Skip to content
EvidenceHelixEvidenceLib · Scientific Encyclopedia
⌘ K

Scientific library

EvidenceLib encyclopediaAll articles A–Z2,835
Books209
All textbooksMedical textbooksHuman anatomyOrganisms & biodiversityOther sciences
Open-access articles1,406Cancer study catalog458How it is made

My workspace this browser

Saved pages0Notes & annotations0

Recently viewed

Explore by field

Cancer and Oncology182Genetics and Genomics170Neuroscience185Cardiovascular Medicine180Immunology142Pharmacology173Molecular Biology161Infectious Diseases150Rare and Inherited Diseases181Clinical Research173Anatomy and Physiology613Drugs and Chemicals621Psychiatry and Psychology185Public Health and Nutrition178Diagnostics and Medical Technology125Respiratory Medicine113Digestive System and Liver91Metabolism and Endocrine Disease177Bones, Joints, Muscles and Skin213Kidney, Urology and Women's Health173Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat55
Plans & pricingCompare EvidenceHelix workspace plans
Library›Open textbooks›Synthesis for health services and policy: case studies in the scoping of reviews›References

Continue where you left off ()

GO BEYOND THE PAGEReading is just the beginning.

Turn scientific reading into research. Compare studies, examine evidence, and organize your findings in EvidenceHelix Workspace.

Explore Research Workspace →

Synthesis for health services and policy: case studies in the scoping of reviews · References

References

CC BY 4.0 · NIHR Journals Library · approximately 7 min read

  1. PetticrewM, RobertsH. Starting the Review: Refining the Question and Defining the Boundaries. In PetticrewM, RobertsH, editors. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Oxford: Wiley; 2006. pp. 27–57.
  2. CherryM, DicksonR. Defining My Review Question and Identifying Inclusion Criteria. In CherryM, DicksonR, editors. Doing a Systematic Review: A Student’s Guide. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2014. pp. 43–59.
  3. OliverS, DicksonK, BangpanM, NewmanM. Getting Started With a Review. In GoughD, OliverS, ThomasJ, editors. An Introduction to Systematic Reviews. 2nd edn. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2017. pp. 71–91.
  4. BoothA, ClarkeM, GhersiD, MoherD, PetticrewM, StewartL. An international registry of systematic-review protocols. Lancet2011;377:108–9. 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60903-820630580
  5. NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research Programme. Specification Document 16/47 – Call for Expressions of Interest: Production of Evidence Syntheses for the HS&DR Programme (May 2016). 2016. URL: https://njl-admin.nihr.ac.uk/document/download/2026058 (accessed 16 June 2021).
  6. BolandA, CherryM, DicksonR. Doing a Systematic Review: A Student’s Guide. 2nd edn. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2017.
  7. BoothA, SuttonA, PapaioannouD. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2016.
  8. HigginsJPT, ThomasJ, ChandlerJ, CumpstonM, LiT, PageMJ, et al.Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2nd edn. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2019. 10.1002/9781119536604
  9. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic Reviews. CRD’s Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Healthcare. York: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York; 2009.
  10. GoughD, OliverS, ThomasJ. An Introduction to Systematic Reviews. 2nd edn. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2017.
  11. ChambersD, BoothA, RodgersM, PrestonL, DaltonJ, GoyderE, et al.Evidence to support delivery of effective health services: a responsive programme of rapid evidence synthesis. Evid Policy2020;17:173–87. 10.1332/174426419X15468574223221
  12. OliverK, InnvarS, LorencT, WoodmanJ, ThomasJ. A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res2014;14:2. 10.1186/1472-6963-14-224383766
  13. OliverS, DicksonK, BangpanM. Systematic Reviews: Making Them Policy Relevant. A Briefing for Policy Makers and Systematic Reviewers. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University College London; 2015.
  14. BoothA, NoyesJ, FlemmingK, GerhardusA, WahlsterP, Van Der WiltGJ, et al.Guidance on Choosing Qualitative Evidence Synthesis Methods for Use in Health Technology Assessments of Complex Interventions. 2016. URL: www.integrate-hta.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Guidance-on-choosing-qualitative-evidence-synthesis-methods-for-use-in-HTA-of-complex-interventions.pdf (accessed 16 June 2021).
  15. BoothA, NoyesJ, FlemmingK, GerhardusA, WahlsterP, van der WiltGJ, et al.Structured methodology review identified seven (RETREAT) criteria for selecting qualitative evidence synthesis approaches. J Clin Epidemiol2018;99:41–52. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.03.00329548841
  16. Great Britain. Mental Health Act 1983. London: The Stationery Office; 1983.
  17. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Digital-First Primary Care: A Rapid Evidence Synthesis Initial Scoping Work and Protocol. 2018. URL: www.york.ac.uk/media/crd/Protocol-digital-primary-care.pdf (accessed 11 February 2021).
  18. RodgersM, RaineG, ThomasS, HardenM, EastwoodA. Informing NHS policy in ‘digital-first primary care’: a rapid evidence synthesis. Health Serv Deliv Res2019;7(41). 10.3310/hsdr07410
  19. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Evidence Summary – Digital-First Primary Care: A Rapid Responsive Evidence Synthesis. 2020. URL: www.york.ac.uk/media/crd/Evidence-summary-digital-primary-care.pdf (accessed 15 October 2020).
  20. ShawL, NunnsM, BriscoeS, Thompson-CoonJ, AndersonR. The Experiences of Services Users, Family Members, Carers and Professionals of the Use of the ‘Nearest Relative’ Provisions in the Compulsory Detention and Ongoing Care of People Under the Mental Health Act: A Rapid Systematic Review. 2018. URL: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42018088237 (accessed 11 February 2021).
  21. Mental Health Alliance. A Mental Health Act Fit for Tomorrow: An Agenda for Reform. 2017. URL: https://www.rethink.org/media/2594/a-mental-health-act-fit-for-tomorrow.pdf (accessed 21 June 2020).
  22. Great Britain. Human Rights Act 1998. London: The Stationery Office; 1998.
  23. ShawL, NunnsM, BriscoeS, AndersonR, Thompson CoonJ. Experiences of the ‘nearest relative’ provisions in the compulsory detention of people under the Mental Health Act: a rapid systematic review. Health Serv Deliv Res2018;6(39). 10.3310/hsdr06390
  24. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Regulating and Inspecting Integrated Health and Social Care in the UK: Scoping the Literature [Review Protocol]. 2020. URL: www.york.ac.uk/media/crd/Protocol-reg-inspec-integrated-care.pdf (accessed 11 February 2021).
  25. RodgersM, RaineG, HardenM, EastwoodA. Regulating and Inspecting Integrated Health and Social Care in the UK: Scoping the Literature. Southampton: National Institute for Health Research; 2020. 10.3310/hsdr-tr-131078
  26. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Evidence Summary – Regulating and Inspecting Integrated Health and Social Care in the UK: Scoping the Literature. 2020. URL: www.york.ac.uk/media/crd/Evidence-summary-regulating-integrated-care.pdf (accessed 15 October 2020).
  27. BoothA, HockE, PrestonL, UttleyL. Social Care Access for Adult BAME and LGBT+ Populations: A Rapid Realist Review. Southampton: National Institute for Health Research; 2021. 10.3310/hsdr-tr-130866
  28. James Lind Alliance. Adult Social Work Top 10. URL: www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/priority-setting-partnerships/adult-social-work/top-10-priorities.htm (accessed 16 June 2021).
  29. FordJA, WongG, JonesAP, SteelN. Access to primary care for socioeconomically disadvantaged older people in rural areas: a realist review. BMJ Open2016;6:e010652. 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010652
  30. Great Britain. Equality Act 2010. London: The Stationery Office; 2010.
  31. Dixon-WoodsM, CaversD, AgarwalS, AnnandaleE, ArthurA, HarveyJ, et al.Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Med Res Methodol2006;6:35. 10.1186/1471-2288-6-3516872487
  32. ThorlbyR, StarlingA, TurtinC, WattT. NHS at 70: What’s the Problem with Social Care, and Why Do We Need To Do Better? London: The Health Foundation; 2018.
  33. SaulJE, WillisCD, BitzJ, BestA. A time-responsive tool for informing policy making: rapid realist review. Implement Sci2013;8:103. 10.1186/1748-5908-8-10324007206
  34. Dixon-WoodsM, AgarwalS, JonesD, YoungB, SuttonA. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Policy2005;10:45–53. 10.1177/13558196050100011015667704
  35. AndersonR, PriceA, AhujaL, BramwellC, BriscoeS, ShawL, et al.Strategies for Fostering a Strengths-Based Approach Within Adult Social Work: A Systematic Review of Effectiveness and Implementation Studies. 2020. URL: https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR130867 (accessed 11 February 2021).
  36. Great Britain. Care Act 2014. London: The Stationery Office; 2014.
  37. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Evidence for Strengths and Asset-Based Outcomes: A Quick Guide for Social Workers. URL: www.nice.org.uk/about/nice-communities/social-care/quick-guides/evidence-for-strengths-and-asset-based-outcomes (accessed 16 June 2021).
  38. NunnsM, ShawL, BriscoeS, Thompson CoonJ, AndersonR. What is the Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Hospital-Based Multi-Component Strategies to Reduce the Length of Stay of Planned Inpatient Admissions of Older Adults? 2017. URL: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017080637 (accessed 11 February 2021).
  39. NunnsM, ShawL, BriscoeS, Thompson CoonJ, HemsleyA, McGrathJS, et al.Multicomponent hospital-led interventions to reduce hospital stay for older adults following elective surgery: a systematic review. Health Serv Deliv Res2019;7(40). 10.3310/hsdr07400
  40. Nuffield Trust. Reducing Length of Stay. London: Nuffield Trust; 2014.
  41. Medical Research Council. Developing and Evaluating Complex Interventions. London: Medical Research Council; 2006.
  42. ERAS Society. List of Guidelines. URL: http://erassociety.org/guidelines/list-of-guidelines/ (accessed 18 September 2018).
  43. LewinS, HendryM, ChandlerJ, OxmanA, MichieS, ShepperdS, et al.Guidance for Using the iCAT_SR: Intervention Complexity Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews. 2016. URL: https://methods.cochrane.org/sites/default/files/public/uploads/icat_sr_additional_file_4_2016_12_27.pdf (accessed 16 June 2021).
  44. ChambersD, CantrellA, BoothA. Implementation of interventions to reduce preventable hospital admissions for cardiovascular or respiratory conditions: an evidence map and realist synthesis. Health Serv Deliv Res2020;8(2). 10.3310/hsdr08020
  45. PurdyS, ParanjothyS, HuntleyA, ThomasRL, MannMK, HuwsDW, et al.Interventions to Reduce Unplanned Hospital Admission: A Series of Systematic Reviews. Bristol: University of Bristol; 2012.
  46. CantrellA, CrootE, JohnsonM, WongR, ChambersD, BaxterSK, et al.Access to primary and community health-care services for people 16 years and over with intellectual disabilities: a mapping and targeted systematic review. Health Serv Deliv Res2020;8(5). 10.3310/hsdr08050
  47. AlborzA, McNallyR, GlendinningC. Access to health care for people with learning disabilities in the UK: mapping the issues and reviewing the evidence. J Health Serv Res Policy2005;10:173–82. 10.1258/135581905433899716053595
  48. AlborzA, McNallyR. Developing methods for systematic reviewing in health services delivery and organization: an example from a review of access to health care for people with learning disabilities. Part 2. Evaluation of the literature – a practical guide. Health Info Libr J2004;21:227–36.15606880
  49. AlborzA, McNallyR, SwallowA, GlendinningC. From the Cradle to the Grave: A Literature Review of Access to Health Care for People with Learning Disabilities Across the Lifespan. 2003. URL: https://njl-admin.nihr.ac.uk (accessed 16 June 2021).
  50. McNallyR, AlborzA. Developing methods for systematic reviewing in health services delivery and organization: an example from a review of access to health care for people with learning disabilities. Part 1. Identifying the literature. Health Info Libr J2004;21:182–92. 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2004.00512.x15318916
  51. Rebelo Da SilvaN, ZaranyikaH, LangerL, RandallN, MuchiriE, StewartR. Making the most of what we already know: a three-stage approach to systematic reviewing. Eval Rev2017;41:155–72. 10.1177/0193841X1666636327600770
  52. BaxterS, JohnsonM, ChambersD, SuttonA, GoyderE, BoothA. Towards greater understanding of implementation during systematic reviews of complex healthcare interventions: the framework for implementation transferability applicability reporting (FITAR). BMC Med Res Methodol2019;19:80. 10.1186/s12874-019-0723-y30999848
  53. Munthe-KaasH, NøklebyH, LewinS, GlentonC. The TRANSFER approach for assessing the transferability of systematic review findings. BMC Med Res Methodol2020;20:11. 10.1186/s12874-019-0834-531952495
  54. DervinB. Sense-making theory and practice: an overview of user interests in knowledge seeking and use. J Knowl Manag1998;2:36–46. 10.1108/13673279810249369
  55. MartinS. Co-production of social research: strategies for engaged scholarship. Public Money Manage2010;30:211–18. 10.1080/09540962.2010.492180
  56. Vindrola-PadrosC, EyreL, BaxterH, CramerH, GeorgeB, WyeL, et al.Addressing the challenges of knowledge co-production in quality improvement: learning from the implementation of the researcher-in-residence model. BMJ Qual Saf2019;28:67–73. 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007127
  57. MarshallM, PagelC, FrenchC, UtleyM, AllwoodD, FulopN, et al.Moving improvement research closer to practice: the researcher-in-residence model. BMJ Qual Saf2014;23:801–5. 10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002779
  58. ChambersD, BoothA, RodgersM, PrestonL, BaxterS, DaltonJ, et al.NIHR HS&DR Evidence Synthesis Centres: Achievements and Learning From the First Three Year Programme, 2014–17. Southampton: NIHR Journals Library; 2017.
  59. GodboldN. Beyond information seeking: towards a general model of information behaviour. Inform Res2006;11.
  60. CooperC. Improving Literature Searching in Systematic Reviews: The Application of Tailored Literature Searching Compared to ‘the Conventional Approach’. PhD thesis. Exeter: University of Exeter; 2019.
  61. DonnellyCA, BoydI, CampbellP, CraigC, VallanceP, WalportM, et al.Four principles to make evidence synthesis more useful for policy. Nature2018;558:361–4. 10.1038/d41586-018-05414-429925978
  62. MooreG, RedmanS, ButowP, HaynesA. Deconstructing knowledge brokering for commissioned rapid reviews: an observational study. Health Res Policy Syst2018;16:120. 10.1186/s12961-018-0389-730541561
  63. BohlinI. Formalizing syntheses of medical knowledge: the rise of meta-analysis and systematic reviews. Perspect Sci2012;20:273–309. 10.1162/POSC_a_00075
  64. SagerM, PistoneI. Mismatches in the production of a scoping review: highlighting the interplay of (in)formalities. J Eval Clin Pract2019;25:930–7. 10.1111/jep.1325131368185
  65. GreenhalghT. How to Implement Evidence-Based Healthcare. Oxford: Wiley; 2018.
  66. KellyMP, NoyesJ, KaneRL, ChangC, UhlS, RobinsonKA, et al.AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews-paper 2: defining complexity, formulating scope, and questions. J Clin Epidemiol2017;90:11–18. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.01228720514
  67. PetticrewM, RehfuessE, NoyesJ, HigginsJP, MayhewA, PantojaT, et al.Synthesizing evidence on complex interventions: how meta-analytical, qualitative, and mixed-method approaches can contribute. J Clin Epidemiol2013;66:1230–43. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.06.00523953082
  68. SquiresJE, ValentineJC, GrimshawJM. Systematic reviews of complex interventions: framing the review question. J Clin Epidemiol2013;66:1215–22. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.05.01323953086
  69. PriceA, AhujaL, BramwellC, BriscoeS, ShawL, NunnsM, et al.Research Evidence on Different Strengths-Based Approaches Within Adult Social Work: A Systematic Review. Southampton: National Institute for Health Research; 2020. 10.3310/hsdr-tr-130867
← ConclusionsAcknowledgements →

Attribution. Rob Anderson; Andrew Booth; Alison Eastwood; Mark Rodgers; Liz Shaw; Jo Thompson Coon et al. (2021). Synthesis for health services and policy: case studies in the scoping of reviews. NIHR Journals Library. Copyright © 2021 Anderson et al. This work was produced by Anderson et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. This is an Open Access publication distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 4.0 licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaption in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. For attribution the title, original author(s), the publication source – NIHR Journals Library, and the DOI of the publication must be cited. Licensed under CC BY 4.0. NCBI Bookshelf NBK573412. CC BY 4.0. Original source ↗. Text reproduced from the Bookshelf XML without changing wording; figures, images and supplements are not reproduced.

In this chapter Contents

  • References

Source

OpenStax source file ↗

Source record ↗

EvidenceLib is a research-education resource, not medical advice. It does not diagnose, prescribe or recommend starting, stopping or changing any treatment. Talk to a qualified clinician about your own situation. Methods, sources and licences · Rights and removal requests · Legal · Support