Youth intentions to provide social support to a peer with a concussion.

OBJECTIVES: 1) To describe demographic factors, concussion knowledge, attitudes, subjective norms, self-efficacy and intentions to provide social support to a peer with a concussion and 2) to examine if demographic factors and concussion knowledge are associated with components of the Theory of Planned Behavior. METHODS: The survey was completed between October 2018 and February 2019 by 200 youth (M = 15.30 years, SD = 1.52). Questions were designed for athletes and non-athletes and inquired about various types of social support. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests and Spearman's Rank-Order Correlation Coefficients. RESULTS: More favorable attitudes and intentions to provide social support were observed among females (W = 2576, p ≤ 0.001; W = 2411, p ≤ 0.001), older youth (rho = 0.32, p ≤ 0.001; rho = 0.41, p ≤ 0.001) and those with higher concussion knowledge (rho = 0.29, p ≤ 0.001; rho = 0.22; p ≤ 0.001). Participating in sports with a high-risk of concussion was associated with lower attitudes and intentions to provide social support (W = 6677; p ≤ 0.001; W = 6721; p ≤ 0.001). Self-reported concussion history or knowing someone with a concussion history was not significantly associated with social support intentions. CONCLUSION: This study identified characteristics of youth who had positive intentions to provide social support. These findings identify individuals who may model providing social support to a peer, as well as opportunities for future concussion education.

Men's gendered experiences of rehabilitation and recovery following traumatic brain injury: A reflexive thematic analysis.

Research shows that gender influences men's health-related beliefs and behaviours - including those within the context of traumatic brain injury (TBI) - making it a factor that should be considered when designing and implementing interventions for this population. To incorporate an understanding of such gendered influences in future educational materials for men with TBI, as well as their caregivers and clinicians, this qualitative study was informed by social constructionism, and aimed to explore how gender is related to men's post-TBI perceptions and behaviours in rehabilitation and recovery. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 men with mild and moderate-severe TBI at the acute (≤ 3 months post-TBI) and chronic (> 3 months post-TBI) phases of injury. A reflexive thematic analysis approach was applied to interview data, guided by the concept of hegemonic masculinity as described by Connell, R.W. (2005. Masculinities [2nd ed.]. Polity). Three key themes were identified: (1) "I'm a man, I'm a rock": Undermining treatment, (2) "I'm going to face that challenge": Facilitation of recovery, and (3) "I don't feel as useful as a guy as I was before": Perceptions on return to work. These findings may be translated into gender-informed therapy strategies and materials.

Informing the research agenda for optimizing audit and feedback interventions: results of a prioritization exercise.

BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback (A&F) interventions are one of the most common approaches for implementing evidence-based practices. A key barrier to more effective A&F interventions is the lack of a theory-guided approach to the accumulation of evidence. Recent interviews with theory experts identified 313 theory-informed hypotheses, spread across 30 themes, about how to create more effective A&F interventions. In the current survey, we sought to elicit from stakeholders which hypotheses were most likely to advance the field if studied further. METHODS: From the list of 313, three members of the research team identified 216 that were clear and distinguishable enough for prioritization. A web-based survey was then sent to 211 A&F intervention stakeholders asking them to choose up to 50 'priority' hypotheses following the header "A&F interventions will be more effective if…". Analyses included frequencies of endorsement of the individual hypotheses and themes into which they were grouped. RESULTS: 68 of the 211 invited participants responded to the survey. Seven hypotheses were chosen by > 50% of respondents, including A&F interventions will be more effective… "if feedback is provided by a trusted source"; "if recipients are involved in the design/development of the feedback intervention"; "if recommendations related to the feedback are based on good quality evidence"; "if the behaviour is under the control of the recipient"; "if it addresses barriers and facilitators (drivers) to behaviour change"; "if it suggests clear action plans"; and "if target/goal/optimal rates are clear and explicit". The most endorsed theme was Recipient Priorities (four hypotheses were chosen 92 times as a 'priority' hypotheses). CONCLUSIONS: This work determined a set of hypotheses thought by respondents to be to be most likely to advance the field through future A&F intervention research. This work can inform a coordinated research agenda that may more efficiently lead to more effective A&F interventions.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing measurement-based care for depression in Shanghai, China: a situational analysis.

BACKGROUND: Measurement-based care (MBC) is an evidence-based practice for depression, but its use by clinicians remains low. Enhanced MBC (eMBC), which uses digital technologies, can help to facilitate the use of MBC by clinicians and patients. Understanding factors that act as barriers and drivers to the implementation of MBC and eMBC is important to support the design of implementation strategies, promoting uptake by clinicians and patients. OBJECTIVE: This situational analysis identifies barriers and facilitators to the implementation of standard and eMBC at mental health centers in Shanghai, China. METHODS: We used mixed methods to develop a comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing MBC and eMBC implementation in Shanghai. This study took place across three mental health centers in Shanghai. We used situational analysis tools to collect contextual information about the three centers, conducted surveys with n = 116 clinicians and n = 301 patients, conducted semi-structured interviews with n = 30 clinicians and six focus groups with a total of n = 19 patients. Surveys were analysed using descriptive statistics, and semi-structured interviews and focus groups were analysed using framework analysis. RESULTS: Several potential barriers and facilitators to MBC and eMBC implementation were identified. Infrastructure, cost, attitudes and beliefs, and perceptions about feasibility and efficacy emerged as both challenges and drivers to MBC and eMBC implementation in Shanghai. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study will directly inform the design of an implementation strategy for MBC and eMBC in Shanghai, that will be tested via a randomized controlled trial. This study contributes to the emerging body of literature on MBC implementation and, to the best of our knowledge, is the first such study to take place in Asia. This study identifies several factors that are relevant to the equitable delivery of MBC, recognizing the need to explicitly address equity concerns in global mental health implementation research.

Representation in rehabilitation research of adults with traumatic brain injury and depression: A scoping review.

Objective: To determine how well comorbid depression is described, defined, and measured in the rehabilitation literature that pertains to TBI and depression.Method: Scoping review of the rehabilitation sciences literature. Six databases were searched (to October 17, 2018) using the three core concepts of TBI, depression, and rehabilitation, as was for gray literature. Two independent reviewers reviewed documents for eligibility.Results: 3737 records were reviewed and 137 documents were analyzed. Primary studies (n = 126) were most prevalent and of quantitative descriptive design (n = 102). The number of participants with TBI and comorbid depression could only be determined for 81/126 (64%) of primary studies, in which they are the minority (median of 30% of sample). Depression reporting was heterogeneous and individuals with TBI and depression were not analyzed as a subgroup in most studies (n = 68, 55%). Depression self-report instruments are commonly used (14 instruments used in 111 studies). Few studies (n = 14, 19%) have participant samples with discrete severity levels of TBI and depression.Conclusions: Better participant representation and reporting of TBI and depression variables are needed to enhance comparability across studies and improve rehabilitation outcomes.

An 11-Item Measure of User- and Human-Centered Design for Personal Health Tools (UCD-11): Development and Validation.

BACKGROUND: Researchers developing personal health tools employ a range of approaches to involve prospective users in design and development. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper was to develop a validated measure of the human- or user-centeredness of design and development processes for personal health tools. METHODS: We conducted a psychometric analysis of data from a previous systematic review of the design and development processes of 348 personal health tools. Using a conceptual framework of user-centered design, our team of patients, caregivers, health professionals, tool developers, and researchers analyzed how specific practices in tool design and development might be combined and used as a measure. We prioritized variables according to their importance within the conceptual framework and validated the resultant measure using principal component analysis with Varimax rotation, classical item analysis, and confirmatory factor analysis. RESULTS: We retained 11 items in a 3-factor structure explaining 68% of the variance in the data. The Cronbach alpha was .72. Confirmatory factor analysis supported our hypothesis of a latent construct of user-centeredness. Items were whether or not: (1) patient, family, caregiver, or surrogate users were involved in the steps that help tool developers understand users or (2) develop a prototype, (3) asked their opinions, (4) observed using the tool or (5) involved in steps intended to evaluate the tool, (6) the process had 3 or more iterative cycles, (7) changes between cycles were explicitly reported, (8) health professionals were asked their opinion and (9) consulted before the first prototype was developed or (10) between initial and final prototypes, and (11) a panel of other experts was involved. CONCLUSIONS: The User-Centered Design 11-item measure (UCD-11) may be used to quantitatively document the user/human-centeredness of design and development processes of patient-centered tools. By building an evidence base about such processes, we can help ensure that tools are adapted to people who will use them, rather than requiring people to adapt to tools.

Scoping Review on Rehabilitation Scoping Reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the extent, scope, and methodological quality of rehabilitation scoping reviews. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive list of scoping reviews conducted in the broader health field (inception to July 2014), with a further update of that list (up to February 2017) using similar methods, including searching 9 electronic databases. STUDY SELECTION: Articles were included if they were scoping reviews within rehabilitation. Established review methods were used including (1) a PubMed filter detecting rehabilitation content and (2) title-and-abstract screening by 2 independent reviewers applied sequentially to articles from the existing list of scoping reviews and to the updated search results. Full-text articles were reviewed by 1 reviewer, with discrepancies resolved by another after pilot screening with > 80% agreement. Remaining discrepancies were resolved by external experts. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers used piloted and standardized data extraction forms. DATA SYNTHESIS: We screened 1823 records, including 992 full texts, to identify 251 rehabilitation-related scoping reviews. Rehabilitation scoping reviews had an exponential yearly increase since 2008 (r2=0.89; P<.01). The literature addressed diverse topics (eg, spread over 43 condition groupings); 43% were published in Canada. Examples of methodological limitations included: 39% of reviews did not cite the use of a methodological framework, 96% did not include the appropriate flow diagram, 8% did not report eligibility criteria, and 57% did not report data extraction details. CONCLUSIONS: The increasing popularity of scoping reviews in rehabilitation has not been met by high standards in methodological quality. To increase the value of rehabilitation scoping reviews, rehabilitation stakeholders need to use existing methodological standards for the conduct, reporting, and appraisal of scoping reviews.

PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation.

Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.

Interventions to address burden among family caregivers of persons aging with TBI: A scoping review.

PURPOSE: To capture the scope of literature exploring interventions for caregivers of aging persons with TBI. METHODS: A scoping review of peer reviewed literature was conducted in two phases. Phase I: Searching seven databases, two independent raters screened articles using a set of predetermined criteria. Included articles were reviewed, and categorized according to common themes. Phase II: Five stakeholders were engaged in a consultation. A content analysis was performed by extracting statements from each interview using an inductive strategy, and organizing each into themes. FINDINGS: A total of 11 articles were included in the final analysis. Inter-rater reliability was assessed at both the title and abstract search [98.8% agreement; k = 0.3425 (95% CI, .246 to .439), p < .05]; and the full-text review [83% agreement; k = 0.542 (95% CI, 0.340 to 0.745), p < .05] phases. Seven articles identified potential interventions, and four identified and evaluated an intervention. Interventions targeted subjective burden (n = 4) and objective burden (n = 4), with caregiver knowledge and skill development (n = 3) classified as a sub-category of objective burden. Stakeholders overwhelmingly emphasized the need for interventions to reduce objective burden. IMPLICATIONS: Included articles were primarily composed of levels six and seven evidence, suggesting that this literature is in an early stage of development. Future research should emphasize the development and evaluation of interventions to reduce objective burden.

Twelve Lessons Learned for Effective Research Partnerships Between Patients, Caregivers, Clinicians, Academic Researchers, and Other Stakeholders.

Research increasingly means that patients, caregivers, health professionals, other stakeholders, and academic investigators work in partnership. This requires effective collaboration rooted in mutual respect, involvement of all participants, and good communication. Having conducted such partnered research over multiple projects, and having recently completed a project together funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, we collaboratively developed a list of 12 lessons we have learned about how to ensure effective research partnerships. To foster a culture of mutual respect, hold early in-person meetings, with introductions focused on motivation, offer appropriate orientation for everyone, and maintain awareness of individual and project goals. To actively involve all team members, it is important to ensure sufficient funding for everyone's participation, to ask for and recognize diverse contributions, and to seek the input of quiet members. To facilitate good communication, teams should carefully consider labels, avoid jargon and acronyms, judiciously use homogeneous and heterogeneous subgroups, and keep progress visible. In offering pragmatic, actionable lessons we have learned through our separate and shared experiences, we hope to help foster more patient-centered research via productive and enjoyable research collaborations.

AIMD - a validated, simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies.

BACKGROUND: Proliferation of terms describing the science of effectively promoting and supporting the use of research evidence in healthcare policy and practice has hampered understanding and development of the field. To address this, an international Terminology Working Group developed and published a simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies. This paper presents results of validation work and a second international workgroup meeting, culminating in the updated AIMD framework [Aims, Ingredients, Mechanism, Delivery]. METHODS: Framework validity was evaluated against terminology schemas (n = 51); primary studies (n = 37); and reporting guidelines (n = 10). Framework components were independently categorized as fully represented, partly represented, or absent by two researchers. Opportunities to refine the framework were systematically recorded. A meeting of the expanded international Terminology Working Group updated the framework by reviewing and deliberating upon validation findings and refinement proposals. RESULTS: There was variation in representativeness of the components across the three types of literature, in particular for the component 'causal mechanisms'. Analysis of primary studies revealed that representativeness of this concept lowered from 92 to 68% if only explicit, rather than explicit and non-explicit references to causal mechanisms were included. All components were very well represented in reporting guidelines, however the level of description of these was lower than in other types of literature. Twelve opportunities were identified to improve the framework, 9 of which were operationalized at the meeting. The updated AIMD framework comprises four components: (1) Aims: what do you want your intervention to achieve and for whom? (2) Ingredients: what comprises the intervention? (3) Mechanisms: how do you propose the intervention will work? and (4) Delivery: how will you deliver the intervention? CONCLUSIONS: The draft simplified framework was validated with reference to a wide range of relevant literature and improvements have enhanced useability. The AIMD framework could aid in the promotion of evidence into practice, remove barriers to understanding how interventions work, enhance communication of interventions and support knowledge synthesis. Future work needs to focus on developing and testing resources and educational initiatives to optimize use of the AIMD framework in collaboration with relevant end-user groups.

A systematic review of interventions to increase the use of standardized outcome measures by rehabilitation professionals.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the types and effectiveness of interventions to increase the knowledge about, attitudes towards, and use of standardized outcome measures in rehabilitation professionals. DATA SOURCES: An electronic search using Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Ergonomics Abstracts, Sports Discus. The search is current to February 2016. STUDY SELECTION: All study designs testing interventions were included as were all provider and patient types. Two reviewers independently conducted a title and abstract review, followed by a full-text review. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted a priori variables and used consensus for disagreements. Quality assessment was conducted using the Assessment of Quantitative Studies published by the Effective Public Health Practice Group. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified 11 studies involving at least 1200 providers. Nine of the studies showed improvements in outcome measure use rates but only three of these studies used an experimental or quasi-experimental design. Eight of the studies used an educational approach in the intervention and three used audit and feedback. Poor intervention description and quality of studies limited recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Increased attention to testing interventions focused on known barriers, matched to behavior change techniques, and with stronger designs is warranted.

Study protocol for a scoping review on rehabilitation scoping reviews.

INTRODUCTION: Scoping reviews are increasingly popular in rehabilitation. However, significant variability in scoping review conduct and reporting currently exists, limiting potential for the methodology to advance rehabilitation research, practice and policy. Our aim is to conduct a scoping review of rehabilitation scoping reviews in order to examine the current volume, yearly distribution, proportion, scope and methodological practices involved in the conduct of scoping reviews in rehabilitation. Key areas of methodological improvement will be described. Methods and analysis: We will undertake the review using the Arksey and O'Malley scoping review methodology. Our search will involve two phases. The first will combine a previously conducted scoping review of scoping reviews (not distinct to rehabilitation, with data current to July 2014) together with a rehabilitation keyword search in PubMed. Articles found in the first phase search will undergo a full text review. The second phase will include an update of the previously conducted scoping review of scoping reviews (July 2014 to current). This update will include the search of nine electronic databases, followed by title and abstract screening as well as a full text review. All screening and extraction will be performed independently by two authors. Articles will be included if they are scoping reviews within the field of rehabilitation. A consultation exercise with key targets will inform plans to improve rehabilitation scoping reviews. Ethics and dissemination: Ethics will be required for the consultation phase of our scoping review. Dissemination will include peer-reviewed publication and conferences in rehabilitation-specific contexts.

Practice Feedback Interventions: 15 Suggestions for Optimizing Effectiveness.

Electronic practice data are increasingly being used to provide feedback to encourage practice improvement. However, evidence suggests that despite decades of experience, the effects of such interventions vary greatly and are not improving over time. Guidance on providing more effective feedback does exist, but it is distributed across a wide range of disciplines and theoretical perspectives. Through expert interviews; systematic reviews; and experience with providing, evaluating, and receiving practice feedback, 15 suggestions that are believed to be associated with effective feedback interventions have been identified. These suggestions are intended to provide practical guidance to quality improvement professionals, information technology developers, educators, administrators, and practitioners who receive such interventions. Designing interventions with these suggestions in mind should improve their effect, and studying the mechanisms underlying these suggestions will advance a stagnant literature.

Involving members of vulnerable populations in the development of patient decision aids: a mixed methods sequential explanatory study.

BACKGROUND: Patient decision aids aim to present evidence relevant to a health decision in understandable ways to support patients through the process of making evidence-informed, values-congruent health decisions. It is recommended that, when developing these tools, teams involve people who may ultimately use them. However, there is little empirical evidence about how best to undertake this involvement, particularly for specific populations of users such as vulnerable populations. METHODS: To describe and compare the development practices of research teams that did and did not specifically involve members of vulnerable populations in the development of patient decision aids, we conducted a secondary analysis of data from a systematic review about the development processes of patient decision aids. Then, to further explain our quantitative results, we conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 10 teams: 6 that had specifically involved members of vulnerable populations and 4 that had not. Two independent analysts thematically coded transcribed interviews. RESULTS: Out of a total of 187 decision aid development projects, 30 (16%) specifically involved members of vulnerable populations. The specific involvement of members of vulnerable populations in the development process was associated with conducting informal needs assessment activities (73% vs. 40%, OR 2.96, 95% CI 1.18-7.99, P = .02) and recruiting participants through community-based organizations (40% vs. 11%, OR 3.48, 95% CI 1.23-9.83, P = .02). In interviews, all developers highlighted the importance, value and challenges of involving potential users. Interviews with developers whose projects had involved members of vulnerable populations suggested that informal needs assessment activities served to center the decision aid around users' needs, to better avoid stigma, and to ensure that the topic truly matters to the community. Partnering with community-based organizations may facilitate relationships of trust and may also provide a non-threatening and accessible location for research activities. CONCLUSIONS: There are a small number of key differences in the development processes for patient decision aids in which members of vulnerable populations were or were not specifically involved. Some of these practices may require additional time or resources. To address health inequities, researchers, communities and funders may need to increase awareness of these approaches and plan accordingly.

A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews.

BACKGROUND: Scoping reviews are used to identify knowledge gaps, set research agendas, and identify implications for decision-making. The conduct and reporting of scoping reviews is inconsistent in the literature. We conducted a scoping review to identify: papers that utilized and/or described scoping review methods; guidelines for reporting scoping reviews; and studies that assessed the quality of reporting of scoping reviews. METHODS: We searched nine electronic databases for published and unpublished literature scoping review papers, scoping review methodology, and reporting guidance for scoping reviews. Two independent reviewers screened citations for inclusion. Data abstraction was performed by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. Quantitative (e.g. frequencies of methods) and qualitative (i.e. content analysis of the methods) syntheses were conducted. RESULTS: After searching 1525 citations and 874 full-text papers, 516 articles were included, of which 494 were scoping reviews. The 494 scoping reviews were disseminated between 1999 and 2014, with 45% published after 2012. Most of the scoping reviews were conducted in North America (53%) or Europe (38%), and reported a public source of funding (64%). The number of studies included in the scoping reviews ranged from 1 to 2600 (mean of 118). Using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology guidance for scoping reviews, only 13% of the scoping reviews reported the use of a protocol, 36% used two reviewers for selecting citations for inclusion, 29% used two reviewers for full-text screening, 30% used two reviewers for data charting, and 43% used a pre-defined charting form. In most cases, the results of the scoping review were used to identify evidence gaps (85%), provide recommendations for future research (84%), or identify strengths and limitations (69%). We did not identify any guidelines for reporting scoping reviews or studies that assessed the quality of scoping review reporting. CONCLUSION: The number of scoping reviews conducted per year has steadily increased since 2012. Scoping reviews are used to inform research agendas and identify implications for policy or practice. As such, improvements in reporting and conduct are imperative. Further research on scoping review methodology is warranted, and in particular, there is need for a guideline to standardize reporting.

A knowledge translation intervention to enhance clinical application of a virtual reality system in stroke rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing evidence for the effectiveness of virtual reality (VR)-based therapy in stroke rehabilitation, few knowledge translation (KT) resources exist to support clinical integration. KT interventions addressing known barriers and facilitators to VR use are required. When environmental barriers to VR integration are less amenable to change, KT interventions can target modifiable barriers related to therapist knowledge and skills. METHODS: A multi-faceted KT intervention was designed and implemented to support physical and occupational therapists in two stroke rehabilitation units in acquiring proficiency with use of the Interactive Exercise Rehabilitation System (IREX; GestureTek). The KT intervention consisted of interactive e-learning modules, hands-on workshops and experiential practice. Evaluation included the Assessing Determinants of Prospective Take Up of Virtual Reality (ADOPT-VR) Instrument and self-report confidence ratings of knowledge and skills pre- and post-study. Usability of the IREX was measured with the System Usability Scale (SUS). A focus group gathered therapist experiences. Frequency of IREX use was recorded for 6 months post-study. RESULTS: Eleven therapists delivered a total of 107 sessions of VR-based therapy to 34 clients with stroke. On the ADOPT-VR, significant pre-post improvements in therapist perceived behavioral control (p = 0.003), self-efficacy (p = 0.005) and facilitating conditions (p =0.019) related to VR use were observed. Therapist intention to use VR did not change. Knowledge and skills improved significantly following e-learning completion (p = 0.001) and was sustained 6 months post-study. Below average perceived usability of the IREX (19th percentile) was reported. Lack of time was the most frequently reported barrier to VR use. A decrease in frequency of perceived barriers to VR use was not significant (p = 0.159). Two therapists used the IREX sparingly in the 6 months following the study. Therapists reported that client motivation to engage with VR facilitated IREX use in practice but that environmental and IREX-specific barriers limited use. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increased knowledge and skills in VR use, the KT intervention did not alter the number of perceived barriers to VR use, intention to use or actual use of VR. Poor perceived system usability had an impact on integration of this particular VR system into clinical practice.

Advancing scoping study methodology: a web-based survey and consultation of perceptions on terminology, definition and methodological steps.

BACKGROUND: Scoping studies (or reviews) are a method used to comprehensively map evidence across a range of study designs in an area, with the aim of informing future research practice, programs and policy. However, no universal agreement exists on terminology, definition or methodological steps. Our aim was to understand the experiences of, and considerations for conducting scoping studies from the perspective of academic and community partners. Primary objectives were to 1) describe experiences conducting scoping studies including strengths and challenges; and 2) describe perspectives on terminology, definition, and methodological steps. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional web-based survey with clinicians, educators, researchers, knowledge users, representatives from community-based organizations, graduate students, and policy stakeholders with experience and/or interest in conducting scoping studies to gain an understanding of experiences and perspectives on the conduct and reporting of scoping studies. We administered an electronic self-reported questionnaire comprised of 22 items related to experiences with scoping studies, strengths and challenges, opinions on terminology, and methodological steps. We analyzed questionnaire data using descriptive statistics and content analytical techniques. Survey results were discussed during a multi-stakeholder consultation to identify key considerations in the conduct and reporting of scoping studies. RESULTS: Of the 83 invitations, 54 individuals (65 %) completed the scoping questionnaire, and 48 (58 %) attended the scoping study meeting from Canada, the United Kingdom and United States. Many scoping study strengths were dually identified as challenges including breadth of scope, and iterative process. No consensus on terminology emerged, however key defining features that comprised a working definition of scoping studies included the exploratory mapping of literature in a field; iterative process, inclusion of grey literature; no quality assessment of included studies, and an optional consultation phase. We offer considerations for the conduct and reporting of scoping studies for researchers, clinicians and knowledge users engaging in this methodology. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of consensus on scoping terminology, definition and methodological steps persists. Reasons for this may be attributed to diversity of disciplines adopting this methodology for differing purposes. Further work is needed to establish guidelines on the reporting and methodological quality assessment of scoping studies.