding how to report and evaluate knowledge user engagement within scoping reviews. We believe that scoping review authors should embed knowledge user engagement into all scoping reviews and strive towards a co-creation model.

Publication types

Review
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

Referral and Consultation*
Research Report*