Difference Between Explicit and Emergent Approach to Literature Review

ix.one. Introduction

Literature reviews play a critical part in scholarship considering scientific discipline remains, offset and foremost, a cumulative effort (vom Brocke et al., 2009). As in any academic discipline, rigorous noesis syntheses are becoming indispensable in keeping up with an exponentially growing eHealth literature, assisting practitioners, academics, and graduate students in finding, evaluating, and synthesizing the contents of many empirical and conceptual papers. Among other methods, literature reviews are essential for: (a) identifying what has been written on a subject or topic; (b) determining the extent to which a specific research surface area reveals any interpretable trends or patterns; (c) accumulation empirical findings related to a narrow research question to support testify-based practice; (d) generating new frameworks and theories; and (e) identifying topics or questions requiring more investigation (Paré, Trudel, Jaana, & Kitsiou, 2015).

Literature reviews tin can take two major forms. The most prevalent i is the "literature review" or "groundwork" section within a journal newspaper or a chapter in a graduate thesis. This section synthesizes the extant literature and usually identifies the gaps in noesis that the empirical report addresses (Sylvester, Tate, & Johnstone, 2013). It may also provide a theoretical foundation for the proposed study, substantiate the presence of the research problem, justify the research as ane that contributes something new to the cumulated cognition, or validate the methods and approaches for the proposed study (Hart, 1998; Levy & Ellis, 2006).

The second form of literature review, which is the focus of this affiliate, constitutes an original and valuable work of research in and of itself (Paré et al., 2015). Rather than providing a base for a researcher's own piece of work, it creates a solid starting point for all members of the community interested in a particular expanse or topic (Mulrow, 1987). The so-chosen "review commodity" is a journal-length paper which has an overarching purpose to synthesize the literature in a field, without collecting or analyzing whatsoever principal data (Greenish, Johnson, & Adams, 2006).

When appropriately conducted, review articles represent powerful data sources for practitioners looking for state-of-the art evidence to guide their decision-making and piece of work practices (Paré et al., 2015). Further, high-quality reviews become frequently cited pieces of work which researchers seek out every bit a first articulate outline of the literature when undertaking empirical studies (Cooper, 1988; Rowe, 2014). Scholars who rails and gauge the touch on of manufactures have establish that review papers are cited and downloaded more often than whatsoever other type of published commodity (Cronin, Ryan, & Coughlan, 2008; Montori, Wilczynski, Morgan, Haynes, & Hedges, 2003; Patsopoulos, Analatos, & Ioannidis, 2005). The reason for their popularity may be the fact that reading the review enables one to accept an overview, if not a detailed knowledge of the area in question, as well as references to the almost useful primary sources (Cronin et al., 2008). Although they are non like shooting fish in a barrel to conduct, the commitment to complete a review article provides a tremendous service to one'due south bookish community (Paré et al., 2015; Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). Most, if not all, peer-reviewed journals in the fields of medical information science publish review articles of some type.

The main objectives of this chapter are fourfold: (a) to provide an overview of the major steps and activities involved in conducting a stand up-alone literature review; (b) to describe and contrast the different types of review articles that can contribute to the eHealth cognition base; (c) to illustrate each review type with ane or two examples from the eHealth literature; and (d) to provide a series of recommendations for prospective authors of review articles in this domain.

9.2. Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps

Every bit explained in Templier and Paré (2015), there are six generic steps involved in conducting a review commodity:

formulating the research question(southward) and objective(s),
searching the extant literature,
screening for inclusion,
assessing the quality of principal studies,
extracting data, and
analyzing data.

Although these steps are presented here in sequential society, one must keep in mind that the review procedure can be iterative and that many activities can be initiated during the planning stage and subsequently refined during subsequent phases (Finfgeld-Connett & Johnson, 2013; Kitchenham & Charters, 2007).

Formulating the research question(southward) and objective(s): As a first step, members of the review squad must appropriately justify the need for the review itself (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006), place the review'due south main objective(s) (Okoli & Schabram, 2010), and define the concepts or variables at the heart of their synthesis (Cooper & Hedges, 2009; Webster & Watson, 2002). Importantly, they as well need to articulate the research question(s) they propose to investigate (Kitchenham & Charters, 2007). In this regard, nosotros hold with Jesson, Matheson, and Lacey (2011) that conspicuously articulated research questions are key ingredients that guide the entire review methodology; they underscore the type of information that is needed, inform the search for and selection of relevant literature, and guide or orient the subsequent analysis.

Searching the extant literature: The next step consists of searching the literature and making decisions virtually the suitability of material to exist considered in the review (Cooper, 1988). There be three main coverage strategies. Kickoff, exhaustive coverage means an try is made to exist as comprehensive as possible in order to ensure that all relevant studies, published and unpublished, are included in the review and, thus, conclusions are based on this all-inclusive noesis base. The 2d type of coverage consists of presenting materials that are representative of most other works in a given field or area. Oft authors who prefer this strategy volition search for relevant manufactures in a modest number of top-tier journals in a field (Paré et al., 2015). In the third strategy, the review team concentrates on prior works that accept been central or pivotal to a particular topic. This may include empirical studies or conceptual papers that initiated a line of investigation, changed how bug or questions were framed, introduced new methods or concepts, or engendered important argue (Cooper, 1988).

Screening for inclusion: The following step consists of evaluating the applicability of the material identified in the preceding step (Levy & Ellis, 2006; vom Brocke et al., 2009). Once a grouping of potential studies has been identified, members of the review squad must screen them to determine their relevance (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). A gear up of predetermined rules provides a basis for including or excluding sure studies. This exercise requires a significant investment on the part of researchers, who must ensure enhanced objectivity and avert biases or mistakes. As discussed later in this chapter, for certain types of reviews there must be at to the lowest degree two contained reviewers involved in the screening process and a process to resolve disagreements must too be in place (Liberati et al., 2009; Shea et al., 2009).

Assessing the quality of primary studies: In addition to screening fabric for inclusion, members of the review team may need to assess the scientific quality of the selected studies, that is, appraise the rigour of the research design and methods. Such formal cess, which is commonly conducted independently by at to the lowest degree ii coders, helps members of the review squad refine which studies to include in the final sample, determine whether or not the differences in quality may bear on their conclusions, or guide how they clarify the data and translate the findings (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). Ascribing quality scores to each main written report or considering through domain-based evaluations which report components have or have not been designed and executed accordingly makes information technology possible to reverberate on the extent to which the selected study addresses possible biases and maximizes validity (Shea et al., 2009).

Extracting data: The post-obit pace involves gathering or extracting applicable data from each primary written report included in the sample and deciding what is relevant to the problem of interest (Cooper & Hedges, 2009). Indeed, the type of data that should be recorded mainly depends on the initial research questions (Okoli & Schabram, 2010). However, of import data may as well exist gathered about how, when, where and by whom the primary report was conducted, the research design and methods, or qualitative/quantitative results (Cooper & Hedges, 2009).

Analyzing and synthesizing data: As a last step, members of the review team must collate, summarize, aggregate, organize, and compare the show extracted from the included studies. The extracted information must be presented in a meaningful way that suggests a new contribution to the extant literature (Jesson et al., 2011). Webster and Watson (2002) warn researchers that literature reviews should be much more than lists of papers and should provide a coherent lens to make sense of extant noesis on a given topic. There be several methods and techniques for synthesizing quantitative (e.g., frequency analysis, meta-analysis) and qualitative (eastward.g., grounded theory, narrative analysis, meta-ethnography) evidence (Dixon-Woods, Agarwal, Jones, Young, & Sutton, 2005; Thomas & Harden, 2008).

9.three. Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations

EHealth researchers have at their disposal a number of approaches and methods for making sense out of existing literature, all with the purpose of casting electric current research findings into historical contexts or explaining contradictions that might exist among a set up of main research studies conducted on a particular topic. Our classification scheme is largely inspired from Paré and colleagues' (2015) typology. Below we present and illustrate those review types that we experience are key to the growth and development of the eHealth domain.

9.iii.ane. Narrative Reviews

The narrative review is the "traditional" mode of reviewing the extant literature and is skewed towards a qualitative interpretation of prior knowledge (Sylvester et al., 2013). Put simply, a narrative review attempts to summarize or synthesize what has been written on a particular topic but does not seek generalization or cumulative cognition from what is reviewed (Davies, 2000; Green et al., 2006). Instead, the review team often undertakes the chore of accumulating and synthesizing the literature to demonstrate the value of a particular indicate of view (Baumeister & Leary, 1997). Equally such, reviewers may selectively ignore or limit the attention paid to certain studies in order to make a point. In this rather unsystematic approach, the option of information from main articles is subjective, lacks explicit criteria for inclusion and can lead to biased interpretations or inferences (Green et al., 2006). At that place are several narrative reviews in the particular eHealth domain, as in all fields, which follow such an unstructured approach (Silva et al., 2015; Paul et al., 2015).

Despite these criticisms, this type of review can exist very useful in gathering together a volume of literature in a specific bailiwick and synthesizing it. As mentioned to a higher place, its primary purpose is to provide the reader with a comprehensive groundwork for understanding current cognition and highlighting the significance of new enquiry (Cronin et al., 2008). Faculty like to employ narrative reviews in the classroom considering they are often more up to engagement than textbooks, provide a single source for students to reference, and expose students to peer-reviewed literature (Green et al., 2006). For researchers, narrative reviews can inspire research ideas by identifying gaps or inconsistencies in a body of knowledge, thus helping researchers to determine enquiry questions or formulate hypotheses. Importantly, narrative reviews can also be used as educational articles to bring practitioners up to date with certain topics of bug (Green et al., 2006).

Recently, there have been several efforts to introduce more than rigour in narrative reviews that will elucidate mutual pitfalls and bring changes into their publication standards. Information systems researchers, amongst others, take contributed to advancing knowledge on how to structure a "traditional" review. For instance, Levy and Ellis (2006) proposed a generic framework for conducting such reviews. Their model follows the systematic data processing approach comprised of iii steps, namely: (a) literature search and screening; (b) data extraction and analysis; and (c) writing the literature review. They provide detailed and very helpful instructions on how to carry each pace of the review process. Every bit some other methodological contribution, vom Brocke et al. (2009) offered a series of guidelines for conducting literature reviews, with a detail focus on how to search and excerpt the relevant body of knowledge. Last, Bandara, Miskon, and Fielt (2011) proposed a structured, predefined and tool-supported method to identify main studies within a viable telescopic, extract relevant content from identified articles, synthesize and analyze the findings, and effectively write and present the results of the literature review. We highly recommend that prospective authors of narrative reviews consult these useful sources before embarking on their work.

Darlow and Wen (2015) provide a good example of a highly structured narrative review in the eHealth field. These authors synthesized published articles that describe the development procedure of mobile health (chiliad-wellness) interventions for patients' cancer care self-management. As in most narrative reviews, the scope of the research questions being investigated is broad: (a) how development of these systems are carried out; (b) which methods are used to investigate these systems; and (c) what conclusions tin be fatigued as a issue of the development of these systems. To provide articulate answers to these questions, a literature search was conducted on vi electronic databases and Google Scholar. The search was performed using several terms and free text words, combining them in an advisable manner. Four inclusion and three exclusion criteria were utilized during the screening process. Both authors independently reviewed each of the identified articles to determine eligibility and extract study information. A menstruum diagram shows the number of studies identified, screened, and included or excluded at each stage of written report selection. In terms of contributions, this review provides a serial of practical recommendations for m-health intervention evolution.

9.3.two. Descriptive or Mapping Reviews

The master goal of a descriptive review is to determine the extent to which a body of noesis in a particular inquiry topic reveals whatsoever interpretable pattern or trend with respect to pre-existing propositions, theories, methodologies or findings (King & He, 2005; Paré et al., 2015). In contrast with narrative reviews, descriptive reviews follow a systematic and transparent procedure, including searching, screening and classifying studies (Petersen, Vakkalanka, & Kuzniarz, 2015). Indeed, structured search methods are used to form a representative sample of a larger grouping of published works (Paré et al., 2015). Further, authors of descriptive reviews extract from each study certain characteristics of interest, such as publication twelvemonth, research methods, data collection techniques, and direction or forcefulness of research outcomes (e.thousand., positive, negative, or non-meaning) in the grade of frequency analysis to produce quantitative results (Sylvester et al., 2013). In essence, each study included in a descriptive review is treated as the unit of assay and the published literature equally a whole provides a database from which the authors effort to identify any interpretable trends or describe overall conclusions well-nigh the merits of existing conceptualizations, propositions, methods or findings (Paré et al., 2015). In doing so, a descriptive review may claim that its findings represent the country of the art in a particular domain (King & He, 2005).

In the fields of wellness sciences and medical informatics, reviews that focus on examining the range, nature and evolution of a topic area are described by Anderson, Allen, Peckham, and Goodwin (2008) every bit mapping reviews. Like descriptive reviews, the inquiry questions are generic and usually relate to publication patterns and trends. There is no preconceived plan to systematically review all of the literature although this can be washed. Instead, researchers often present studies that are representative of most works published in a detail area and they consider a specific time frame to be mapped.

An example of this arroyo in the eHealth domain is offered past DeShazo, Lavallie, and Wolf (2009). The purpose of this descriptive or mapping review was to characterize publication trends in the medical informatics literature over a xx-year period (1987 to 2006). To attain this ambitious objective, the authors performed a bibliometric analysis of medical informatics citations indexed in medline using publication trends, periodical frequencies, impact factors, Medical Bailiwick Headings (MeSH) term frequencies, and characteristics of citations. Findings revealed that there were over 77,000 medical computer science articles published during the covered catamenia in numerous journals and that the average annual growth rate was 12%. The MeSH term analysis besides suggested a stiff interdisciplinary trend. Finally, boilerplate affect scores increased over time with ii notable growth periods. Overall, patterns in inquiry outputs that seem to characterize the historic trends and current components of the field of medical informatics propose it may be a maturing discipline (DeShazo et al., 2009).

9.3.3. Scoping Reviews

Scoping reviews endeavor to provide an initial indication of the potential size and nature of the extant literature on an emergent topic (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005; Daudt, van Mossel, & Scott, 2013; Levac, Colquhoun, & O'Brien, 2010). A scoping review may be conducted to examine the extent, range and nature of inquiry activities in a particular area, decide the value of undertaking a total systematic review (discussed side by side), or identify enquiry gaps in the extant literature (Paré et al., 2015). In line with their main objective, scoping reviews ordinarily conclude with the presentation of a detailed inquiry agenda for time to come works along with potential implications for both practice and inquiry.

Unlike narrative and descriptive reviews, the whole signal of scoping the field is to exist as comprehensive as possible, including grey literature (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005). Inclusion and exclusion criteria must be established to help researchers eliminate studies that are not aligned with the research questions. It is likewise recommended that at least ii contained coders review abstracts yielded from the search strategy and then the total manufactures for study selection (Daudt et al., 2013). The synthesized evidence from content or thematic analysis is relatively easy to present in tabular form (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005; Thomas & Harden, 2008).

One of the most highly cited scoping reviews in the eHealth domain was published by Archer, Fevrier-Thomas, Lokker, McKibbon, and Straus (2011). These authors reviewed the existing literature on personal wellness record (phr) systems including design, functionality, implementation, applications, outcomes, and benefits. Vii databases were searched from 1985 to March 2010. Several search terms relating to phrs were used during this process. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts to determine inclusion status. A second screen of total-text manufactures, once more by two independent members of the research team, ensured that the studies described phrs. All in all, 130 articles met the criteria and their data were extracted manually into a database. The authors ended that although at that place is a big amount of survey, observational, accomplice/panel, and anecdotal testify of phr benefits and satisfaction for patients, more research is needed to evaluate the results of phr implementations. Their in-depth analysis of the literature signalled that in that location is little solid bear witness from randomized controlled trials or other studies through the apply of phrs. Hence, they suggested that more than inquiry is needed that addresses the current lack of understanding of optimal functionality and usability of these systems, and how they can play a beneficial office in supporting patient self-management (Archer et al., 2011).

nine.3.iv. Forms of Aggregative Reviews

Healthcare providers, practitioners, and policy-makers are nowadays overwhelmed with large volumes of information, including enquiry-based evidence from numerous clinical trials and evaluation studies, assessing the effectiveness of health information technologies and interventions (Ammenwerth & de Keizer, 2004; Deshazo et al., 2009). It is unrealistic to expect that all these disparate actors will have the time, skills, and necessary resources to identify the available testify in the expanse of their expertise and consider it when making decisions. Systematic reviews that involve the rigorous application of scientific strategies aimed at limiting subjectivity and bias (i.e., systematic and random errors) can respond to this challenge.

Systematic reviews endeavour to aggregate, appraise, and synthesize in a single source all empirical show that meet a gear up of previously specified eligibility criteria in lodge to answer a conspicuously formulated and often narrow enquiry question on a particular topic of involvement to back up show-based practise (Liberati et al., 2009). They attach closely to explicit scientific principles (Liberati et al., 2009) and rigorous methodological guidelines (Higgins & Green, 2008) aimed at reducing random and systematic errors that tin can lead to deviations from the truth in results or inferences. The apply of explicit methods allows systematic reviews to aggregate a big torso of research testify, assess whether effects or relationships are in the aforementioned direction and of the same general magnitude, explain possible inconsistencies between study results, and determine the strength of the overall testify for every issue of interest based on the quality of included studies and the general consistency among them (Cook, Mulrow, & Haynes, 1997). The main procedures of a systematic review involve:

Formulating a review question and developing a search strategy based on explicit inclusion criteria for the identification of eligible studies (usually described in the context of a detailed review protocol).
Searching for eligible studies using multiple databases and data sources, including greyness literature sources, without any language restrictions.
Selecting studies, extracting data, and assessing risk of bias in a duplicate mode using two contained reviewers to avert random or systematic errors in the procedure.
Analyzing information using quantitative or qualitative methods.
Presenting results in summary of findings tables.
Interpreting results and drawing conclusions.

Many systematic reviews, just not all, use statistical methods to combine the results of contained studies into a unmarried quantitative gauge or summary event size. Known as meta-analyses, these reviews apply specific data extraction and statistical techniques (e.thousand., network, frequentist, or Bayesian meta-analyses) to calculate from each written report past result of interest an outcome size along with a confidence interval that reflects the caste of dubiety behind the point estimate of upshot (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009; Deeks, Higgins, & Altman, 2008). Subsequently, they use fixed or random-effects analysis models to combine the results of the included studies, appraise statistical heterogeneity, and calculate a weighted average of the effect estimates from the dissimilar studies, taking into account their sample sizes. The summary effect size is a value that reflects the average magnitude of the intervention effect for a particular result of interest or, more than generally, the strength of a relationship betwixt two variables across all studies included in the systematic review. By statistically combining information from multiple studies, meta-analyses can create more than precise and reliable estimates of intervention effects than those derived from individual studies alone, when these are examined independently as discrete sources of information.

The review by Gurol-Urganci, de Jongh, Vodopivec-Jamsek, Atun, and Machine (2013) on the effects of mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments is an illustrative instance of a loftier-quality systematic review with meta-assay. Missed appointments are a major cause of inefficiency in healthcare delivery with substantial budgetary costs to health systems. These authors sought to appraise whether mobile phone-based appointment reminders delivered through Short Message Service (sms) or Multimedia Messaging Service (mms) are effective in improving rates of patient attendance and reducing overall costs. To this terminate, they conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases using highly sensitive search strategies without linguistic communication or publication-blazon restrictions to identify all rcts that are eligible for inclusion. In social club to minimize the risk of omitting eligible studies not captured past the original search, they supplemented all electronic searches with transmission screening of trial registers and references contained in the included studies. Study option, information extraction, and hazard of bias assessments were performed independently past two coders using standardized methods to ensure consistency and to eliminate potential errors. Findings from eight rcts involving 6,615 participants were pooled into meta-analyses to calculate the magnitude of effects that mobile text message reminders have on the rate of attendance at healthcare appointments compared to no reminders and phone phone call reminders.

Meta-analyses are regarded as powerful tools for deriving meaningful conclusions. Even so, there are situations in which information technology is neither reasonable nor advisable to pool studies together using meta-analytic methods but because there is extensive clinical heterogeneity between the included studies or variation in measurement tools, comparisons, or outcomes of involvement. In these cases, systematic reviews can use qualitative synthesis methods such as vote counting, content analysis, classification schemes and tabulations, as an alternative arroyo to narratively synthesize the results of the independent studies included in the review. This class of review is known equally qualitative systematic review.

A rigorous example of one such review in the eHealth domain is presented by Mickan, Atherton, Roberts, Heneghan, and Tilson (2014) on the utilize of handheld computers by healthcare professionals and their impact on admission to information and clinical decision-making. In line with the methodological guidelines for systematic reviews, these authors: (a) developed and registered with prospero (www.crd.york.ac.great britain/prospero/) an a priori review protocol; (b) conducted comprehensive searches for eligible studies using multiple databases and other supplementary strategies (e.thou., forward searches); and (c) subsequently carried out report pick, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments in a duplicate fashion to eliminate potential errors in the review procedure. Heterogeneity between the included studies in terms of reported outcomes and measures precluded the use of meta-analytic methods. To this end, the authors resorted to using narrative analysis and synthesis to draw the effectiveness of handheld computers on accessing information for clinical knowledge, adherence to safety and clinical quality guidelines, and diagnostic decision-making.

In recent years, the number of systematic reviews in the field of health information science has increased considerably. Systematic reviews with discordant findings can cause peachy defoliation and make information technology difficult for determination-makers to interpret the review-level evidence (Moher, 2013). Therefore, at that place is a growing need for appraisement and synthesis of prior systematic reviews to ensure that decision-making is constantly informed by the best available accumulated show. Umbrella reviews, also known as overviews of systematic reviews, are tertiary types of evidence synthesis that aim to attain this; that is, they aim to compare and contrast findings from multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Becker & Oxman, 2008). Umbrella reviews generally adhere to the same principles and rigorous methodological guidelines used in systematic reviews. Withal, the unit of analysis in umbrella reviews is the systematic review rather than the primary report (Becker & Oxman, 2008). Dissimilar systematic reviews that take a narrow focus of research, umbrella reviews focus on broader research topics for which there are several potential interventions (Smith, Devane, Begley, & Clarke, 2011). A recent umbrella review on the effects of abode telemonitoring interventions for patients with heart failure critically appraised, compared, and synthesized evidence from xv systematic reviews to investigate which types of abode telemonitoring technologies and forms of interventions are more than effective in reducing mortality and hospital admissions (Kitsiou, Paré, & Jaana, 2015).

ix.iii.5. Realist Reviews

Realist reviews are theory-driven interpretative reviews developed to inform, enhance, or supplement conventional systematic reviews by making sense of heterogeneous show about circuitous interventions applied in various contexts in a way that informs policy controlling (Greenhalgh, Wong, Westhorp, & Pawson, 2011). They originated from criticisms of positivist systematic reviews which centre on their "simplistic" underlying assumptions (Oates, 2011). Every bit explained above, systematic reviews seek to identify causation. Such logic is appropriate for fields similar medicine and instruction where findings of randomized controlled trials tin be aggregated to see whether a new treatment or intervention does improve outcomes. Nevertheless, many argue that it is not possible to institute such directly causal links between interventions and outcomes in fields such as social policy, direction, and information systems where for any intervention at that place is unlikely to be a regular or consistent event (Oates, 2011; Pawson, 2006; Rousseau, Manning, & Denyer, 2008).

To circumvent these limitations, Pawson, Greenhalgh, Harvey, and Walshe (2005) have proposed a new approach for synthesizing knowledge that seeks to unpack the machinery of how "complex interventions" work in particular contexts. The bones research question — what works? — which is usually associated with systematic reviews changes to: what is information technology about this intervention that works, for whom, in what circumstances, in what respects and why? Realist reviews have no particular preference for either quantitative or qualitative evidence. Every bit a theory-building approach, a realist review usually starts by articulating likely underlying mechanisms and then scrutinizes available evidence to find out whether and where these mechanisms are applicable (Shepperd et al., 2009). Primary studies establish in the extant literature are viewed equally instance studies which tin can test and modify the initial theories (Rousseau et al., 2008).

The chief objective pursued in the realist review conducted by Otte-Trojel, de Bont, Rundall, and van de Klundert (2014) was to examine how patient portals contribute to wellness service delivery and patient outcomes. The specific goals were to investigate how outcomes are produced and, most importantly, how variations in outcomes can exist explained. The research team started with an exploratory review of background documents and research studies to identify ways in which patient portals may contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The authors identified six main means which represent "educated guesses" to be tested against the data in the evaluation studies. These studies were identified through a formal and systematic search in four databases between 2003 and 2013. Two members of the research team selected the articles using a pre-established list of inclusion and exclusion criteria and following a 2-stride process. The authors then extracted data from the selected manufactures and created several tables, one for each outcome category. They organized information to bring forward those mechanisms where patient portals contribute to outcomes and the variation in outcomes across unlike contexts.

ix.3.6. Critical Reviews

Lastly, disquisitional reviews aim to provide a disquisitional evaluation and interpretive analysis of existing literature on a particular topic of interest to reveal strengths, weaknesses, contradictions, controversies, inconsistencies, and/or other important bug with respect to theories, hypotheses, research methods or results (Baumeister & Leary, 1997; Kirkevold, 1997). Dissimilar other review types, critical reviews attempt to take a cogitating account of the research that has been washed in a detail area of interest, and assess its credibility past using appraisal instruments or critical interpretive methods. In this mode, critical reviews attempt to constructively inform other scholars about the weaknesses of prior research and strengthen knowledge development by giving focus and management to studies for farther comeback (Kirkevold, 1997).

Kitsiou, Paré, and Jaana (2013) provide an instance of a critical review that assessed the methodological quality of prior systematic reviews of dwelling telemonitoring studies for chronic patients. The authors conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases to place eligible reviews and afterwards used a validated instrument to conduct an in-depth quality appraisal. Results indicate that the bulk of systematic reviews in this item area endure from important methodological flaws and biases that impair their internal validity and limit their usefulness for clinical and decision-making purposes. To this finish, they provide a number of recommendations to strengthen knowledge development towards improving the design and execution of time to come reviews on habitation telemonitoring.

9.4. Summary

Table 9.ane outlines the main types of literature reviews that were described in the previous sub-sections and summarizes the master characteristics that distinguish one review type from another. It also includes fundamental references to methodological guidelines and useful sources that tin be used past eHealth scholars and researchers for planning and developing reviews.

Table 9.1

Typology of Literature Reviews (adapted from Paré et al., 2015).

As shown in Table 9.i, each review type addresses different kinds of enquiry questions or objectives, which subsequently define and dictate the methods and approaches that need to be used to attain the overarching goal(s) of the review. For example, in the instance of narrative reviews, there is greater flexibility in searching and synthesizing articles (Green et al., 2006). Researchers are frequently relatively free to use a diversity of approaches to search, identify, and select relevant scientific articles, describe their operational characteristics, nowadays how the private studies fit together, and codify conclusions. On the other hand, systematic reviews are characterized by their high level of systematicity, rigour, and employ of explicit methods, based on an "a priori" review plan that aims to minimize bias in the analysis and synthesis process (Higgins & Green, 2008). Some reviews are exploratory in nature (e.one thousand., scoping/mapping reviews), whereas others may be conducted to detect patterns (e.yard., descriptive reviews) or involve a synthesis approach that may include the critical assay of prior enquiry (Paré et al., 2015). Hence, in order to select the most appropriate type of review, it is critical to know before embarking on a review project, why the inquiry synthesis is conducted and what type of methods are all-time aligned with the pursued goals.

9.5. Final Remarks

In lite of the increased use of evidence-based practise and research generating stronger prove (Grady et al., 2011; Lyden et al., 2013), review manufactures accept go essential tools for summarizing, synthesizing, integrating or critically appraising prior knowledge in the eHealth field. As mentioned earlier, when rigorously conducted review manufactures represent powerful information sources for eHealth scholars and practitioners looking for state-of-the-art evidence. The typology of literature reviews nosotros used herein will permit eHealth researchers, graduate students and practitioners to gain a better understanding of the similarities and differences between review types.

Nosotros must stress that this classification scheme does not privilege any specific blazon of review as being of higher quality than some other (Paré et al., 2015). Equally explained to a higher place, each blazon of review has its own strengths and limitations. Having said that, we realize that the methodological rigour of any review — be it qualitative, quantitative or mixed — is a critical aspect that should be considered seriously by prospective authors. In the nowadays context, the notion of rigour refers to the reliability and validity of the review process described in section ix.2. For one thing, reliability is related to the reproducibility of the review process and steps, which is facilitated by a comprehensive documentation of the literature search process, extraction, coding and analysis performed in the review. Whether the search is comprehensive or not, whether it involves a methodical approach for data extraction and synthesis or not, information technology is of import that the review documents in an explicit and transparent fashion the steps and arroyo that were used in the process of its development. Next, validity characterizes the degree to which the review process was conducted appropriately. It goes beyond documentation and reflects decisions related to the selection of the sources, the search terms used, the catamenia of time covered, the articles selected in the search, and the awarding of backward and frontwards searches (vom Brocke et al., 2009). In short, the rigour of whatever review article is reflected by the explicitness of its methods (i.e., transparency) and the soundness of the approach used. We refer those interested in the concepts of rigour and quality to the piece of work of Templier and Paré (2015) which offers a detailed set of methodological guidelines for conducting and evaluating various types of review manufactures.

To conclude, our main objective in this chapter was to demystify the diverse types of literature reviews that are key to the continuous evolution of the eHealth field. Information technology is our promise that our descriptive business relationship volition serve as a valuable source for those conducting, evaluating or using reviews in this important and growing domain.

References

Ammenwerth E., de Keizer Due north. An inventory of evaluation studies of information technology in health care. Trends in evaluation inquiry, 1982-2002. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2004;44(i):44–56. [PubMed: 15778794]
Anderson Due south., Allen P., Peckham Due south., Goodwin N. Request the right questions: scoping studies in the commissioning of inquiry on the organisation and delivery of wellness services. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2008;6(7):1–12. [PMC costless article: PMC2500008] [PubMed: 18613961] [CrossRef]
Archer N., Fevrier-Thomas U., Lokker C., McKibbon K. A., Straus S.E. Personal health records: a scoping review. Journal of American Medical Computer science Association. 2011;18(four):515–522. [PMC free article: PMC3128401] [PubMed: 21672914]
Arksey H., O'Malley 50. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005;8(1):nineteen–32.
A systematic, tool-supported method for conducting literature reviews in information systems. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Information Systems (ecis 2011); June 9 to 11; Helsinki, Finland. 2011.
Baumeister R. F., Leary M.R. Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology. 1997;1(three):311–320.
Becker L. A., Oxman A.D. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green South., editors. Hoboken, nj: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Overviews of reviews; pp. 607–631.
Borenstein Yard., Hedges Fifty., Higgins J., Rothstein H. Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken, nj: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2009.
Cook D. J., Mulrow C. D., Haynes B. Systematic reviews: Synthesis of all-time testify for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1997;126(five):376–380. [PubMed: 9054282]
Cooper H., Hedges L.V. In: The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. 2d ed. Cooper H., Hedges Fifty. V., Valentine J. C., editors. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009. Inquiry synthesis as a scientific process; pp. 3–17.
Cooper H. M. Organizing cognition syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society. 1988;1(one):104–126.
Cronin P., Ryan F., Coughlan M. Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach. British Journal of Nursing. 2008;17(1):38–43. [PubMed: 18399395]
Darlow S., Wen K.Y. Evolution testing of mobile wellness interventions for cancer patient cocky-management: A review. Health Informatics Journal. 2015 (online before print). [PubMed: 25916831] [CrossRef]
Daudt H. Chiliad., van Mossel C., Scott S.J. Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team's experience with Arksey and O'Malley's framework. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2013;13:48. [PMC free article: PMC3614526] [PubMed: 23522333] [CrossRef]
Davies P. The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and practice. Oxford Review of Didactics. 2000;26(iii-iv):365–378.
Deeks J. J., Higgins J. P. T., Altman D.G. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green Southward., editors. Hoboken, nj: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Analysing information and undertaking meta-analyses; pp. 243–296.
Deshazo J. P., Lavallie D. L., Wolf F.M. Publication trends in the medical informatics literature: 20 years of "Medical Informatics" in mesh. bmc Medical Informatics and Conclusion Making. 2009;9:7. [PMC gratuitous article: PMC2652453] [PubMed: 19159472] [CrossRef]
Dixon-Woods Yard., Agarwal S., Jones D., Young B., Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative bear witness: a review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 2005;10(1):45–53. [PubMed: 15667704]
Finfgeld-Connett D., Johnson Eastward.D. Literature search strategies for conducting cognition-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2013;69(1):194–204. [PMC free article: PMC3424349] [PubMed: 22591030]
Grady B., Myers K. M., Nelson Eastward. 50., Belz N., Bennett Fifty., Carnahan L. … Guidelines Working Group. Show-based practice for telemental health. Telemedicine Journal and E Health. 2011;17(ii):131–148. [PubMed: 21385026]
Greenish B. N., Johnson C. D., Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the merchandise. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine. 2006;5(3):101–117. [PMC gratuitous article: PMC2647067] [PubMed: 19674681]
Greenhalgh T., Wong G., Westhorp G., Pawson R. Protocol–realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: evolving standards (rameses). bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011;xi:115. [PMC gratuitous commodity: PMC3173389] [PubMed: 21843376]
Gurol-Urganci I., de Jongh T., Vodopivec-Jamsek Five., Atun R., Car J. Mobile telephone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments. Cochrane Database System Review. 2013;12 cd007458. [PMC free article: PMC6485985] [PubMed: 24310741] [CrossRef]
Hart C. Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. London: SAGE Publications; 1998.
Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Cochrane book series. Hoboken, nj: Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.
Jesson J., Matheson L., Lacey F.M. Doing your literature review: traditional and systematic techniques. Los Angeles & London: SAGE Publications; 2011.
King W. R., He J. Understanding the function and methods of meta-assay in IS research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2005;xvi:ane.
Kirkevold M. Integrative nursing research — an of import strategy to further the development of nursing science and nursing practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1997;25(5):977–984. [PubMed: 9147203]
Kitchenham B., Charters South. ebse Technical Written report Version 2.3. Keele & Durham. britain: Keele Academy & University of Durham; 2007. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering science.
Kitsiou Due south., Paré One thousand., Jaana M. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of dwelling telemonitoring interventions for patients with chronic diseases: a critical assessment of their methodological quality. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2013;xv(7):e150. [PMC free article: PMC3785977] [PubMed: 23880072]
Kitsiou S., Paré Chiliad., Jaana M. Effects of habitation telemonitoring interventions on patients with chronic heart failure: an overview of systematic reviews. Journal of Medical Net Research. 2015;17(iii):e63. [PMC free article: PMC4376138] [PubMed: 25768664]
Levy Y., Ellis T.J. A systems approach to behave an effective literature review in support of data systems research. Informing Science. 2006;9:181–211.
Liberati A., Altman D. G., Tetzlaff J., Mulrow C., Gøtzsche P. C., Ioannidis J. P. A. et al. Moher D. The prisma statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate wellness care interventions: Caption and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2009;151(4):Westward-65. [PubMed: 19622512]
Lyden J. R., Zickmund S. Fifty., Bhargava T. D., Bryce C. L., Conroy M. B., Fischer Chiliad. Southward. et al. McTigue One thousand. M. Implementing health information engineering in a patient-centered manner: Patient experiences with an online show-based lifestyle intervention. Journal for Healthcare Quality. 2013;35(v):47–57. [PubMed: 24004039]
Mickan S., Atherton H., Roberts Northward. W., Heneghan C., Tilson J.Chiliad. Use of handheld computers in clinical practise: a systematic review. bmc Medical Computer science and Decision Making. 2014;fourteen:56. [PMC free article: PMC4099138] [PubMed: 24998515]
Moher D. The trouble of indistinguishable systematic reviews. British Medical Journal. 2013;347(5040) [PubMed: 23945367] [CrossRef]
Montori Five. M., Wilczynski Northward. L., Morgan D., Haynes R. B., Hedges T. Systematic reviews: a cross-exclusive study of location and commendation counts. bmc Medicine. 2003;1:2. [PMC costless article: PMC281591] [PubMed: 14633274]
Mulrow C. D. The medical review article: state of the scientific discipline. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1987;106(3):485–488. [PubMed: 3813259] [CrossRef]
Okoli C., Schabram Thou. A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information systems enquiry. ssrn Electronic Journal. 2010
Otte-Trojel T., de Bont A., Rundall T. G., van de Klundert J. How outcomes are achieved through patient portals: a realist review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2014;21(4):751–757. [PMC free article: PMC4078283] [PubMed: 24503882]
Paré G., Trudel M.-C., Jaana M., Kitsiou S. Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Direction. 2015;52(ii):183–199.
Patsopoulos N. A., Analatos A. A., Ioannidis J.P. A. Relative citation touch of diverse report designs in the health sciences. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2005;293(19):2362–2366. [PubMed: 15900006]
Paul M. G., Greene C. 1000., Newton-Dame R., Thorpe L. E., Perlman South. E., McVeigh 1000. H., Gourevitch M.N. The land of population wellness surveillance using electronic wellness records: A narrative review. Population Health Management. 2015;18(3):209–216. [PubMed: 25608033]
Pawson R. Prove-based policy: a realist perspective. London: SAGE Publications; 2006.
Pawson R., Greenhalgh T., Harvey G., Walshe K. Realist review—a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Periodical of Health Services Research & Policy. 2005;10(Suppl 1):21–34. [PubMed: 16053581]
Petersen Chiliad., Vakkalanka Southward., Kuzniarz L. Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Information and Software Technology. 2015;64:1–eighteen.
Petticrew M., Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A applied guide. Malden, ma: Blackwell Publishing Co; 2006.
Rousseau D. Chiliad., Manning J., Denyer D. Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the field's full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. The Academy of Direction Register. 2008;2(1):475–515.
Rowe F. What literature review is non: diversity, boundaries and recommendations. European Journal of Information Systems. 2014;23(3):241–255.
Shea B. J., Hamel C., Wells K. A., Bouter L. M., Kristjansson Eastward., Grimshaw J. et al. Boers M. amstar is a reliable and valid measurement tool to appraise the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Periodical of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009;62(10):1013–1020. [PubMed: 19230606]
Shepperd S., Lewin S., Straus S., Clarke Grand., Eccles M. P., Fitzpatrick R. et al. Sheikh A. Tin can we systematically review studies that evaluate complex interventions? PLoS Medicine. 2009;6(8):e1000086. [PMC free commodity: PMC2717209] [PubMed: 19668360]
Silva B. M., Rodrigues J. J., de la Torre Díez I., López-Coronado Thousand., Saleem Thousand. Mobile-health: A review of current state in 2015. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2015;56:265–272. [PubMed: 26071682]
Smith Five., Devane D., Begley C., Clarke Chiliad. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011;eleven(1):15. [PMC free article: PMC3039637] [PubMed: 21291558]
Sylvester A., Tate M., Johnstone D. Beyond synthesis: re-presenting heterogeneous inquiry literature. Behaviour & Information Technology. 2013;32(12):1199–1215.
Templier One thousand., Paré G. A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews. Communications of the Association for Data Systems. 2015;37(half-dozen):112–137.
Thomas J., Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative inquiry in systematic reviews. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2008;viii(1):45. [PMC free article: PMC2478656] [PubMed: 18616818]
Reconstructing the giant: on the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search procedure. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Information Systems (ecis 2009); Verona, Italy. 2009.
Webster J., Watson R.T. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. Management Data Systems Quarterly. 2002;26(ii):11.
Whitlock E. P., Lin J. Due south., Chou R., Shekelle P., Robinson Yard.A. Using existing systematic reviews in circuitous systematic reviews. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2008;148(10):776–782. [PubMed: 18490690]

wilsonourre1966.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK481583/