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.

Evolution of an International Research Collaborative in HIV and Rehabilitation: Community Engaged Process, Lessons Learned, and Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is increasingly considered a chronic illness. Rehabilitation can address some of the health challenges of people living with HIV (PLWHIV); however, the field is emerging. OBJECTIVES: We describe our experience establishing an international collaborative in HIV and rehabilitation research using a community engaged approach. METHODS: The Canada-UK (now Canada-International) HIV and Rehabilitation Research Collaborative (CIHRRC) is a network of more than 85 PLWHIV, researchers, clinicians, and representatives from community-based organizations collectively working to advance knowledge on HIV and rehabilitation. RESULTS: Activities and outcomes include facilitating knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE), establishing and strengthening multistakeholder partnerships, and identifying new and emerging priorities in the field. Collaboration and support from community organizations fostered mechanisms to raise the profile of, and evidence for, rehabilitation in the context of HIV. Considerations of scope, partnership, and sustainability are important. We offer recommendations for developing an international community-academic-clinical research collaborative using a community-engaged approach. CONCLUSIONS: Research networks involving community-academic-clinical partnerships can help to promote KTE and establish a coordinated response for addressing priorities in an emerging field.

Evaluating a community-based exercise intervention with adults living with HIV: protocol for an interrupted time series study.

INTRODUCTION: Our aim was to evaluate a community-based exercise (CBE) intervention with the goal of reducing disability and enhancing health for community-dwelling people living with HIV (PLWH). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will use a mixed-methods implementation science study design, including a prospective longitudinal interrupted time series study, to evaluate a CBE intervention with PLWH in Toronto, Canada. We will recruit PLWH who consider themselves medically stable and safe to participate in exercise. In the baseline phase (0-8 months), participants will be monitored bimonthly. In the intervention phase (8-14 months), participants will take part in a 24-week CBE intervention that includes aerobic, resistance, balance and flexibility exercise at the YMCA 3 times per week, with weekly supervision by a fitness instructor, and monthly educational sessions. In the follow-up phase (14-22 months), participants will be encouraged to continue to engage in unsupervised exercise 3 times per week. Quantitative assessment: We will assess cardiopulmonary fitness, strength, weight, body composition and flexibility outcomes followed by the administration of self-reported questionnaires to assess disability and contextual factor outcomes (coping, mastery, stigma, social support) bimonthly. We will use time series regression analysis to determine the level and trend of outcomes across each phase in relation to the intervention. Qualitative assessment: We will conduct a series of face-to-face interviews with a subsample of participants and recreation providers at initiation, midpoint and completion of the 24-week CBE intervention. We will explore experiences and anticipated benefits with exercise, perceived impact of CBE for PLWH and the strengths and challenges of implementing a CBE intervention. Interviews will be audio recorded and analysed thematically. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Protocol approved by the University of Toronto HIV/AIDS Research Ethics Board. Knowledge translation will occur with stakeholders in the form of presentations and publications in open access peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02794415; Pre-results.