Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Introduction:This study delves into the challenges faced by early career researchers (ECRs) and librarians in health professions conducting systematic and scoping reviews.Given the pivotal role of these methodologies in evidence synthesis, understanding the unique experiences of this demographic is crucial.Methods: A mixed methods approach combines quantitative surveys and semi-structured interviews.The structured survey, administered to a diverse sample, examined methodological expertise, resource access, and time constraints.Simultaneously, semi-structured interviews with a subset of participants provided qualitative depth, exploring personal experiences and uncovering facilitators such as mentorship programs, collaborative networks, and specialized training.Results: Preliminary survey findings revealed common challenges, including limited methodological proficiency and resource constraints.Qualitative interviews contextualized these challenges, offering insights into coping strategies and nuanced facilitators that contribute to successful reviews.Conclusion: This research provides actionable recommendations for academic institutions, mentors, and organizations to support ECRs and librarians.By addressing identified barriers and leveraging facilitators, stakeholders can cultivate an environment conducive to high-quality evidence synthesis, advancing research and evidence-based practice in health professions.The integrated findings from both quantitative and qualitative methods offer a comprehensive understanding of the multi-faceted landscape surrounding systematic and scoping reviews in this context-based practice in health professions.
Jessica McEwan (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: