Prioritising methodological research questions for scoping reviews, mapping reviews and evidence and gap maps for health research: a protocol for PROSPECT Delphi study

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorPollock, D.
dc.contributor.authorHasanoff, S.
dc.contributor.authorMcBride, G.
dc.contributor.authorKanukula, R.
dc.contributor.authorTricco, A.C.
dc.contributor.authorKhalil, H.
dc.contributor.authorCampbell, F.
dc.contributor.authorJia, R.M.
dc.contributor.authorAlexander, L.
dc.contributor.authorPeters, M.
dc.contributor.authorVieira, A.M.
dc.contributor.authorAromataris, E.
dc.contributor.authorNunn, J.
dc.contributor.authorSaran, A.
dc.contributor.authorEvans, C.
dc.contributor.authorGodfrey, C.
dc.contributor.authorPieper, D.
dc.contributor.authorde Moraes, É.B.
dc.contributor.authorBiesty, L.
dc.contributor.authorColquhoun, H.
dc.contributor.authoret al.
dc.date.issued2025
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: Scoping reviews, mapping reviews and evidence and gap maps (collectively known as ‘big picture reviews’) in health continue to gain popularity within the evidence ecosystem. These big-picture reviews are beneficial for policy-makers, guideline developers and researchers within the field of health for understanding the available evidence, characteristics, concepts and research gaps, which are often needed to support the development of policies, guidelines and practice. However, these reviews often face criticism related to poor and inconsistent methodological conduct and reporting. There is a need to understand which areas of these reviews require further methodological clarification and exploration. The aim of this project is to develop a research agenda for scoping reviews, mapping reviews and evidence and gap maps in health by identifying and prioritising specific research questions related to methodological uncertainties. Methods and analysis: A modified e-Delphi process will be adopted. Participants (anticipated N=100) will include patients, clinicians, the public, researchers and others invested in creating a strategic research agenda for these reviews. This Delphi will be completed in four consecutive stages, including a survey collecting the methodological uncertainties for each of the big picture reviews, the development of research questions based on that survey and two further surveys and four workshops to prioritise the research questions. Ethics and dissemination: This study was approved by the University of Adelaide Human Research Ethics Committee (H-2024- 188). The results will be communicated through open-access peer-reviewed publications and conferences. Videos and infographics will be developed and placed on the JBI (previously Joanna Briggs Institute) Scoping Review Network webpage
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityDanielle Pollock, Sabira Hasanoff, Grace McBride, Raju Kanukula, Andrea C Tricco, Hanan Khalil, Fiona Campbell, Romy Menghao Jia, Lyndsay Alexander, Micah Peters, Ariany Marques Vieira, Edoardo Aromataris, Jack Nunn, Ashrita Saran, Catrin Evans, Christina Godfrey, Dawid Pieper, Érica Brandao de Moraes, Linda Biesty, Heather Colquhoun, Declan Devane, Elaine Toomey, Barbara Clyne, Ellen Davies, Zachary Munn
dc.identifier.citationBMJ Open, 2025; 15(8):e096298-1-e096298-9
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/bmjopen-2024-096298
dc.identifier.issn2044-6055
dc.identifier.issn2044-6055
dc.identifier.orcidPollock, D. [0000-0002-6604-0609]
dc.identifier.orcidHasanoff, S. [0000-0001-7246-0485]
dc.identifier.orcidMcBride, G. [0000-0002-6260-098X]
dc.identifier.orcidKanukula, R. [0000-0003-0793-786X]
dc.identifier.orcidJia, R.M. [0000-0001-7558-8708]
dc.identifier.orcidPeters, M. [0000-0002-1108-3783]
dc.identifier.orcidAromataris, E. [0000-0001-7238-5833]
dc.identifier.orcidDavies, E. [0000-0002-4408-2461]
dc.identifier.orcidMunn, Z. [0000-0002-7091-5842]
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2440/147789
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherBMJ Publishing Group
dc.relation.granthttp://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/1195676
dc.rights© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2025. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ Group. Open access This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/.
dc.source.urihttps://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-096298
dc.subjectDelphi Technique; Health Education; Health Surveys; Research Design; Review
dc.subject.meshScoping Review as Topic
dc.subject.meshHumans
dc.subject.meshDelphi Technique
dc.subject.meshResearch Design
dc.subject.meshReview Literature as Topic
dc.titlePrioritising methodological research questions for scoping reviews, mapping reviews and evidence and gap maps for health research: a protocol for PROSPECT Delphi study
dc.typeJournal article
pubs.publication-statusPublished online

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
hdl_147789.pdf
Size:
849.78 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Published version
Download

Collections

Research Outputs