The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Moving from consultation to co-creation with knowledge users in scoping reviews: guidance from the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group
Abstract
Knowledge user consultation is often limited or omitted in the conduct of scoping reviews. Not including knowledge users within the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews could be due to a lack of guidance or understanding about what consultation requires and the subsequent benefits. Knowledge user engagement in evidence synthesis, including consultation approaches, has many associated benefits, including improved relevance of the research and better dissemination and implementation of research findings. Scoping reviews, however, have not been specifically focused on in terms of research into knowledge user consultation and evidence syntheses. In this paper, we will present JBI's guidance for knowledge user engagement in scoping reviews based on the expert opinion of the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group. We offer specific guidance on how this can occur and provide information regarding how to report and evaluate knowledge user engagement within scoping reviews. We believe that scoping review authors should embed knowledge user engagement into all scoping reviews and strive towards a co-creation model.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Additional guidance [26] has been provided on how to manage challenges in the conduct of ScR [23,26], how to manage the conduct of large ScRs [26,27], engaging with interest-holders of ScRs (eg, health-care providers, policy-makers, and patient partners) [25,26], the use of ScRs in identifying research priorities [26,28], reducing research waste [26,29], and guideline development [3,26].”
From Updating the PRISMA reporting guideline for scoping reviews: a scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [25]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“Involving diverse interest-holders at each stage of the ScR process can strengthen the development of a reporting guideline to serve the needs of a broad range of end users, potentially increasing the uptake of the guideline [20,25].”
From Updating the PRISMA reporting guideline for scoping reviews: a scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [25]
In the citing paper
“Pollock et al [25] also presented JBI guidance for interestholder engagement in ScRs.”
From Updating the PRISMA reporting guideline for scoping reviews: a scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [25]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., et al. (2018) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m18-0850 · Cited by 43,565
Self-citationScoping studies: towards a methodological framework
Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005) · International Journal of Social Research Methodology · doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616 · Cited by 36,742
Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x · Cited by 11,385
Self-citationUpdated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews
Peters, M. D. J., Marnie, C., Tricco, A. C., Pollock, D., Munn, Z., Alexander, L., McInerney, P., Godfrey, C. M., & Khalil, H. (2020) · JBI Evidence Synthesis · doi:10.11124/jbies-20-00167 · Cited by 9,046
Self-citationA scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K., Colquhoun, H., Kastner, M., Levac, D., Ng, C., Sharpe, J. P., Wilson, K., et al. (2016) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4 · Cited by 2,250 · cited 1×
“A scoping review exploring the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews found that 14% (n1⁄484 documents) reported a process for including knowledge users in the conduct of scoping reviews.(8) There is a need to discuss the benefits, disadvantages, and process of knowledge user engagement within scoping reviews.”
BackgroundSelf-citationStaniszewska, S., Brett, J., Simera, I., Seers, K., Mockford, C., Goodlad, S., Altman, D. G., Moher, D., Barber, R., Denegri, S., et al. (2017) · Research Involvement and Engagement · doi:10.1186/s40900-017-0062-2 · Cited by 1,643 · cited 2×
“ct need to report the aim of engagement; need to provide a clear description of the approach and process; ways the use of engagement with knowledge users affected on the interpretation of results; extent to which engagement influenced the overall study; and reflection/critical perspective of how engagement went as a l…”
BackgroundMethodHarfield, S. G., Davy, C., McArthur, A., Munn, Z., Brown, A., & Brown, N. (2018) · Globalization and Health · doi:10.1186/s12992-018-0332-2 · Cited by 270
Self-citationStakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review
Pollock, A., Campbell, P., Struthers, C., Synnot, A., Nunn, J., Hill, S., Goodare, H., Morris, J., Watts, C., & Morley, R. (2018) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-018-0852-0 · Cited by 180
Self-citationTricco, A. C., Zarin, W., Rios, P., Nincic, V., Khan, P. A., Ghassemi, M., Diaz, S., Pham, B., Straus, S. E., & Langlois, E. V. (2018) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-018-0717-x · Cited by 100 · cited 1×
“Examples include lack of time, lack of expertise in the content area, lack of research skills, geographic distance, and willingness to participate.(35,37,38) These challenges are further exacerbated during times of urgent decision-making, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, where it can be difficult to identify patient par…”
BackgroundSelf-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 25
- Concannon, 2014, A systematic review of stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research, J Gen Intern Med, 29, 1692, 10.1007/s11606-014-2878-x · DOI
- Jordan, 2018, Redeveloping the JBI model of evidence based healthcare, JBI Evid Implement, 16, 227
- Cottrell, 2015, Defining the benefits and challenges of stakeholder engagement in systematic reviews, Comp Effect Res, 5, 13
- Pollock, 2019, Development of the ACTIVE framework to describe stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews, J Health Serv Res Policy, 24, 245, 10.1177/1355819619841647 · DOI
- Greenhalgh, 2016, Achieving research impact through co-creation in community-based health services: literature review and case study, Milbank Q, 94, 392, 10.1111/1468-0009.12197 · DOI · Paper page
- Redman, 2021, Co-production of knowledge: the future, BMJ, 372, n434, 10.1136/bmj.n434 · DOI
- Majid, 2020, The dimensions of tokenism in patient and family engagement: a concept analysis of the literature, J Patient Exp, 7, 1610, 10.1177/2374373520925268 · DOI
- Goodman, 2020, Reaching consensus on principles of stakeholder engagement in research, Prog Community Health Partnersh, 14, 117, 10.1353/cpr.2020.0014 · DOI
- Peters, 2020, Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews (2020 version), JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis [internet]
- Levac, 2010, Scoping studies: advancing the methodology, Implement Sci, 5, 69, 10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 · DOI · Paper page
- Concannon, 2019, Practical guidance for involving stakeholders in health research, J Gen Intern Med, 34, 458, 10.1007/s11606-018-4738-6 · DOI
- Kaisler, 2020, Co-creating a patient and public involvement and engagement ‘how to’ guide for researchers, Res Involve Engage, 6, 32, 10.1186/s40900-020-00208-3 · DOI
- Morley, 2016, A systematic scoping review of the evidence for consumer involvement in organisations undertaking systematic reviews: focus on Cochrane, Res Involve Engage, 2, 36, 10.1186/s40900-016-0049-4 · DOI
- Pollock, 2017, Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a protocol for a systematic review of methods, outcomes and effects, Res Involve Engage, 3, 9, 10.1186/s40900-017-0060-4 · DOI
- Muir, 2020, Patient involvement in surgical wound care research: a scoping review, Int Wound J, 17, 1462, 10.1111/iwj.13395 · DOI
- Eales, 2017, Much at stake: the importance of training and capacity building for stakeholder engagement in evidence synthesis, Environ Evid, 6, 22, 10.1186/s13750-017-0101-3 · DOI
- Soobiah, 2019, Engaging knowledge users in a systematic review on the comparative effectiveness ofgeriatrician-led models of care is possible: a cross-sectional survey using the Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool, J Clin Epidemiol, 113, 58, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.05.015 · DOI
- Hamilton, 2018, Development and pre-testing of the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS) to assess the quality of engagement from a patient perspective, PLoS One, 13, e0206588-e, 10.1371/journal.pone.0206588 · DOI
- Tricco, 2022, Involvement in COVID-19 rapid evidence synthesis: training and supporting willing, enthusiastic patient/public partners [webinar], Evidence Synthesis Ireland
- Cooper, 2021, Health technologies for falls prevention and detection in adult hospital in-patients: a scoping review, JBI Evid Synth, 19, 2478, 10.11124/JBIES-20-00114 · DOI
- Maggio, 2021, Scoping reviews in medical education: a scoping review, Med Educ, 55, 689, 10.1111/medu.14431 · DOI
- Tricco, 2020, Rapid review methods more challenging during COVID-19: commentary with a focus on 8 knowledge synthesis steps, J Clin Epidemiol, 126, 177, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.06.029 · DOI
- Gagliardi, 2016, Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) in health care: a scoping review, Implement Sci, 11, 38
- Oliver, 2019, The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?, Health Res Policy Syst, 17, 33, 10.1186/s12961-019-0432-3 · DOI · Paper page
- Kothari, 2017, Integrated knowledge translation: digging deeper, moving forward, J Epidemiol Comm Health, 71, 619, 10.1136/jech-2016-208490 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Recommendations for the Extraction, Analysis, and Presentation of Results in Scoping Reviews
Pollock, D., Peters, M. D. J., Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Alexander, L., Tricco, A. C., Evans, C., de Moraes, É. B., Godfrey, C. M., Pieper, D., et al. (2023) · JBI Evidence Synthesis · doi:10.11124/jbies-22-00123 · Cited by 1,975
Self-citationUpdating the PRISMA reporting guideline for scoping reviews: a scoping review
Tricco, A. C., Robinson, E., Straus, S. E., Colquhoun, H., Godfrey, C. M., Moher, D., Munn, Z., Pollock, D., Logan, S., Elsman, E. B. M., et al. (2026) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2026.112314 · Cited by 9
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Pollock, D., Alexander, L., Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Khalil, H., Godfrey, C. M., McInerney, P., Synnot, A., & Tricco, A. C.
- Affiliations
- JBI, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia
- School of Health Sciences, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, UK
- University of South Australia, UniSA Clinical and Health Sciences, Rosemary Bryant AO Research Centre, Adelaide, SA, Australia
- School of Psychology and Public Health, Department of Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
- Queen's Collaboration for Health Care Quality: A JBI Centre of Excellence, School of Nursing, Queen's University Kingston, ON, Canada
- The Wits-JBI Centre for Evidence-Based Practice: A JBI Affiliated Group, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
- Centre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
- Venue
- JBI Evidence Synthesis
- Published
- 2022-04
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 969-979
- ISSN
- 2689-8381
- Cited by
- 182
- References
- 9
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Moving from consultation to co-creation with knowledge users in scoping reviews: guidance from the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.11124/jbies-21-00416
- The paper
- Pollock, D., Alexander, L., Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Khalil, H., Godfrey, C. M., McInerney, P., Synnot, A., & Tricco, A. C. (2022). Moving from consultation to co-creation with knowledge users in scoping reviews: guidance from the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group. JBI Evidence Synthesis. https://doi.org/10.11124/jbies-21-00416
