See the published version of this article at BMC Medical Research Methodology.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
How methodological frameworks are being developed: Evidence from a scoping review
Nicola McMeekin
University of Glasgow Institute of Health and Wellbeing
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2918-8820
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published version at BMC Medical Research Methodology.
Background
A methodological framework is a structured guide to completing a process or procedure. Although the benefits of using methodological frameworks are increasingly recognised, to date, there is no formal definition of what constitutes a ‘methodological framework’, nor is there any published guidance on how to develop one. This study’s aims are to: (a) map the existing landscape on the use of methodological frameworks; (b) identify approaches used for the development of methodological frameworks and terminology used; and (c) provide suggestions for developing future methodological frameworks. We took a broad view and did not limit our study to methodological frameworks in research and academia.
Methods
A scoping review was conducted, drawing on Arksey and O’Malley’s methods and more recent guidance. We systematically searched two major electronic databases (MEDLINE and Web of Science), as well as grey literature sources and the reference lists and citations of all relevant papers. Study characteristics and approaches used for development of methodological frameworks were extracted from included studies. Descriptive analysis was conducted.
Results
We included a total of 30 studies, representing a wide range of subject areas. The most commonly reported approach for developing a methodological framework was ‘Based on existing methods and guidelines’ (66.7%), followed by ‘Refined and validated’ (33.3%), ‘Experience and expertise’ (30.0%), ‘Literature review’ (26.7%), ‘Data synthesis and amalgamation’ (23.3%), ‘Data extraction’ (10.0%), ‘Iteratively developed’ (6.7%) and ‘Lab work results’ (3.3%). There was no consistent use of terminology; the studies included a range of terms for ‘methodological framework’, which were also used interchangeably within studies.
Conclusions
Although no formal guidance exists on how to develop a methodological framework, this scoping review found an overall consensus in approaches used, which can be broadly divided into three phases: (a) identifying data to inform the methodological framework; (b) developing the methodological framework; and (c) validating, testing and refining the methodological framework. Based on these phases, we provide suggestions to facilitate the development of future methodological frameworks.
Keywords
Methodological framework, scoping review, framework, methodology
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
Version 4
Posted 23 Jun, 2020
Published
On 30 Jun, 2020
No community comments so far
Submission checks complete
On 22 Jun, 2020
Editorial decision: Accept
On 22 Jun, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 18 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 16 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 15 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 15 Jun, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 08 Jun, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 29 May, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 29 May, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 23 May, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 02 May, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 30 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 30 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 30 Apr, 2020
Editor assigned
On 29 Apr, 2020
Editor invited
On 28 Apr, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 26 Jun, 2019
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 11 Mar, 2020
Review #4 received
Received 03 Mar, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 03 Mar, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 13 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #4 agreed
On 05 Feb, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 04 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 02 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 30 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 14 Jan, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 27 Aug, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 26 Jun, 2019
Editor invited
On 26 Jun, 2019
Editor assigned
On 26 Jun, 2019
First submitted
On 20 Jun, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Health Economics & Outcomes Research
Learn more about our company.
This preprint is under consideration at BMC Medical Research Methodology. A preprint is a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
How methodological frameworks are being developed: Evidence from a scoping review
Nicola McMeekin
University of Glasgow Institute of Health and Wellbeing
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2918-8820
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
Version 4
Posted 23 Jun, 2020
Published
On 30 Jun, 2020
No community comments so far
Submission checks complete
On 22 Jun, 2020
Editorial decision: Accept
On 22 Jun, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 18 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 16 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 15 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 15 Jun, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 08 Jun, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 29 May, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 29 May, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 23 May, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 02 May, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 30 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 30 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 30 Apr, 2020
Editor assigned
On 29 Apr, 2020
Editor invited
On 28 Apr, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 26 Jun, 2019
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 11 Mar, 2020
Review #4 received
Received 03 Mar, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 03 Mar, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 13 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #4 agreed
On 05 Feb, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 04 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 02 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 30 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 14 Jan, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 27 Aug, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 26 Jun, 2019
Editor invited
On 26 Jun, 2019
Editor assigned
On 26 Jun, 2019
First submitted
On 20 Jun, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Health Economics & Outcomes Research
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published version at BMC Medical Research Methodology.
Background
A methodological framework is a structured guide to completing a process or procedure. Although the benefits of using methodological frameworks are increasingly recognised, to date, there is no formal definition of what constitutes a ‘methodological framework’, nor is there any published guidance on how to develop one. This study’s aims are to: (a) map the existing landscape on the use of methodological frameworks; (b) identify approaches used for the development of methodological frameworks and terminology used; and (c) provide suggestions for developing future methodological frameworks. We took a broad view and did not limit our study to methodological frameworks in research and academia.
Methods
A scoping review was conducted, drawing on Arksey and O’Malley’s methods and more recent guidance. We systematically searched two major electronic databases (MEDLINE and Web of Science), as well as grey literature sources and the reference lists and citations of all relevant papers. Study characteristics and approaches used for development of methodological frameworks were extracted from included studies. Descriptive analysis was conducted.
Results
We included a total of 30 studies, representing a wide range of subject areas. The most commonly reported approach for developing a methodological framework was ‘Based on existing methods and guidelines’ (66.7%), followed by ‘Refined and validated’ (33.3%), ‘Experience and expertise’ (30.0%), ‘Literature review’ (26.7%), ‘Data synthesis and amalgamation’ (23.3%), ‘Data extraction’ (10.0%), ‘Iteratively developed’ (6.7%) and ‘Lab work results’ (3.3%). There was no consistent use of terminology; the studies included a range of terms for ‘methodological framework’, which were also used interchangeably within studies.
Conclusions
Although no formal guidance exists on how to develop a methodological framework, this scoping review found an overall consensus in approaches used, which can be broadly divided into three phases: (a) identifying data to inform the methodological framework; (b) developing the methodological framework; and (c) validating, testing and refining the methodological framework. Based on these phases, we provide suggestions to facilitate the development of future methodological frameworks.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3