Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39978961›Full record

ArticleAustralian occupational therapy journal2025

Advancing occupational therapy scoping reviews: Recommendations to enhance quality and methodological rigour.

Ted Brown, Louise Gustafsson, Carol McKinstry, Luke Robinson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Australian occupational therapy journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Rights-Based Involvement of People With Lived Experience in Pre-Registration Occupational Therapy Education: A Scoping Review Protocol.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

4 authors.

Ted BrownDepartment of Occupational Therapy, School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University - Peninsula Campus, Frankston, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9403-5877
Louise GustafssonDiscipline of Occupational Therapy, School of Health Sciences and Social Work, Griffith University - Nathan Campus, Nathan, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5232-0987
Carol McKinstryDiscipline of Occupational Therapy, La Trobe Rural Health School, La Trobe University, Bendigo, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6383-6313
Luke RobinsonDepartment of Occupational Therapy, School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University - Peninsula Campus, Frankston, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4449-7357

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionScoping reviews are an increasingly popular methodological approach to collate evidence and synthesise knowledge in many fields including occupational therapy. However, many are published with potential methodological weaknesses. To address this issue, nine methodological recommendations that authors could adopt to improve the quality and rigour of published scoping reviews are proposed based on the authors' opinions and the published evidence. OVERVIEW: It is suggested that when authors are completing a scoping review, they can consider completing one or more of the following methodological guidelines: (1) refer to the Levac et al.'s (2010) scoping review recommendations, the JBI Scoping Review Protocol, and the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist as methodological guides; (2) include grey literature as a standard component search strategy approach; (3) include thesis and dissertations as recognised sources of evidence; (4) apply a recognised research methodology critical appraisal/quality assessment tools and scales to evidence selected for inclusion in scoping reviews; (5) assign a level of evidence (LoE) framework to the selected evidence; (6) apply a recognised qualitative knowledge syntheses approach to the data extracted; (7) report the steps taken to ensure the trustworthiness of the qualitative knowledge synthesis approach used; (8) include consumer, stakeholder and community consultation; and (9) apply a scoping review-specific critical appraisal/quality assessment tool as a quality assurance activity. The authors are not proposing that the nine recommendations are mandatory, but instead they are methodological guidelines that scoping review authors can incorporate if they choose. CONSUMER AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: Consumers and community members were not involved in the writing of the manuscript.

conclusionAdopting the suggested methodological recommendations as a regular part of completing occupational therapy-related scoping reviews will increase their quality, precision, and rigour.

Indexed as

Occupational TherapyResearch DesignHumansScoping Reviews as Topiccritical appraisalmethodologyoccupational therapyresearchscoping reviews

Identifiers

PMID39978961
PMCPMC11842175

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.