Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Study Protocol

Understanding data collection strategies for the ethical inclusion of older adults with disabilities in transitional care research: A scoping review protocol

  • Kristina M. Kokorelias ,

    Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – original draft

    k.kokorelias@utoronto.ca

    Affiliations Division of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, Sinai Health System and University Health Network, Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, Department of Occupational Science & Occupational Therapy, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, National Institute on Ageing, Toronto Metropolitan University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    ⨯
  • Reham Abdelhalim,

    Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Burlington OHT, Burlington, Ontario, Canada, Joseph Brant Hospital, Burlington, Canada

    ⨯
  • Marianne Saragosa,

    Roles Methodology, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation KITE Toronto Rehabilitation Institute-University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    ⨯
  • Michelle L. A. Nelson,

    Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

    ⨯
  • Hardeep K. Singh,

    Roles Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Department of Occupational Science & Occupational Therapy, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, KITE Toronto Rehabilitation Institute-University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, Rehabilitation Sciences Institute, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

    ⨯
  • Sarah E. P. Munce

    Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations KITE Toronto Rehabilitation Institute-University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, Rehabilitation Sciences Institute, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

    ⨯

Abstract

Introduction

A growing body of evidence suggests that older adults are particularly vulnerable to poor care as they transition across care environments. Thus, they require transitional care services as they transition across healthcare settings. To help make intervention research meaningful to the older adults the intervention aims to serve, many researchers aim to study their experiences, by actively involving them in research processes. However, collecting data from older adults with various forms of disability often assumes that the research methods selected are appropriate for them. This scoping review will map the evidence on research methods to collect data from older adults with disabilities within the transitional care literature.

Methods

The proposed scoping review follows the framework originally described by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Manual: (1) developing a search strategy, (2) evidence screening and selection, (3) data extraction; and (4) analysis. We will include studies identified through a comprehensive search of peer-reviewed and empirical literature reporting on research methods used to elicit the experiences of older adults with disabilities in transitional care interventions. In addition, we will search the reference lists of included studies. The findings of this review will be narratively synthesized. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews will guide the reporting of the methods and results.

Discussion

The overarching goal of this study is to develop strategies to assist the research community in increasing the inclusion of older adults with disabilities in transitional care research. The findings of this review will highlight recommendations for research to inform data collection within future intervention research for older adults with disabilities. Study findings will be disseminated via a publication and presentations.

Citation: Kokorelias KM, Abdelhalim R, Saragosa M, Nelson MLA, Singh HK, Munce SEP (2023) Understanding data collection strategies for the ethical inclusion of older adults with disabilities in transitional care research: A scoping review protocol. PLoS ONE 18(10): e0293329. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293329

Editor: Udoka Okpalauwaekwe, University of Saskatchewan, CANADA

Received: June 4, 2023; Accepted: October 10, 2023; Published: October 20, 2023

Copyright: © 2023 Kokorelias et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: Deidentified research data will be made publicly available when the study is completed and published.

Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

High-quality care is especially important for older adults who may become disabled (e.g., due to cognitive impairments or physical disabilities), as well as for their family caregivers, as they transition within and across care settings (e.g., acute care to rehabilitation) [1–4] and health care providers. These transitions in care often result in discontinuity of services, unmet patient and caregiver needs, poor satisfaction with care and increased risk of (re)hospitalization [5–7]. This poor quality of care can be partially explained by problems with information exchange and a lack of multidisciplinary collaboration with patients and healthcare providers reporting problems during discharge [8–11].

To help older adults overcome these challenges, many health care systems have developed transitional care interventions [12–14] designed to improve the continuity of high-quality care [15]. Numerous scoping, systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been conducted on the effectiveness of these interventions [6, 13, 15–17]. Exploring the experiences and satisfaction of older patients has become an increasingly valuable means to evaluate healthcare interventions and the performance of the care providers and health care systems [18–24]. Moreover, if transitional care interventions are to be the solution for improving older adults’ well-being across the care continuum, it is necessary to comprehend the complexity of causes that influence older adults’ experiences of care [25–29]. Thus, collecting data from older adults with different backgrounds and forms of disability could help provide more effective and sustainable transitional care interventions [30].

Experiences of patients during transitions in care and transitional interventions can and have be collected through various means. This includes in-depth qualitative interviews (e.g., [31–33]) and/or focus groups [34, 35], observations [36], and surveys to capture patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs) [37]. However, these strategies may ignore the wide number of older adults with disabilities [38], who may struggle to converse (e.g., aphasia) [39], struggle with hearing interviewers [40], hold a pen (e.g., skeletal diseases) [41], or lack cognitive capacity [42]. Compassionate and fair research practices could consider various data collection approaches that would facilitate the inclusion of older adults living with disabilities. Thus, there is a need for improved and diverse strategies in the research context to support appropriate opportunities for the wider inclusion of older adults in transitional care interventions [27, 43]. Driven by the purpose of exploring strategies to support the compassionate involvement of older adults with various physical, mental and cognitive disabilities in research, this proposed study aims to present a summary and map of the existing research methods being used within the transitional care research as an encouragement to future research endeavors.

Methods

We will conduct a scoping review to examine the transitional care literature for older adults living with disabilities to better understand data collection methods applicable to older adults with age-related disabilities. A scoping review methodology was selected to allow us to explore the broad research topic and obtain knowledge from across study designs [44, 45]. We will follow the scoping review methods outlined by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Manual for scoping reviews, including a framework for conducting scoping review studies [46]. This framework will include the following steps: (1) developing a search strategy, (2) evidence screening and selection, (3) data extraction; and (4) analysis [46]. The reporting of the review will be informed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis for Protocols (PRISMA-P) [47] and the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) [48]. All research team members have reviewed and approved the draft protocol and registered with Open Science Framework [Blinded for Review].

The research questions were developed and refined by the research team. This review aims to learn from various data collection methods within the transitional care literature that include older adults with diverse disabilities to inform future methodological considerations in forthcoming research. This proposed review will address the following research questions and sub-questions:

  1. What is the extent, range and nature of research methods used within the transitional care research that have included older adults living with disabilities?
    1. How do researchers accommodate sensory, physical, mental and cognitive disabilities in their recruitment and data collection methods?
  2. What are the characteristics of the older adults living with disabilities that have been included in transitional care interventions? literature?
    1. What older adults are being excluded from research on their experiences within the transitional care intervention literature as a result of their disabilities?

Framework

The framework of Sex- and Gender-Based Analysis Plus (SGBA+) [49] was used as a starting point for conceptualizing and developing this research protocol. This framework has guided other literature reviews [27, 50, 51] and evaluations of health interventions [52, 53] by using intersectional lenses [54, 55] to examine characteristics of participants and samples within research processes [49]. This framework considers both biological sex (sex), the social construct of gender (gender), as well as other intersectional characteristics including ethnicity, income, age, race, education, and sexual orientation [49].

Stage 1: Developing a search strategy

The search strategy will be created and drafted OVID Medline by an Information Specialist and Health Science librarian (EP), in consultation with the primary and senior author (KMK and SEPM). Subject headings and text words related to the following concepts will be included in the search: ‘older adults’ ‘disability’ ‘transitions in care’ ‘healthcare continuum’ and ‘methods’. To ensure a breadth of understanding, we will conceptualize disability as per the International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health (ICF) as an “umbrella term for impairments, activity limitations or participation restrictions” [56]. During the search development process, we will limit the search to English. We will limit to papers published from the past two decades (i.e., 2003 onwards) to capture the most up-to-date literature to inform future research due to resource constraints. No design limitations will be imposed.

Once the entire research team approves the final search strategy, the strategy will undergo peer-review using the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) Statement [57]. Peer-reviewing the strategy will help to enhance the comprehensiveness of the search [57]. Once the search is finalized, the search will then be translated to OVID Embase, Social Work abstracts, PEDroPhysiotherapy Evidence Database, OVID PsycINFO, EBSCO CINAHL, ERIC, the Cochrane Library, Scopus and Global Index Medicus and run by the Information Specialist and Health Science librarian. Search results will be imported into an Endnote library by the information specialist for reference management and articles will be deduplicated following the Bramer method [58, 59]. To ensure a comprehensive search, we will search for articles not captured within the search, we will hand-search reference lists of included articles and relevant reviews [44]. We will also hand-search for the full-text articles of relevant conference abstracts and study protocols.

Stage 2: Evidence screening and selection

The deduplicated studies will be imported to Covidence, to help manage screening (i.e., title/abstract screening and full-text article screening) [60, 61]. The Population, Concept, Context (PCC mnemonic) criteria [62] helped to inform the inclusion criteria outlined in Table 1.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293329.t001

At least two reviewers will independently review articles using the above eligibility criteria for level 1 (i.e., title and abstract) and level 2 (i.e., full text) screening. To ensure high inter-rater reliability, prior to starting the title/abstract screening process (level 1 screening), the inclusion criteria will be tested on a random sample of 10% of the articles. We will proceed with independent screening (i.e., each reviewer reviewing articles on their own) when there is a minimum inter-rater agreement of >75% agreement across the team. If we do not achieve this with the 10% pilot screening, the inclusion and exclusion criteria will be modified to be clearer, and the pilot will be repeated with another 10% of titles and abstracts [63]. Following an appropriate understanding of the inclusion and exclusion criteria and inter-rater agreement, the remaining title and abstract screening and full-text screening will be conducted by two reviewers independently, in duplicate. Conflicts at all stages will be resolved by the senior responsible author as the third reviewer (SEPM). Where there is uncertainty, conflicts will be resolved through team discussions during meetings. The screeners will meet bi-weekly throughout the screening process to discuss their initial perceptions of the data [63].

Stage 3: Data extraction

As with screening, data extraction will be conducted by two reviewers. Data extraction will be an iterative process, with the final categories only being determined as the authors become more familiar with the data [63]. However, it is anticipated that data will be extracted on study characteristics (e.g., study design, country of the corresponding author, method for data collection, method for recruitment) and population characteristics (e.g., number of participants, type of disability, characteristics of the intervention, country, health system settings, the objective of data collection, resources required to accommodate disabilities, theory or framework used to inform the data collection). We will also categorize participants according to the SGBA+ (e.g., sex, gender, and other identity constructs) [49].

Data abstraction will be facilitated using a customizable form in Covidence. First, the two reviewers will extract data independently from a random sample of five included studies. If there is >75% agreement across the two extraction forms, the two reviewers will abstract data on 50% of the training articles (i.e., not in duplicate, with each doing an equal amount). If a poor agreement is found, the data abstraction form will be clarified, and the two reviewers will abstract data independently, with conflicts resolved by a third reviewer. In both cases, the data will be checked by the senior responsible author (SEPM).

As consistent with the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual, appraisal for risk of bias and quality of the studies will not be performed [45, 64].

Stage 4: Data analysis

Results will be summarized quantitatively (using numerical frequencies) and qualitatively (drawing on content analysis methods [65, 66]), as recommended for scoping reviews [67]. If possible, we will stratify results by type of disability experienced by the older adult participants and transition in care settings (e.g., type of transition, i.e., healthcare settings involved in the transition). Specifically, we will perform line-by-line coding to inform the development of descriptive categories that reflect the content of the included articles. The primary author (KMK) will lead the content analysis as facilitated through NVivo software [68]. The coding will be verified by a second reviewer independently, and the coded data will be circulated amongst the entire research team. Through a series of theme discussion meetings, similarities and differences between the coded data across and within studies will be discussed [69].

The PRISMA-ScR checklist will guide the reporting of data [48].

Limitations

Despite the systematic search strategy, we will include only English-language publications, focus our searches in the context of the healthcare transition literature. Thus, our search may inadvertently miss other literature, such as articles not published in English. In conducting this systematic literature review, we focused our search on English-language publications within the context of the healthcare transition literature. This decision was influenced by practical considerations related to our research team’s language proficiency and available resources. Given that the authors do not have proficiency in languages other than English and lack access to translation service, we made a deliberate choice to include only English-language publications to ensure the consistency and comparability of the selected studies and to facilitate the review process within our constraints.

Discussion

This article provides an overview of the methods to conduct a scoping review exploring methods to include older adults with various disabilities within the existing transitional care literature. The results of the proposed scoping review are relevant to any researcher interested in developing, implementing and evaluating transitional care interventions for older adults with various forms of disabilities. By working to understand better innovative methods for involving diverse older adults with disabilities in evaluating transitional care interventions across places of care, we seek to help ensure that future interventions best meet the needs of the patients they wish to serve. Synthesizing the existing literature and understanding the diverse older adults involved in current research can also be used to improve future research processes and inform methodological insight for future studies. As such, our results will also be disseminated widely through conference presentations (e.g., the Canadian Gerontology Association Conference) and workshops and at least one peer-reviewed publication (e.g., Health & Social Care in the community).

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. PLOS ONE clinical studies checklist.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293329.s001

(DOCX)

S2 Checklist. PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) 2015 checklist: Recommended items to address in a systematic review protocol*.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293329.s002

(PDF)

References

  1. 1. Pond CD, Regan C. Improving the delivery of primary care for older people. Med J Aust. 2019;211(2):60–2. pmid:31206179
  2. 2. Gupta S, Perry JA, Kozar R. Transitions of care in geriatric medicine. Clinics in geriatric medicine. 2019;35(1):45–52. pmid:30390983
  3. 3. Coleman EA, Mahoney E, Parry C. Assessing the quality of preparation for posthospital care from the patient’s perspective: the care transitions measure. Medical care. 2005:246–55. pmid:15725981
  4. 4. Coleman EA, Parry C, Chalmers S, Min S-j. The care transitions intervention: results of a randomized controlled trial. Archives of internal medicine. 2006;166(17):1822–8.
  5. 5. Coleman EA, Boult C. Improving the quality of transitional care for persons with complex care needs. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2003;51(4):556–7. pmid:12657079
  6. 6. Facchinetti G, D’Angelo D, Piredda M, Petitti T, Matarese M, Oliveti A, et al. Continuity of care interventions for preventing hospital readmission of older people with chronic diseases: A meta-analysis. International journal of nursing studies. 2020;101:103396. pmid:31698168
  7. 7. Lee JY, Yang YS, Cho E. Transitional care from hospital to home for frail older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Geriatric Nursing. 2022;43:64–76. pmid:34823079
  8. 8. Raeisi A, Rarani MA, Soltani F. Challenges of patient handover process in healthcare services: a systematic review. Journal of Education and Health Promotion. 2019;8. pmid:31867358
  9. 9. Olino L, Gonçalves AdC, Strada JKR, Vieira LB, Machado MLP, Molina KL, et al. Effective communication for patient safety: transfer note and Modified Early Warning Score. Revista Gaucha de Enfermagem. 2019;40.
  10. 10. Schoen C, Osborn R, How SK, Doty MM, Peugh J. In Chronic Condition: Experiences Of Patients With Complex Health Care Needs, In Eight Countries, 2008: Chronically ill US patients have the most negative access, coordination, and safety experiences. Health affairs. 2008;27(Suppl1):w1–w16.
  11. 11. Ozavci G, Bucknall T, Woodward-Kron R, Hughes C, Jorm C, Joseph K, et al. A systematic review of older patients’ experiences and perceptions of communication about managing medication across transitions of care. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy. 2021;17(2):273–91. pmid:32299684
  12. 12. Coleman EA, Williams MV. Executing high‐quality care transitions: A call to do it right. Wiley Online Library; 2007. p. 287–90.
    • 13. Allen J, Hutchinson AM, Brown R, Livingston PM. Quality care outcomes following transitional care interventions for older people from hospital to home: a systematic review. BMC health services research. 2014;14(1):1–18. pmid:25128468
    • 14. Miller EA. Protecting and improving the lives of older adults in the COVID-19 era. Journal of aging & social policy. 2020;32(4–5):297–309. pmid:32583751
    • 15. Tomlinson J, Cheong V-L, Fylan B, Silcock J, Smith H, Karban K, et al. Successful care transitions for older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of interventions that support medication continuity. Age and ageing. 2020;49(4):558–69. pmid:32043116
    • 16. Laugaland K, Aase K, Barach P. Interventions to improve patient safety in transitional care–a review of the evidence. Work (Reading, Mass). 2012;41(Supplement 1):2915–24. pmid:22317162
    • 17. Mistiaen P, Francke AL, Poot E. Interventions aimed at reducing problems in adult patients discharged from hospital to home: a systematic meta-review. BMC health services research. 2007;7(1):1–19. pmid:17408472
    • 18. Hestevik CH, Molin M, Debesay J, Bergland A, Bye A. Older persons’ experiences of adapting to daily life at home after hospital discharge: a qualitative metasummary. BMC health services research. 2019;19(1):1–13.
    • 19. Andreasen J, Lund H, Aadahl M, Sørensen EE. The experience of daily life of acutely admitted frail elderly patients one week after discharge from the hospital. International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being. 2015;10(1):27370. pmid:26037333
    • 20. Larson E, Sharma J, Bohren MA, Tunçalp Ö. When the patient is the expert: measuring patient experience and satisfaction with care. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2019;97(8):563. pmid:31384074
    • 21. Bastemeijer CM, Boosman H, van Ewijk H, Verweij LM, Voogt L, Hazelzet JA. Patient experiences: a systematic review of quality improvement interventions in a hospital setting. Patient related outcome measures. 2019:157–69. pmid:31191062
    • 22. Junewicz A, Youngner SJ. Patient‐Satisfaction Surveys on a Scale of 0 to 10: Improving Health Care, or Leading It Astray? Hastings Center Report. 2015;45(3):43–51. pmid:25753653
    • 23. Tzelepis F, Sanson-Fisher RW, Zucca AC, Fradgley EA. Measuring the quality of patient-centered care: why patient-reported measures are critical to reliable assessment. Patient preference and adherence. 2015:831–5. pmid:26150703
    • 24. Fudge N, Wolfe C, McKevitt C. Involving older people in health research. Age and Ageing. 2007;36(5):492–500. pmid:17395618
    • 25. Burke RE, Canamucio A, Glorioso TJ, Barón AE, Ryskina KL. Variability in transitional care outcomes across hospitals discharging veterans to skilled nursing facilities. Medical Care. 2020;58(4):301–6. pmid:31895308
    • 26. Lenaghan NA. Transitional care and empowerment of the older adult. Geriatric nursing. 2019;40(2):148–53. pmid:30173938
    • 27. Kokorelias KM, Nelson ML, Tang T, Gray CS, Ellen M, Plett D, et al. Inclusion of Older Adults in Digital Health Technologies to Support Hospital-to-Home Transitions: Secondary Analysis of a Rapid Review and Equity-Informed Recommendations. JMIR aging. 2022;5(2):e35925. pmid:35475971
    • 28. Flores-Flores O, Gallo JJ. One size does not fit all. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. 2022;30(7):848–9. pmid:35577654
    • 29. Wilson-Stronks A, Lee KK, Cordero CL, Kopp AL, Galvez E. One size does not fit all: Meeting the health care needs of diverse populations: Joint Commission Oakbrook Terrace, IL; 2008.
      • 30. Sakaguchi-Tang DK, Cunningham JL, Roldan W, Yip J, Kientz JA. Co-design with older adults: examining and reflecting on collaboration with aging communities. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction. 2021;5(CSCW2):1–28.
      • 31. Kraun L, van Achterberg T, Vlaeyen E, Fret B, Briké SM, Ellen M, et al. Transitional care decision‐making through the eyes of older people and informal caregivers: An in‐depth interview‐based study. Health Expectations. 2023. pmid:36919194
      • 32. Georgiadis A, Corrigan O. The experience of transitional care for non-medically complex older adults and their family caregivers. Global Qualitative Nursing Research. 2017;4:2333393617696687. pmid:28462358
      • 33. Hung D, Leidig RC. Implementing a transitional care program to reduce hospital readmissions among older adults. Journal of Nursing Care Quality. 2015;30(2):121–9. pmid:25485791
      • 34. Allen J, Hutchinson AM, Brown R, Livingston PM. User experience and care integration in transitional care for older people from hospital to home: a meta-synthesis. Qualitative health research. 2017;27(1):24–36. pmid:27469975
      • 35. Graham CL, Ivey SL, Neuhauser L. From hospital to home: Assessing the transitional care needs of vulnerable seniors. The Gerontologist. 2009;49(1):23–33. pmid:19363001
      • 36. Erlang AS, Schjødt K, Linde JKS, Jensen AL. An observational study of older patients’ experiences of involvement in discharge planning. Geriatric Nursing. 2021;42(4):855–62. pmid:34090231
      • 37. Schick-Makaroff K, Karimi-Dehkordi M, Cuthbertson L, Dixon D, Cohen SR, Hilliard N, et al. Using Patient-and Family-Reported outcome and experience measures across transitions of care for frail older adults living at home: a Meta-Narrative synthesis. The Gerontologist. 2021;61(3):e23–e38. pmid:31942997
      • 38. Manini T. Development of physical disability in older adults. Current aging science. 2011;4(3):184–91. pmid:21529321
      • 39. Ellis C, Urban S. Age and aphasia: a review of presence, type, recovery and clinical outcomes. Topics in stroke rehabilitation. 2016;23(6):430–9. pmid:26916396
      • 40. Shukla A, Nieman CL, Price C, Harper M, Lin FR, Reed NS. Impact of hearing loss on patient–provider communication among hospitalized patients: a systematic review. American Journal of Medical Quality. 2019;34(3):284–92. pmid:30196712
      • 41. Carmeli E, Patish H, Coleman R. The aging hand. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences. 2003;58(2):M146–M52. pmid:12586852
      • 42. Hubbard G, Downs MG, Tester S. Including older people with dementia in research: challenges and strategies. Aging & mental health. 2003;7(5):351–62. pmid:12959804
      • 43. Ferrucci L, Guralnik JM, Studenski S, Fried LP, Cutler GB Jr, Walston JD, et al. Designing randomized, controlled trials aimed at preventing or delaying functional decline and disability in frail, older persons: a consensus report. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2004;52(4):625–34. pmid:15066083
      • 44. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International journal of social research methodology. 2005;8(1):19–32.
      • 45. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’brien K, Colquhoun H, Kastner M, et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC medical research methodology. 2016;16:1–10.
      • 46. Peters MD, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI evidence synthesis. 2020;18(10):2119–26. pmid:33038124
      • 47. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic reviews. 2015;4(1):1–9. pmid:25554246
      • 48. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of internal medicine. 2018;169(7):467–73. pmid:30178033
      • 49. Research CIoH. Gender-based analysis plus (GBAþ) 2019. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/50968.html.
        • 50. Doull M, Runnels VE, Tudiver S, Boscoe M. Appraising the evidence: applying sex-and gender-based analysis (SGBA) to Cochrane systematic reviews on cardiovascular diseases. Journal of Women’s Health. 2010;19(5):997–1003. pmid:20384450
        • 51. Brabete AC, Greaves L, Maximos M, Huber E, Li A, Lê M-L. A sex-and gender-based analysis of adverse drug reactions: A scoping review of pharmacovigilance databases. Pharmaceuticals. 2022;15(3):298. pmid:35337096
        • 52. Subirana-Malaret M, Gahagan J, Parker R. Intersectionality and sex and gender-based analyses as promising approaches in addressing intimate partner violence treatment programs among LGBT couples: A scoping review. Cogent Social Sciences. 2019;5(1):1644982.
        • 53. Gahagan J, Bryson MK. Sex-and gender-based analysis in public health: Springer; 2021.
          • 54. Hankivsky O, Mussell L. Gender-based analysis plus in Canada: Problems and possibilities of integrating intersectionality. Canadian Public Policy. 2018;44(4):303–16.
          • 55. Cameron A, Tedds LM. Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+) and Intersectionality: Overview, an Enhanced Framework, and a British Columbia Case Study. Available at SSRN 3781905. 2020.
            • 56. Linden M. Definition and assessment of disability in mental disorders under the perspective of the International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health (ICF). Behavioral sciences & the law. 2017;35(2):124–34. pmid:28295575
            • 57. McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2016;75:40–6.
            • 58. Bramer WM, Giustini D, de Jonge GB, Holland L, Bekhuis T. De-duplication of database search results for systematic reviews in EndNote. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA. 2016;104(3):240. pmid:27366130
            • 59. Bramer WM, Milic J, Mast F. Reviewing retrieved references for inclusion in systematic reviews using EndNote. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA. 2017;105(1):84. pmid:28096751
            • 60. Macdonald M, Misener RM, Weeks L, Helwig M. Covidence vs Excel for the title and abstract review stage of a systematic review. International Journal of Evidence-based Healthcare. 2016;14(4):200–1.
            • 61. Babineau J. Product review: covidence (systematic review software). Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association/Journal de l’Association des bibliothèques de la santé du Canada. 2014;35(2):68–71.
            • 62. Anderson PF, Booth A. Question Frameworks. Piecing Together Systematic Reviews and Other Evidence Syntheses: A Guide for Librarians. 2022:45.
            • 63. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation science. 2010;5(1):1–9. pmid:20854677
            • 64. Peters MD, Godfrey CM, McInerney P, Soares CB, Khalil H, Parker D. The Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers’ manual 2015: methodology for JBI scoping reviews. 2015.
              • 65. Lindgren B-M, Lundman B, Graneheim UH. Abstraction and interpretation during the qualitative content analysis process. International journal of nursing studies. 2020;108:103632. pmid:32505813
              • 66. Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative health research. 2005;15(9):1277–88. pmid:16204405
              • 67. Pollock D, Peters MD, Khalil H, McInerney P, Alexander L, Tricco AC, et al. Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews. JBI evidence synthesis. 2023;21(3):520–32. pmid:36081365
              • 68. Beekhuyzen J. Putting the pieces of the puzzle together: Using Nvivo for a literature review. Proceedings of QualIT2007: Qualitative Research, From the Margins to the Mainstream, Wellington, New Zealand, Victoria University of Wellington. 2007:18–20.
                • 69. Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC medical research methodology. 2008;8(1):1–10. pmid:18616818