Practical guide to undertaking scoping reviews for pharmacy clinicians, researchers and policymakers.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Scoping reviews are a valuable evidence synthesis methodology. They can be used to map the evidence related to any topic to allow examination of practice, methods, policy and where (and how) future research could be undertaken. As such, they are a useful form of evidence synthesis for pharmacy clinicians, researchers and policymakers to review a broad range of evidence sources. COMMENT: This commentary presents the most comprehensive and up to date methodology for scoping reviews published by Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). This approach builds upon two older approaches by Arksey and O'Malley, and Levac. To assist reviewers working in the field of pharmacy with planning and conducting scoping reviews, this paper describes how to undertake scoping reviews from inception to publication with specific examples related to pharmacy topics. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: The JBI scoping review methodology is a valuable evidence synthesis approach to the field of pharmacy and therapeutics. This approach can assist pharmacy clinicians, researchers and policymakers to gain an understanding of the extant literature, to identify gaps, to explore concepts, characteristics and to examine current practice.

Undertaking a scoping review: A practical guide for nursing and midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics.

AIM: The aim of this study is to discuss the available methodological resources and best-practice guidelines for the development and completion of scoping reviews relevant to nursing and midwifery policy, practice, and research. DESIGN: Discussion Paper. DATA SOURCES: Scoping reviews that exemplify best practice are explored with reference to the recently updated JBI scoping review guide (2020) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Scoping Review extension (PRISMA-ScR). IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING AND MIDWIFERY: Scoping reviews are an increasingly common form of evidence synthesis. They are used to address broad research questions and to map evidence from a variety of sources. Scoping reviews are a useful form of evidence synthesis for those in nursing and midwifery and present opportunities for researchers to review a broad array of evidence and resources. However, scoping reviews still need to be conducted with rigour and transparency. CONCLUSION: This study provides guidance and advice for researchers and clinicians who are preparing to undertake an evidence synthesis and are considering a scoping review methodology in the field of nursing and midwifery. IMPACT: With the increasing popularity of scoping reviews, criticism of the rigour, transparency, and appropriateness of the methodology have been raised across multiple academic and clinical disciplines, including nursing and midwifery. This discussion paper provides a unique contribution by discussing each component of a scoping review, including: developing research questions and objectives; protocol development; developing eligibility criteria and the planned search approach; searching and selecting the evidence; extracting and analysing evidence; presenting results; and summarizing the evidence specifically for the fields of nursing and midwifery. Considerations for when to select this methodology and how to prepare a review for publication are also discussed. This approach is applied to the disciplines of nursing and midwifery to assist nursing and/or midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics.

Scoping review of patients' attitudes about their role and behaviours to ensure safe care at the direct care level.

BACKGROUND: To improve harm prevention, patient engagement in safety at the direct care level is advocated. For patient safety to most effectively include patients, it is critical to reflect on existing evidence, to better position future research with implications for education and practice. METHODS: As part of a multi-phase study, which included a qualitative descriptive study (Duhn & Medves, 2018), a scoping review about patient engagement in safety was conducted. The objective was to review papers about patients' attitudes and behaviours concerning their involvement in ensuring their safe care. The databases searched included MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE (year ending 2019). RESULTS: This review included 35 papers about "Patient Attitudes" and 125 papers about "Patient Behaviours"-indicative of growing global interest in this field. Several patterns emerged from the review, including that most investigators have focused on a particular dimension of harm prevention, such as asking about provider handwashing, and there is less known about patients' opinions about their role in safety generally and how to actualize it in a way that is right for them. While patients may indicate favourable attitudes toward safety involvement generally, intention to act or actual behaviours may be quite different. CONCLUSION: This review, given its multi-focus across the continuum of care, is the first of its kind based on existing literature. It provides an important international "mapping" of the initiatives that are underway to engage patients in different elements of safety and their viewpoints, and identifies the gaps that remain.

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.

Predatory publications in evidence syntheses.

OBJECTIVES: The number of predatory journals is increasing in the scholarly communication realm. These journals use questionable business practices, minimal or no peer review, or limited editorial oversight and, thus, publish articles below a minimally accepted standard of quality. These publications have the potential to alter the results of knowledge syntheses. The objective of this study was to determine the degree to which articles published by a major predatory publisher in the health and biomedical sciences are cited in systematic reviews. METHODS: The authors downloaded citations of articles published by a known predatory publisher. Using forward reference searching in Google Scholar, we examined whether these publications were cited in systematic reviews. RESULTS: The selected predatory publisher published 459 journals in the health and biomedical sciences. Sixty-two of these journal titles had published a total of 120 articles that were cited by at least 1 systematic review, with a total of 157 systematic reviews citing an article from 1 of these predatory journals. DISCUSSION: Systematic review authors should be vigilant for predatory journals that can appear to be legitimate. To reduce the risk of including articles from predatory journals in knowledge syntheses, systematic reviewers should use a checklist to ensure a measure of quality control for included papers and be aware that Google Scholar and PubMed do not provide the same level of quality control as other bibliographic databases.

Is there an optimum number needed to retrieve to justify inclusion of a database in a systematic review search?

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether calculation of a 'Number Needed to Retrieve' (NNTR) is possible and desirable as a means of evaluating the utility of a database for systematic review. METHODS: To determine an overall NNTR, eight systematic reviews were tracked to determine how many abstracts were retrieved compared to the number of articles meeting the inclusion criteria. An NNTR was calculated for each database searched to measure the utility of including it in systematic review searches. RESULTS: Across eight systematic reviews, 17 378 abstracts were reviewed. Of these, 122 met the inclusion criteria for their reviews resulting in an overall NNTR of 142. Individual reviews had an NNTR range of 28-310. Three databases delivered unique results (medline, cinahl and globalhealth). The majority of the included studies appeared in multiple databases. Only five articles were found in a single database. CONCLUSIONS: This research offers a proof of concept of 'NNTR'. While the eight review NNTRs varied widely, all were consistent with the range initially reported by Booth. Included articles consistently appeared in multiple databases, suggesting that duplicate abstracts should be screened first as these are likely to include highly relevant, high-quality results.

Perspectives on Patient Safety Among Practical Nursing Students.

Background Practical nursing students are students enrolled in a two-year college practical nursing diploma program. They are responsible for providing safe patient care to the patients they care for. Assessing students' perceptions of their own patient safety competencies can help educators identify gaps in their knowledge and skills and identify, at a curricula level, the concepts and information required to improve the quality of their care. Purpose To explore practical nursing students' confidence in what they are learning about patient safety within their nursing education. Methods This cross-sectional descriptive study used a modified version of the Health Professional Education in Patient Safety Survey. Results Overall, students expressed the greatest confidence in their abilities to provide care in Clinical Safety topics. More than 75% of the students' feared punishment when making an error and 88% have difficulty questioning other healthcare providers. Less than 30% of students stated that a system-level focus on errors was taught to them in their education programs. Conclusions More investigation is needed to understand what practical nursing students' fear about the provision of safe care. Additional focus on systems aspects of hazard identification and the prevention of errors needs to be present in nursing education programs.

An Evidence-Based Approach to Scoping Reviews.

OBJECTIVE: Scoping reviews are used to assess the extent of a body of literature on a particular topic, and often to ensure that further research in that area is a beneficial addition to world knowledge. The aim of this paper reports upon the development of a methodology for scoping reviews based upon the Arksey and O'Malley framework, the Levac, Colquhoun, and O'Brien, and the Joanna Briggs Institute methods of evidence synthesis. METHODS: A working group consisting of members of the Joanna Briggs collaborating organizations met to discuss the proposed framework for the methodology and develop a draft for the scoping review methodology based on the Arksey and O'Malley framework and the work of Levac et al. This was followed by a workshop attended by other members of the organizations consisting of 30 international researchers to discuss the proposed methodology. Further refinement of the methodology was undertaken as a result of the feedback received from the workshop. RESULTS: The development of the methodology focused on five stages of the protocol and review development. These were identifying the research question by clarifying and linking the purpose and research question, identifying the relevant studies using a three-step literature search in order to balance feasibility with breadth and comprehensiveness, careful selection of the studies to using a team approach, charting the data and collating the results to identify the implications of the study findings for policy, practice, or research. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: The current methodology recommends including both quantitative and qualitative research, as well as evidence from economic and expert opinion sources to answer questions of effectiveness, appropriateness, meaningfulness and feasibility of health practices and delivery methods. The proposed framework has the potential to provide options when faced with complex concepts or broad research questions.

Social prescribing for children and youth: A scoping review protocol.

Social prescribing is suited to all age groups, but it is especially important for children and youth, as it is well understood that this population is particularly vulnerable to the effects of the social determinants of health and health inequities, and that intervening at this stage of life has the greatest impact on health and wellbeing over the life course. While this population has largely been neglected in social prescribing research, policy, and practice, several evaluations of social prescribing for children and youth have emerged in recent years, which calls for a review of the evidence on this topic. Thus, the objective of this scoping review is to map the evidence on the use of social prescribing for children and youth. This review will be conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and will be reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). The search strategy will aim to locate both published and unpublished literature. No language or date restrictions will be placed on the search. The databases to be searched include MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), AMED (Ovid), ASSIA (ProQuest), Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest), Global Health (Ovid), Web of Science (Clarivate), Epistemonikos, JBI EBP Database (Ovid), and Cochrane Library. Sources of gray literature to be searched include Google, Google Scholar, Social Care Online (Social Care Institute for Excellence), SIREN Evidence and Resource Library (Social Interventions Research and Evaluation Network), and websites of social prescribing organizations and networks. Additionally, a request for evidence sources will be sent out to members of the Global Social Prescribing Alliance. Two independent reviewers will perform title and abstract screening, retrieval and assessment of full-text evidence sources, and data extraction. Data analysis will consist of basic descriptive analysis. Results will be presented in tabular and/or diagrammatic format alongside a narrative summary.

Biopsychosocial risk factors for intimate partner violence perpetration and victimization in adolescents and adults reported after the COVID-19 pandemic onset: a scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to provide a comprehensive summary of the biological, psychological, and sociological risk factors for intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization and perpetration reported after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. INTRODUCTION: IPV is a significant public health concern, characterized by various forms of violence inflicted by intimate partners. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic significantly increased the global prevalence of IPV. While prior research has identified factors linked to IPV, the risk factors reported in the literature during this period have not been systematically mapped. Additionally, the similarities and differences in risk factors between perpetration and victimization have not been well delineated. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will focus on individuals aged 12 years or older involved in dyadic romantic relationships. Primary studies and systematic reviews published from the year 2020 will be included. Full-text papers, preprints, theses, and dissertations published in English will be included. Studies focusing on factors unrelated to IPV risk will be excluded. Non-systematic reviews, opinion pieces, and protocols will also be excluded. METHODS: Following the JBI methodology for scoping reviews, systematic searches will be conducted for both peer-reviewed and gray literature. Independent reviewers will screen records, select eligible studies, and extract data using a standardized form. Key risk factors will be mapped to explore their interplay. REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/c2hkm.

PROTOCOL: Learner-educator co-creation of student assessment in health professional education courses: A scoping review protocol.

This is a protocol for a Campbell Review following JBI scoping review methodology. The objectives are to answer the following questions: What has been reported in the literature about collaborative learner-educator design, implementation, or evaluation of learner assessment in health professional education? (1) Where is learner-educator co-creation of assessment occurring? (i.e., which disciplines, course types, level of learner, year of study). (2) What course assessment decisions are influenced or being made together? (i.e., assessment instructions and/or grades). (3) How much influence do learners have on decision-making? (i.e., where does it fall on Bovill and Bulley's ladder of participation). (4) How do learners and educators go about making decisions together? (i.e., discussion or voting, with a whole class or portion of the class). (5) What are the perceived benefits, disadvantages, barriers, and/or facilitators reported by the authors?

Large scoping reviews: managing volume and potential chaos in a pool of evidence sources.

Scoping reviews can identify a large number of evidence sources. This commentary describes and provides guidance on planning, conducting, and reporting large scoping reviews. This guidance is informed by experts in scoping review methodology, including JBI (formerly Joanna Briggs Institute) Scoping Review Methodology group members, who have also conducted and reported large scoping reviews. We propose a working definition for large scoping reviews that includes approximately 100 sources of evidence but must also consider the volume of data to be extracted, the complexity of the analyses, and purpose. We pose 6 core questions for scoping review authors to consider when planning, developing, conducting, and reporting large scoping reviews. By considering and addressing these questions, scoping review authors might better streamline and manage the conduct and reporting of large scoping reviews from the planning to publishing stage.

Automation tools to support undertaking scoping reviews.

OBJECTIVE: This paper describes several automation tools and software that can be considered during evidence synthesis projects and provides guidance for their integration in the conduct of scoping reviews. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The guidance presented in this work is adapted from the results of a scoping review and consultations with the JBI Scoping Review Methodology group. RESULTS: This paper describes several reliable, validated automation tools and software that can be used to enhance the conduct of scoping reviews. Developments in the automation of systematic reviews, and more recently scoping reviews, are continuously evolving. We detail several helpful tools in order of the key steps recommended by the JBI's methodological guidance for undertaking scoping reviews including team establishment, protocol development, searching, de-duplication, screening titles and abstracts, data extraction, data charting, and report writing. While we include several reliable tools and software that can be used for the automation of scoping reviews, there are some limitations to the tools mentioned. For example, some are available in English only and their lack of integration with other tools results in limited interoperability. CONCLUSION: This paper highlighted several useful automation tools and software programs to use in undertaking each step of a scoping review. This guidance has the potential to inform collaborative efforts aiming at the development of evidence informed, integrated automation tools and software packages for enhancing the conduct of high-quality scoping reviews.

An international modified Delphi process supported updating the web-based "right review" tool.

OBJECTIVES: The proliferation of evidence synthesis methods makes it challenging for reviewers to select the ''right'' method. This study aimed to update the Right Review tool (a web-based decision support tool that guides users through a series of questions for recommending evidence synthesis methods) and establish a common set of questions for the synthesis of both quantitative and qualitative studies (https://rightreview.knowledgetranslation.net/). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A 2-round modified international electronic modified Delphi was conducted (2022) with researchers, health-care providers, patients, and policy makers. Panel members rated the importance/clarity of the Right Review tool's guiding questions, evidence synthesis type definitions and tool output. High agreement was defined as at least 70% agreement. Any items not reaching high agreement after round 2 were discussed by the international Project Steering Group. RESULTS: Twenty-four experts from 9 countries completed round 1, with 12 completing round 2. Of the 46 items presented in round 1, 21 reached high agreement. Twenty-seven items were presented in round 2, with 8 reaching high agreement. The Project Steering Group discussed items not reaching high agreement, including 8 guiding questions, 9 review definitions (predominantly related to qualitative synthesis), and 2 output items. Three items were removed entirely and the remaining 16 revised and edited and/or combined with existing items. The final tool comprises 42 items; 9 guiding questions, 25 evidence synthesis definitions and approaches, and 8 tool outputs. CONCLUSION: The freely accessible Right Review tool supports choosing an appropriate review method. The design and clarity of this tool was enhanced by harnessing the Delphi technique to shape ongoing development. The updated tool is expected to be available in Quarter 1, 2025.

The Impact of Primary Care Practice Models on Indicators of Unplanned Health Care Utilization for Ontario Adults Newly Diagnosed With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a highly prevalent chronic disease. Most of the care for this population occurs within the primary care setting; however, the extent to which different primary care practice models influence the outcomes of patients with COPD remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to compare and analyze the influence of different primary care practice models on indicators of unplanned health care utilization among newly diagnosed COPD patients in Ontario. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using health administrative database within the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. The cohort included persons who were 35 years and older with physician-diagnosed COPD between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2019. Patients were assigned into 3 practice models: team-based, traditional, and no enrolment. The primary outcomes examined was unplanned health care utilization, specifically emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations. To account for excessive zero values, the zero inflated negative binomial (ZINB) models were used to analyze the association between different practice models and unplanned health care utilization. RESULTS: Among 57,145 individuals who met the inclusion criteria, 55,994 were included in the regression analysis. Of the included participants, 62.8% of patients were in the traditional group, 30.3% were in the team-based group, and 6.9% were in the no enrolment group. Between 2014 and 2019, 70.7% of the cohort had at least 1 all-cause ED visit without hospitalization. The adjusted ZINB models showed no significant difference in risks of experiencing an unplanned health care utilization between the team-based and traditional groups. However, patients in the no enrolment group had a significantly higher risk of ED visit without hospitalization regardless of cause, ED visit with hospitalization regardless of cause, and 30-day readmissions regardless of cause. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care practice models are complex, influenced by remuneration and organizational structures, reinforcing the need for further research to enhance our understanding of primary care reforms. Furthermore, given the growing shortage of primary care providers, patients with COPD and other chronic conditions are particularly vulnerable.

Establishing Internationally Accepted Conceptual and Operational Definitions of Social Prescribing Through Expert Consensus: A Delphi Study Protocol.

Introduction: There is currently no agreed definition of social prescribing. This is problematic for research, policy, and practice, as the use of common language is the crux of establishing a common understanding. Both conceptual and operational definitions of social prescribing are needed to address this gap. Therefore, the aim of the study that is outlined in this protocol is to establish internationally accepted conceptual and operational definitions of social prescribing. Methodology: A Delphi study will be conducted to develop internationally accepted conceptual and operational definitions of social prescribing with an international, multidisciplinary panel of experts. It is anticipated that this study will involve approximately 40 participants (range = 20-60 participants) and consist of 3-5 rounds. Consensus will be defined a priori as ≥80% agreement. Discussion: Not only will these definitions serve to unite the social prescribing community, but they will also inform research, policy, and practice. By laying the groundwork for the formation of a robust evidence base, this foundational work will support the advancement of social prescribing and help to unlock the full potential of the social prescribing movement. Conclusion: This important work will be foundational and timely, given the rapid spread of the social prescribing movement around the world.

Establishing internationally accepted conceptual and operational definitions of social prescribing through expert consensus: a Delphi study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to establish internationally accepted conceptual and operational definitions of social prescribing. DESIGN: A three-round Delphi study was conducted. SETTING: This study was conducted virtually using an online survey platform. PARTICIPANTS: This study involved an international, multidisciplinary panel of experts. The expert panel (n=48) represented 26 countries across five continents, numerous expert groups and a variety of years of experience with social prescribing, with the average being 5 years (range=1-20 years). RESULTS: After three rounds, internationally accepted conceptual and operational definitions of social prescribing were established. The definitions were transformed into the Common Understanding of Social Prescribing (CUSP) conceptual framework. CONCLUSION: This foundational work offers a common thread-a shared sense of what social prescribing is, which may be woven into social prescribing research, policy and practice to foster common understanding of this concept.

Investigating different typologies for the synthesis of evidence: a scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review is to identify evidence synthesis types and previously proposed classification systems, typologies, or taxonomies that have guided evidence synthesis. INTRODUCTION: Evidence synthesis is a constantly evolving field. There is now a plethora of evidence synthesis approaches used across many different disciplines. Historically, there have been numerous attempts to organize the types and methods of evidence synthesis in the form of classification systems, typologies, or taxonomies. This scoping review will seek to identify all the available classification systems, typologies, or taxonomies; how they were developed; their characteristics; and the types of evidence syntheses included within them. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This scoping review will include discussion papers, commentaries, books, editorials, manuals, handbooks, and guidance from major organizations that describe multiple approaches to evidence synthesis in any discipline. METHODS: The Evidence Synthesis Taxonomy Initiative will support this scoping review. The search strategy will aim to locate both published and unpublished documents utilizing a three-step search strategy. An exploratory search of MEDLINE has identified keywords and MeSH terms. A second search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL with Full Text, ERIC, Scopus, Compendex, and JSTOR will be conducted. The websites of relevant evidence synthesis organizations will be searched. Identified documents will be independently screened, selected, and extracted by two researchers, and the data will be presented in tables and summarized descriptively. DETAILS OF THIS REVIEW PROJECT ARE AVAILABLE AT: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/qwc27.

Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews.

Scoping reviewers often face challenges in the extraction, analysis, and presentation of scoping review results. Using best-practice examples and drawing on the expertise of the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group and an editor of a journal that publishes scoping reviews, this paper expands on existing JBI scoping review guidance. The aim of this article is to clarify the process of extracting data from different sources of evidence; discuss what data should be extracted (and what should not); outline how to analyze extracted data, including an explanation of basic qualitative content analysis; and offer suggestions for the presentation of results in scoping reviews.

Absorptive capacity in the adoption of innovations in health: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review was to explore how absorptive capacity has been conceptualized and measured in studies of innovation adoption in health care organizations. INTRODUCTION: Current literature highlights the need to incorporate knowledge translation processes at the organizational and system level to enhance the adoption of new knowledge into practice. Absorptive capacity is a set of routines and processes characterized by knowledge acquisition, assimilation, transformation, and application. A key concept in organizational learning theory, absorptive capacity is thought to be critical to the adoption of new knowledge and innovations in organizations. To understand how absorptive capacity was conceptualized and measured in health care organizations, it was appropriate to conduct a scoping review to answer our research question. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This scoping review included published and unpublished primary studies (ie, experimental, quasi-experimental, observational, and qualitative study designs), as well as reviews that broadly focused on the adoption of innovations at the organizational level in health care, and framed innovation adoption as processes that rely on organizational learning and absorptive or learning capacity. METHODS: Searches included electronic databases (ie, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus) and gray literature, as well as reference scanning of relevant studies. Study abstracts and full texts were screened for eligibility by two independent reviewers. Data extraction of relevant studies was also done independently by two reviewers. All discrepancies were addressed through discussion or adjudicated by a third reviewer. Synthesis of the extracted data focused on descriptive frequencies and counts of the results. This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). RESULTS: The search strategies identified a total of 7433 citations. Sixteen papers were identified for inclusion, including a set of two companion papers, and data were extracted from 15 studies. We synthesized the objectives of the included studies and identified that researchers focused on at least one of the following aspects: i) exploring pre-existing capacity that affects improvement and innovation in health care settings; ii) describing factors influencing the spread and sustainability of organizations; iii) identifying measures and testing the knowledge application process; and iv) providing construct clarity. No new definitions were identified within this review; instead existing definitions were refined to suit the local context of the health care organization in which they were used. CONCLUSIONS: Given the rapidly changing and evolving nature of health care, it is important to understand both current best practices and an organization's ability to acquire, assimilate, transform, and apply these practices to their specific organization. While much research has gone into developing ways to implement knowledge translation, understanding an organization's internal structures and framework for seeking out and implementing new evidence as it relates to absorptive capacity is still a relatively novel concept.