Similar to other types of literature reviews, such as systematic reviews, scoping reviews use rigorous and transparent methods to comprehensively identify and analyze all the relevant literature that helps to answer a research question [16]. They do not, however, involve the formal evaluation of the quality of scientific evidence included in the review [17]. Since the over-arching goal of scoping reviews is to develop a broad understanding, including identifying gaps in knowledge within a research area, they are useful when the existing literature has not been extensively reviewed or is heterogeneous (e.g., has mixed approaches to studying the topic of interest) [18]. For our research question, a scoping review is more appropriate than other methods of literature review because the topic (i.e., patient and caregiver preferences and outcomes as they related to the perioperative period of cardiac surgery) is broad, of a qualitative nature, and has not been extensively studied in this patient population.
Patient engagement
Patient engagement in research involves meaningful and active collaboration between researchers and patients (and their caregivers) throughout the phases of a research project, including evaluation, planning, data collection and analysis, and knowledge translation [17]. Patients who engage in these collaborations may be referred to as patient partners. Two individuals (AG and BB) who received cardiac surgical care at our institution were engaged as patient partners in the development of this scoping review protocol. They collaborated on the design of the entire protocol and will continue to collaborate on the research activities (i.e., conduct, analysis, and knowledge translation) of the actual scoping review.
Team composition and setting
Our research team is comprised of nine individuals and encompasses a broad range of expertise. Central to our study is the input of two patient partners (AG and BB) with lived experience of undergoing and recovering from cardiac surgery. The team also includes two researchers (AC and AS) with expertise in patient engagement in research, one cardiac surgeon/intensivist centrally involved in the development of the ERAS® Cardiac guidelines (RA), and a researcher (TD) with a program focused on cardiovascular health. CM is an expert librarian at the Neil John Maclean Health Sciences Library at the University of Manitoba. DK is a research coordinator within our institution’s Cardiac Sciences Program. The first author (NO) is a medical student in the Max Rady College of Medicine at the University of Manitoba.
Reporting guidelines
The planning and documentation of our scoping review protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) checklist (Additional file 1) and the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR; Additional file 2). The reporting of patient engagement activities that we undertook as part of the development of this protocol are reported in accordance with the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public 2 (GRIPP2) short-form (Additional file 3) [19]. This study has had no prospective registration in any database of literature reviews (e.g., PROSPERO) as it is not applicable.
Scoping review methodology
This scoping review’s protocol follows Arskey and O’Malley’s six-stage framework for scoping review methodologies [17], with revisions from Levac et al. [20]. It describes six stages of research which we will use to guide our scoping review and expand upon in the sections that follow: (1) Identifying the research question; (2) Identifying relevant studies; (3) Study selection; (4) Charting the data; (5) Collating, summarizing, and reporting the results; and (6) Consultation.
Stage 1: Identifying the Research Question
The first stage of a scoping review seeks to identify a research question that is broad enough to encompass many different ideas but narrow in its definition of the research concept, target population, and outcomes of interest. The rationale for the scoping review and its intended outcome should help define the research question. [21]
The research question
We set out to conduct this scoping review because the input of cardiac surgery patients and caregivers is missing from the process used to arrive at current ERAS® Cardiac guidelines. Intended outcomes include patient and caregiver-identified preferences and outcomes as they relate to perioperative care in cardiac surgery. Thus, this review seeks to answer the main research question as follows:
What does the existing literature say about patient- and caregiver-identified preferences and outcomes as they relate to care received in the perioperative period of cardiac surgery?
The main concepts within this research question are presented in accordance with the population, context, concept (PCC) framework (Table 1).
Table 1
Population, concept, context (PCC) framework for determining the eligibility of the research question.
Criteria | Determinants |
Population | Adult cardiac surgery patients and their caregivers. Adult cardiac surgery patient is defined as a person over the age of 18 who has undergone a surgical operation of the heart or great vessels (thoracic aorta, superior/inferior vena cava, pulmonary arteries/veins). Caregiver refers to those persons with interest in the patient’s wellbeing who are not remunerated for their role in the patient’s life. |
Concept | (a) Outcomes that are important to patients and caregivers. Outcome refers to both acute perioperative status and the lifelong impact of cardiac surgery on the patient. (b) Patient and caregiver preferences. Preference refers to what is important and/or prioritized in relation to the patient’s life after cardiac surgery. |
Context | Perioperative period of cardiac surgery, including care received through enhanced recovery protocols. |
Stage 2: Identifying Relevant Studies
The second stage of a scoping review involves laying out a comprehensive plan of how we will a) search and b) screen articles for inclusion in our review. The search strategy must balance comprehensiveness with feasibility. In the case of our scoping review, this requires acknowledging the limitations of time and personnel to ensure that the results of the search are manageable in terms of size of the final dataset and its interpretation.
Search methods
The literature search will be conducted using the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Library; Medline (Ovid); PsycINFO (Ovid); Scopus; and Embase (Ovid). The grey literature search will include searches for guidelines, policies, protocols, reports and theses from a variety of different resources including CPG Infobase, Heart and Stroke Foundation, ProQuest Theses and Dissertations, Google Advanced and Prospero. This formal search will be supplemented by reference checking. An expert librarian (CM) will work with the core research team (NO, AG, BB, AC) to develop and execute the search strategy in Medline. The librarian will adapt the Medline search to the other databases. The search strategy will be peer-reviewed by another librarian using the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategy (PRESS) checklist [22]. All resources will be exported to EndNote (version x8) and the screening process will be completed in the free systematic review management software, Rayyan. A sample search strategy is presented in Additional file 4.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
An article will be included if it meets all of the following criteria: (i) investigates the outcomes and/or preferences defined in stage 1, (ii) focuses on adult (aged ≥ 18 years) patients undergoing elective or emergent cardiac surgery and/or their informal or unpaid caregivers, and (iii) relates to care received during the perioperative period of cardiac surgery (including care received through ERPs). Both published and unpublished articles (e.g., reports, government and other agency documents, guidelines, policies, etc.) will be considered for inclusion.
Due to limited resources, articles that are not written in English will be excluded. In keeping with the design of the systematic reviews and meta-analyses used to develop the ERAS® Cardiac guidelines, articles published before the year 2000 will also be excluded. We will additionally exclude articles that are unavailable as full texts. Inclusion and exclusion criteria may be modified as the scoping review progresses based on increasing familiarity with the literature.
Stage 3: Study Selection
A four-step process will be used for study selection:
(1) Titles of articles retrieved through execution of the search strategy in each database will be screened by a single reviewer (NO). This reviewer will apply the inclusion/exclusion criteria and record whether the article is included or the primary reason for exclusion.
(2) Inclusion/exclusion criteria will be applied to the abstracts of relevant articles identified in step 1 by two reviewers (NO and AC). Reviewers will meet at the beginning and end of the abstract screening process to discuss challenges and uncertainties related to study selection and refine the search strategy as needed. A third reviewer (RA) will resolve disagreements about inclusion/exclusion as necessary.
(3) The protocol described in step 2 will be applied to screen the eligibility of the full texts of articles included at the end of step 2 by two reviewers (NO and AC).
(4) The final set of included articles will also contain those that meet inclusion criteria and are identified by searching reference lists of the articles and other literature included at the end of stage 3.
The study selection stage is an iterative process which may involve a refinement of the search strategy and multiple reviews of the complete citation list. Prior to the start of stages 1 and 2, inter-rater reliability will be established between the two reviewers (NO and AC) responsible for study selection through screening the titles and abstracts (respectively) of a random subset of 200 articles. The workflow for study selection is summarized in a PRISMA flowchart (Fig. 1). This figure will be used to report the number of citations at each stage of screening and selection.
Stage 4: Charting the Data
The goal of stage 4 is to collect information from individual articles which will aid in the development of a broad interpretation of the current literature as it relates to the research question. “Charting” in a scoping review is analogous to the “data extraction” process involved in a systematic review. It is defined as “a technique for synthesizing and interpreting qualitative data by sifting, charting, and sorting material according to key issues and themes” [23].
The data charting form was collectively developed by the core research team and includes both general information about the study and specific information relating to the research question (Table 2). Items on the charting form directly pertaining to the research question were selected for their ability to become synthesized as overarching themes or trends. The charting form also includes identified preferences (including priorities) if employed, along with the corresponding outcome (perceived or objective). Finally, specific charting items were included to capture whether studies engaged stakeholders (e.g., patients and/or caregivers) as research partners as well as details about the engagement process (i.e., the method and time point of stakeholder consultation and whether the stakeholders represent a procedure, disease, or setting subset of all cardiac surgery patients). No assumptions or simplifications have been made regarding any of the variables on the charting form. The only charting variable which requires reviewer interpretation is the “Limitations/risk of bias” field under the “Study characteristics” subheading.
Table 2
Proposed variables to be charted, by category.
Category | Variable |
Publication characteristics | Title |
Year of publication |
Journal/source (if unpublished) |
| Published (yes/no) |
Author characteristics | Surnames |
| Countries |
| Discipline; point of view; “lens” |
Study characteristics | Design |
| Population |
| a. Procedure/operation subgroup (if applicable; e.g. emergent vs. elective) b. Disease subgroup (if applicable) c. Setting |
| Primary outcome(s) |
| Outcome measures |
| Limitations/risk of bias |
Stakeholder characteristics | Who was the stakeholder (patient/caregiver/both/other)? |
Total number of stakeholders |
Method of engagement (if applicable) |
| Engagement time point (i.e., at which stage(s) of the research design? If applicable) |
Patient- or caregiver-focused results | Patient or caregiver-identified preferences (including priorities) a. What is the preference? b. Before/during/after/long after surgery? c. Measure(s) and associated outcome(s) |
| Patient or caregiver-prioritized outcome(s) a. What is the outcome? b. Before/during/after/long after surgery? c. Measure(s) |
The initial data charting form will be calibrated among reviewers by comparing the results of independent data extraction from the first 5–10 studies, followed by a discussion regarding the consistency of the approach with respect to the research question and purpose [24, 25]. Data will be charted in duplicate (NO and AC), with data records managed and stored using Microsoft Excel. Inconsistencies will be resolved by a third reviewer (RA). It may not always be possible to obtain every charting item for each study. Studies will be excluded if the reviewers find that an insufficient amount of information can be obtained during this process. Like stages 2 and 3, charting the data is an iterative process that may require modifications to the data charting form based on increasing familiarity with included studies.
Stage 5: Collating, Summarizing, and Reporting the Results
In stage 5, we will construct a narrative account of included articles based on an analytical framework or thematic construction. This stage will involve three steps: (i) descriptive numerical and/or qualitative thematic analysis, (ii) reporting our results and generating the intended outcome, and (iii) considering the meaning of the results of the review and their implications on research, policy, and medical practice [19]. The research team will work together to determine the most appropriate way to analyze and report the findings of the scoping review once the literature has been extensively reviewed. Regular meetings and consensus discussions will aim to eliminate biases and strive to achieve a mutual interpretation of the review findings. This stage will comprise the “Results” and “Discussion” sections of the final manuscript. Evidence will be presented in a variety of formats (e.g. narrative, visual, table, etc.) depending on the type of data analysis performed.
Stage 6: Consultation
Consultation with persons who have a defined interest or life experience relating to a research outcome is an essential stage of the scoping review. This is especially true in our review of patient and caregiver identified preferences and outcomes that will be applied to the re-development of clinical practice guidelines. The goal of consultation is to recognize lived experience as a legitimate form of knowledge that provides insights distinct from the knowledge of academics and health professionals. It also aims to reaffirm the position of the stakeholder at the centre of the research focus. In the context of medical research, involving the patient in the design, conduct, and knowledge translation of a research project ensures that the findings are relevant to the target population.
Our scoping review involves two patient partners (AG, BB) who are alumni of the Cardiac Surgery Program at St. Boniface Hospital, with experience as stakeholders on other research projects relating to cardiac surgery. A patient engagement grant has allowed AG and BB to work with the research team as collaborators rather than consultants from the planning stages of the scoping review and onwards. A terms of reference document was developed in consultation with the patient partners and defines the responsibilities and all members of the research team. This document also describes the intended working environment and nature of the relationship between patient partners and other researchers. This is a “living document” that may be revised as necessary throughout the research process. A summary of this document’s content is presented in Table 3.
Table 3
Content of the terms of reference document for patient engagement.
Subsection | Key components |
Project overview | A description of the research project, including background information and overarching goals. |
The research team | Members of core working group and their positions. |
Responsibilities and opportunities for patient researchers, patient researcher liaison/facilitator, and the broader research team | A. Patient researchers – to participate in the research process; communicate concerns to the research liaison; prepare for meetings by reviewing documents, etc. B. Patient researcher liaison/facilitator – to communicate regularly with the patient researchers; listen to and address concerns; ensure integration of patient researchers into the research team, etc. C. Research team – value lived experience as a form of knowledge; use knowledge appropriately and confidentially; maintain fair and structured relationships; be mindful of word choice in written materials. |
Process (work plan) | A model for the process of patient engagement during biweekly meetings; a project timeline outlining milestones and frequency of full-team meetings. |
Expected outcomes | Major project milestones, including formal publications, non-traditional knowledge sharing activities, future research projects, etc. |
Our working environment | A description of the environment fostered by the research team, as guided by the principles within Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research’s Patient Engagement Framework (i.e., mutual respect, inclusiveness, co-building, and supports (safe space, educational supports, financial supports) [26]. |
AG and BB are members of the core research team which meets bi-weekly to address all aspects relating to the development of the scoping review. The contributions of our patient partners are recorded in the form of meeting minutes and document revisions. The impact of our engagement with patient partners will be measured and evaluated through formal documentation including a self-report survey and qualitative interviews with all researchers at the conclusion of the study. We will assess the perceived impacts of patient engagement on the design and conduct of the scoping review. The work of patient engagement will also be disseminated in non-traditional ways (e.g. development of a website, educational material for cardiac surgery patients, etc.).
In this study, the consultation stage will also involve a half-day workshop wherein the results of the scoping review will be shared with a group of patient and caregiver representatives. This workshop will serve both as a knowledge translation activity and an additional source of patient/caregiver information which will be used to aid in the interpretation of the results of the scoping review. This event will also likely result in a separate peer-reviewed publication and contribute to the development of informal resources for cardiac surgery patients and their caregivers.