This study is part of a multi-phase PhD study investigating supply chain management of SARS-CoV-2 POC diagnostic services. To map evidence on SCM systems for POC diagnostics services, we will conduct a scoping review. The review will be guided by the methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O’Malley (14) and further advanced by Levac et al. (15). According to this framework the review will be conducted in five stages: (i) identify the research question, (ii) identify relevant studies, (iii) select eligible studies, (iv) charting the data, and (v) collating, summarising and reporting the results. Arksey and O’Malley proposed a sixth stage comprising optional consultation with key stakeholders to provide insights beyond those found in literature. This scoping review will not include consultation with stakeholders.
Identification of the research question
The research question is: What is the evidence on SCM systems for POC diagnostics services, globally? To determine the eligibility of the proposed research question for a scoping review, we used the Population, Concept and Context (PCC) framework as depicted in Table 1.
Table 1
Framework for determining the eligibility of the research question
Population
|
Point of Care (POC) diagnostics services
Diagnostics services that use innovative medical technologies that enable near patient disease diagnosis (6).
|
Concept
|
Supply Chain Management (SCM) systems
Resources and processes needed to deliver goods and services to consumers with complete satisfaction in a cost-optimized manner (11, 12).
|
Context
|
Globally
|
Identification of relevant studies
We will identify relevant studies by conducting a comprehensive and reproducible search of all literature published in the following electronic databases: Medline Ovid, Medline Elton B. Stephens Company (EBSCO), Scopus, PubMed, PsycInfo, Web of Science and EBSCOHost. We will also search gray literature including dissertations/theses, conference proceedings, websites of international organisations such as WHO and government reports. We will identify additional relevant studies by manually searching all references cited in the included studies to identify studies that have not been indexed by the electronic databases. Language restrictions will not be applied to minimise the risk of excluding relevant articles.
The comprehensive search strategy will be co-developed by the principal investigator (PI), subject specialist and university librarian to ensure the correct use of indexing terminology and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms. The following keywords or MeSH terms will be used: 1) “supply chain management” or “supply chain” or “supply chain flow” or “supply chain systems” 2) “point of care” or “point of care testing” or “point of care diagnosis” or “point of care diagnostic services”. Keywords may be refined to suit each database. Each search will be documented in detail showing the keywords/MeSH terms, date of search, electronic database and number of retrieved studies. We piloted the search strategy on one of the electronic databases and the results of the search are tabulated in table 2.
Table 2
Results of pilot search in PubMed
Date of search
|
Electronic Database
|
Keywords/MeSH terms
|
Number of retrieved studies
|
18/05/2021
|
PubMed
|
((("supply chain management") AND ("point of care testing")) OR ("point of care diagnosis")) OR ("point of care diagnostics services")
|
2 711
|
We will optimise our search strategy by adopting the search summary table (SST) outlined by Bethel et al (16) as a guide (Table 3). The SST will be used to improve and report on the effectiveness of the search strategy to ensure the retrieval of high-quality, relevant and scientifically sound articles. The search strategy will continuously be improved. An update search (re-run) is essential because SARS-CoV-2 is a novel virus and new research is published frequently.
Table 3: Search summary table reporting the effectiveness of the search strategy
Selection of eligible studies
Relevant studies will be selected using the following criteria:
Inclusion criteria
-
Articles reporting evidence on SCM systems of all diseases
-
Articles reporting evidence of SCM systems for all POC diagnostics services at all levels of the healthcare continuum
-
Articles published since inception
Exclusion criteria
Articles will be excluded from the scoping review if they have the following characteristics:
-
Articles that lack evidence on SCM systems for all POC diagnostics services
-
Articles reporting SCM systems of laboratory based POC diagnosis
-
Articles that do not report primary outcomes
All eligible studies will be exported to an Endnote 20 library and duplicates will be removed. The articles will be screened in two stages, namely abstract and full article screening. The PI will screen titles and abstracts in parallel with the co-reviewer. After screening titles and abstracts, the reviewers will discuss any discrepancies in selected articles until a consensus is reached. Two independent reviewers will then screen the full texts of articles selected during the first stage. A third screener will resolve any discrepancies in selected articles after full text screening. Both abstract and full article screening will be guided by the above inclusion/exclusion criteria.
The level of agreement between screeners’ results after screening abstracts and full articles will be determined by calculating Cohen's kappa statistic. The kappa statistic will be interpreted as follows: values < 0.1 indicate no agreement and 0.10-0.20 indicate none to slight, 0.21-0.40 as fair, 0.41-0.60 as moderate, 0.61-0.80 as substantial, and 0.81-1.00 as almost perfect agreement. The process of study selection will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) flow chart as depicted in figure 1, and will be updated once the review process is completed (15).
Charting the data
We developed a data charting form to capture information from each relevant study as outlined in table 3. Two independent reviewers will pilot the data charting form before commencing with the scoping review. The data charting form will be modified based on the reviewers’ feedback and it will constantly be updated throughout the duration of the scoping review.
Table 3
Data charting form
Author & year of publication
|
Publication journal
|
Title of study
|
Aim of study
|
Study population
|
Study setting
|
Sample size
|
Study design
|
Type of point-of-care test investigated
|
Main findings
|
Other significant findings
|
Collating, summarizing and reporting the results
We will summarise the relevant literature in a narrative report. We will extract data from all included studies and map evidence on SCM systems of POC diagnostics services, summarise existing research findings and reveal gaps in the existing literature. The results will be described in the form of a table and graphs. We will include a map showing the countries where the studies were conducted. A thematic summary will describe how the findings from the included studies relate to the research question.
Quality appraisal
We will use the mixed method appraisal tool (MMAT) version 2018 to evaluate the quality of the included studies (17). Two independent reviewers will carry out the quality appraisal process. The following percentage scores will be used to grade the quality of evidence: i) ≤50% will represent low quality evidence ii) 51-75% will represent average quality evidence iii) 76-100% will represent high quality evidence. This quality appraisal method will enable us to appraise a variety of study methods, i.e. qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods studies (17).
Ethical considerations
This scoping review involves synthesis of current evidence therefore ethical approval is not required.