Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31494613›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

The use of the environmental scan in health services delivery research: a scoping review protocol.

Patricia Charlton, Shelley Doucet, Rima Azar, Daniel A Nagel, Leah Boulos, Alison Luke, Kim Mears, Katherine J Kelly, William J Montelpare

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

66 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. A four-phase framework for culturally responsive vaccine messaging.Health psychology and behavioral medicine · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Patricia CharltonAdjunct Faculty, Faculty of Nursing, University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4397-1419
Shelley DoucetDepartment of Nursing and Health Sciences, University of New Brunswick, Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada.
Rima AzarDepartment of Psychology, Mount Allison University, Sackville, New Brunswick, Canada.
Daniel A NagelDepartment of Nursing and Health Sciences, University of New Brunswick, Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada.
Leah BoulosMaritime SPOR SUPPORT Unit, Halifax, Canada.
Alison LukeDepartment of Nursing and Health Sciences, University of New Brunswick, Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada.
Kim MearsRobertson Library, University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada.
Katherine J KellyPhD Student, Interdisciplinary Studies, University of New Brunswick, Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada.
William J MontelpareDepartment of Applied Human Sciences, University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada.

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe environmental scan has been described as an important tool to inform decision-making on policy, planning and programme development in the healthcare sector. Despite the wide adoption of environmental scans, there is no consensus on a working definition within the health services delivery context and methodological guidance on the design and implementation of this approach is lacking in the literature. The objectives of this study are to map the extent, range and nature of evidence that describe the definitions, characteristics, conceptualisations, theoretical underpinnings, study limitations and other features of the environmental scan in the health services delivery literature and to propose a working definition specific to this context. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol describes a scoping review based on the methodology outlined by Khalil and colleagues. A comprehensive search strategy was developed by experienced health science librarians in consultation with the research team. A Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) was completed. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts and full-text articles and select studies meeting the inclusion criteria from seven electronic databases: Academic Search Premier, Canadian Business & Current Affairs (CBCA), CINAHL, ERIC, Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. The grey literature and reference lists of included articles will also be searched. The data will be analysed and presented in tabular format, and will include a descriptive numerical summary as well as a qualitative thematic analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol provides an audit trail for a scoping review that will advance understanding about the environmental scan and its application in the health services delivery context. The review will propose a working definition and will inform future research to explore the development of a conceptual framework in this context. Findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations. The scoping review does not require ethics approval.

Indexed as

Health PolicyHealth Services Needs and DemandHealth Services ResearchHumansOrganizational InnovationPolicy MakingPoliticsPrimary Health CareResearch DesignScoping Reviews as Topicenvironmental scanhealth carehealth services deliveryprotocolscoping review

Identifiers

PMID31494613
PMCPMC6731933

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.