Which Report Views Primary Purpose Is to Quickly Review the Report Without Page Breaks?

April 17, 2022 Post a Comment

nine.1. Introduction

Literature reviews play a critical role in scholarship because science remains, first and foremost, a cumulative endeavour (vom Brocke et al., 2009). As in any academic discipline, rigorous noesis syntheses are condign 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. Amidst other methods, literature reviews are essential for: (a) identifying what has been written on a subject field or topic; (b) determining the extent to which a specific research area reveals any interpretable trends or patterns; (c) aggregating empirical findings related to a narrow enquiry question to back up bear witness-based do; (d) generating new frameworks and theories; and (e) identifying topics or questions requiring more investigation (Paré, Trudel, Jaana, & Kitsiou, 2015).

Literature reviews can accept ii major forms. The nigh prevalent 1 is the "literature review" or "groundwork" section inside a periodical paper or a chapter in a graduate thesis. This section synthesizes the extant literature and usually identifies the gaps in knowledge that the empirical study addresses (Sylvester, Tate, & Johnstone, 2013). Information technology may also provide a theoretical foundation for the proposed study, substantiate the presence of the research problem, justify the research as one that contributes something new to the cumulated knowledge, or validate the methods and approaches for the proposed report (Hart, 1998; Levy & Ellis, 2006).

The 2d form of literature review, which is the focus of this chapter, constitutes an original and valuable work of research in and of itself (Paré et al., 2015). Rather than providing a base of operations for a researcher's own work, information technology creates a solid starting indicate for all members of the community interested in a particular area or topic (Mulrow, 1987). The so-chosen "review article" is a journal-length paper which has an overarching purpose to synthesize the literature in a field, without collecting or analyzing any primary data (Green, Johnson, & Adams, 2006).

When appropriately conducted, review articles represent powerful data sources for practitioners looking for state-of-the art evidence to guide their conclusion-making and piece of work practices (Paré et al., 2015). Further, high-quality reviews become frequently cited pieces of work which researchers seek out as a first clear outline of the literature when undertaking empirical studies (Cooper, 1988; Rowe, 2014). Scholars who track and approximate the bear upon of articles have found that review papers are cited and downloaded more frequently than whatever other type of published article (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 i to have an overview, if non a detailed knowledge of the area in question, as well equally references to the near useful chief sources (Cronin et al., 2008). Although they are not easy to behave, the commitment to complete a review article provides a tremendous service to one's academic customs (Paré et al., 2015; Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). Most, if not all, peer-reviewed journals in the fields of medical informatics 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-alone literature review; (b) to describe and dissimilarity the dissimilar types of review articles that can contribute to the eHealth knowledge base of operations; (c) to illustrate each review type with one 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

As explained in Templier and Paré (2015), at that place are half dozen generic steps involved in conducting a review article:

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

Although these steps are presented here in sequential order, 1 must keep in mind that the review procedure tin can exist iterative and that many activities tin exist initiated during the planning stage and afterward refined during subsequent phases (Finfgeld-Connett & Johnson, 2013; Kitchenham & Charters, 2007).

Formulating the inquiry question(due south) and objective(s): As a start pace, members of the review team must appropriately justify the need for the review itself (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006), identify 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 likewise need to articulate the research question(southward) they propose to investigate (Kitchenham & Charters, 2007). In this regard, we concur with Jesson, Matheson, and Lacey (2011) that conspicuously articulated research questions are cardinal ingredients that guide the unabridged 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 about the suitability of textile to be considered in the review (Cooper, 1988). There be three main coverage strategies. Showtime, exhaustive coverage ways an endeavor is made to be every bit comprehensive equally 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 knowledge base. The second blazon of coverage consists of presenting materials that are representative of most other works in a given field or expanse. Often authors who adopt this strategy volition search for relevant articles in a small-scale number of top-tier journals in a field (Paré et al., 2015). In the tertiary strategy, the review team concentrates on prior works that have been central or pivotal to a detail topic. This may include empirical studies or conceptual papers that initiated a line of investigation, inverse how issues or questions were framed, introduced new methods or concepts, or engendered important debate (Cooper, 1988).

Screening for inclusion: The post-obit step consists of evaluating the applicability of the textile 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 team must screen them to make up one's mind their relevance (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). A set of predetermined rules provides a footing for including or excluding certain studies. This practice requires a pregnant investment on the part of researchers, who must ensure enhanced objectivity and avoid biases or mistakes. As discussed later in this chapter, for sure types of reviews there must be at to the lowest degree two independent reviewers involved in the screening procedure and a procedure to resolve disagreements must besides exist in place (Liberati et al., 2009; Shea et al., 2009).

Assessing the quality of principal studies: In improver to screening material for inclusion, members of the review team may demand to assess the scientific quality of the selected studies, that is, appraise the rigour of the research design and methods. Such formal assessment, which is usually conducted independently by at least two coders, helps members of the review squad refine which studies to include in the last sample, determine whether or not the differences in quality may impact their conclusions, or guide how they analyze the data and interpret the findings (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). Ascribing quality scores to each primary written report or considering through domain-based evaluations which study components take or have not been designed and executed appropriately makes it possible to reverberate on the extent to which the selected report addresses possible biases and maximizes validity (Shea et al., 2009).

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

Analyzing and synthesizing data: As a terminal step, members of the review team must collate, summarize, amass, organize, and compare the evidence extracted from the included studies. The extracted data must be presented in a meaningful manner 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 brand sense of extant knowledge on a given topic. There exist several methods and techniques for synthesizing quantitative (e.chiliad., frequency analysis, meta-assay) and qualitative (e.one thousand., 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 amongst a set of primary inquiry studies conducted on a item topic. Our nomenclature scheme is largely inspired from Paré and colleagues' (2015) typology. Below nosotros present and illustrate those review types that nosotros feel are cardinal to the growth and development of the eHealth domain.

ix.3.i. Narrative Reviews

The narrative review is the "traditional" way 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 non seek generalization or cumulative knowledge from what is reviewed (Davies, 2000; Dark-green et al., 2006). Instead, the review team oft undertakes the task of accumulating and synthesizing the literature to demonstrate the value of a particular point of view (Baumeister & Leary, 1997). As such, reviewers may selectively ignore or limit the attention paid to sure studies in order to make a point. In this rather unsystematic approach, the selection of information from principal manufactures is subjective, lacks explicit criteria for inclusion and tin lead to biased interpretations or inferences (Light-green et al., 2006). There are several narrative reviews in the particular eHealth domain, as in all fields, which follow such an unstructured arroyo (Silva et al., 2015; Paul et al., 2015).

Despite these criticisms, this type of review can be very useful in gathering together a volume of literature in a specific subject area and synthesizing information technology. As mentioned in a higher place, its primary purpose is to provide the reader with a comprehensive groundwork for understanding current noesis and highlighting the significance of new research (Cronin et al., 2008). Kinesthesia like to use 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 past identifying gaps or inconsistencies in a trunk of knowledge, thus helping researchers to make up one's mind enquiry questions or formulate hypotheses. Importantly, narrative reviews can also be used as educational articles to bring practitioners up to engagement with sure topics of problems (Green et al., 2006).

Recently, at that place have been several efforts to innovate more than rigour in narrative reviews that volition elucidate common pitfalls and bring changes into their publication standards. Information systems researchers, among others, accept 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 three steps, namely: (a) literature search and screening; (b) data extraction and assay; and (c) writing the literature review. They provide detailed and very helpful instructions on how to conduct each step of the review process. Every bit another methodological contribution, vom Brocke et al. (2009) offered a series of guidelines for conducting literature reviews, with a particular focus on how to search and extract the relevant body of cognition. Terminal, Bandara, Miskon, and Fielt (2011) proposed a structured, predefined and tool-supported method to identify primary studies within a feasible telescopic, excerpt 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 piece of work.

Darlow and Wen (2015) provide a good case of a highly structured narrative review in the eHealth field. These authors synthesized published articles that draw the development process of mobile health (m-health) interventions for patients' cancer care cocky-management. Equally in most narrative reviews, the scope of the inquiry 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 can be drawn every bit a issue of the development of these systems. To provide clear answers to these questions, a literature search was conducted on half-dozen electronic databases and Google Scholar. The search was performed using several terms and free text words, combining them in an appropriate fashion. Four inclusion and three exclusion criteria were utilized during the screening process. Both authors independently reviewed each of the identified manufactures to make up one's mind eligibility and excerpt written report information. A flow 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 series of applied recommendations for m-health intervention development.

9.3.2. Descriptive or Mapping Reviews

The primary goal of a descriptive review is to make up one's mind the extent to which a body of cognition in a item research topic reveals any interpretable pattern or trend with respect to pre-existing propositions, theories, methodologies or findings (Rex & 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 group of published works (Paré et al., 2015). Farther, authors of descriptive reviews extract from each study certain characteristics of interest, such as publication year, research methods, information collection techniques, and management or strength of research outcomes (due east.thousand., positive, negative, or not-meaning) in the form 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 analysis and the published literature every bit a whole provides a database from which the authors attempt to identify any interpretable trends or draw overall conclusions about the merits of existing conceptualizations, propositions, methods or findings (Paré et al., 2015). In doing then, a descriptive review may claim that its findings represent the state of the art in a particular domain (King & He, 2005).

In the fields of health sciences and medical informatics, reviews that focus on examining the range, nature and development of a topic area are described by Anderson, Allen, Peckham, and Goodwin (2008) as mapping reviews. Like descriptive reviews, the research questions are generic and unremarkably relate to publication patterns and trends. There is no preconceived program to systematically review all of the literature although this can be done. Instead, researchers oftentimes nowadays studies that are representative of most works published in a detail expanse and they consider a specific fourth dimension frame to be mapped.

An case of this approach in the eHealth domain is offered by DeShazo, Lavallie, and Wolf (2009). The purpose of this descriptive or mapping review was to characterize publication trends in the medical information science literature over a 20-twelvemonth period (1987 to 2006). To reach this ambitious objective, the authors performed a bibliometric analysis of medical information science citations indexed in medline using publication trends, journal frequencies, touch factors, Medical Subject field Headings (MeSH) term frequencies, and characteristics of citations. Findings revealed that there were over 77,000 medical informatics manufactures published during the covered menstruation in numerous journals and that the average annual growth rate was 12%. The MeSH term analysis also suggested a potent interdisciplinary trend. Finally, boilerplate impact scores increased over time with two notable growth periods. Overall, patterns in inquiry outputs that seem to characterize the historic trends and current components of the field of medical informatics suggest it may be a maturing field of study (DeShazo et al., 2009).

9.3.3. Scoping Reviews

Scoping reviews attempt 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 exist conducted to examine the extent, range and nature of inquiry activities in a particular area, determine the value of undertaking a full systematic review (discussed next), or identify research gaps in the extant literature (Paré et al., 2015). In line with their main objective, scoping reviews usually conclude with the presentation of a detailed enquiry agenda for future works along with potential implications for both practice and research.

Unlike narrative and descriptive reviews, the whole point of scoping the field is to be every bit 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. Information technology is also recommended that at least 2 independent coders review abstracts yielded from the search strategy and so the full articles for study selection (Daudt et al., 2013). The synthesized evidence from content or thematic assay is relatively easy to present in tabular form (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005; Thomas & Harden, 2008).

One of the about 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 health record (phr) systems including design, functionality, implementation, applications, outcomes, and benefits. Seven databases were searched from 1985 to March 2010. Several search terms relating to phrs were used during this procedure. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts to determine inclusion condition. A second screen of full-text manufactures, once more past two independent members of the research squad, ensured that the studies described phrs. All in all, 130 manufactures met the criteria and their data were extracted manually into a database. The authors concluded that although there is a big amount of survey, observational, accomplice/panel, and anecdotal evidence 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 there is footling solid evidence from randomized controlled trials or other studies through the utilise of phrs. Hence, they suggested that more research is needed that addresses the current lack of understanding of optimal functionality and usability of these systems, and how they can play a beneficial part in supporting patient self-direction (Archer et al., 2011).

9.3.four. Forms of Aggregative Reviews

Healthcare providers, practitioners, and policy-makers are nowadays overwhelmed with large volumes of data, including research-based prove 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 look that all these disparate actors will have the fourth dimension, skills, and necessary resource to identify the bachelor prove 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 try to aggregate, appraise, and synthesize in a single source all empirical testify that meet a set of previously specified eligibility criteria in club to respond a clearly formulated and ofttimes narrow research question on a particular topic of interest to support bear witness-based practice (Liberati et al., 2009). They attach closely to explicit scientific principles (Liberati et al., 2009) and rigorous methodological guidelines (Higgins & Light-green, 2008) aimed at reducing random and systematic errors that tin lead to deviations from the truth in results or inferences. The use of explicit methods allows systematic reviews to aggregate a big body of research evidence, appraise whether furnishings or relationships are in the same management and of the same full general magnitude, explicate possible inconsistencies between study results, and determine the force of the overall bear witness for every outcome of interest based on the quality of included studies and the general consistency among them (Cook, Mulrow, & Haynes, 1997). The chief 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 information sources, including grayness literature sources, without whatever language restrictions.
Selecting studies, extracting data, and assessing hazard of bias in a indistinguishable manner using two independent reviewers to avoid random or systematic errors in the process.
Analyzing data using quantitative or qualitative methods.
Presenting results in summary of findings tables.
Interpreting results and drawing conclusions.

Many systematic reviews, but non all, apply statistical methods to combine the results of independent studies into a single quantitative estimate or summary event size. Known as meta-analyses, these reviews apply specific data extraction and statistical techniques (e.thou., network, frequentist, or Bayesian meta-analyses) to calculate from each report by consequence of interest an effect size along with a confidence interval that reflects the degree of uncertainty behind the point estimate of consequence (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009; Deeks, Higgins, & Altman, 2008). After, they use fixed or random-furnishings assay models to combine the results of the included studies, appraise statistical heterogeneity, and summate a weighted average of the event estimates from the unlike studies, taking into account their sample sizes. The summary outcome size is a value that reflects the average magnitude of the intervention effect for a particular outcome of interest or, more mostly, the forcefulness of a human relationship between two variables beyond all studies included in the systematic review. By statistically combining information from multiple studies, meta-analyses can create more precise and reliable estimates of intervention effects than those derived from individual studies alone, when these are examined independently equally 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 example of a high-quality systematic review with meta-analysis. Missed appointments are a major cause of inefficiency in healthcare commitment with substantial budgetary costs to wellness systems. These authors sought to assess whether mobile phone-based appointment reminders delivered through Brusque Bulletin Service (sms) or Multimedia Messaging Service (mms) are constructive in improving rates of patient omnipresence and reducing overall costs. To this end, they conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases using highly sensitive search strategies without language or publication-type restrictions to place all rcts that are eligible for inclusion. In order to minimize the run a risk of omitting eligible studies not captured past the original search, they supplemented all electronic searches with manual screening of trial registers and references contained in the included studies. Report selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were performed independently past two coders using standardized methods to ensure consistency and to eliminate potential errors. Findings from eight rctsouth involving half dozen,615 participants were pooled into meta-analyses to calculate the magnitude of effects that mobile text bulletin reminders have on the charge per unit of omnipresence at healthcare appointments compared to no reminders and phone phone call reminders.

Meta-analyses are regarded every bit powerful tools for deriving meaningful conclusions. Still, there are situations in which it is neither reasonable nor advisable to pool studies together using meta-analytic methods simply because in that location is extensive clinical heterogeneity between the included studies or variation in measurement tools, comparisons, or outcomes of interest. In these cases, systematic reviews can employ qualitative synthesis methods such every bit vote counting, content assay, classification schemes and tabulations, as an alternative approach to narratively synthesize the results of the independent studies included in the review. This form of review is known equally qualitative systematic review.

A rigorous example of i such review in the eHealth domain is presented by Mickan, Atherton, Roberts, Heneghan, and Tilson (2014) on the use of handheld computers by healthcare professionals and their bear on on access to data and clinical conclusion-making. In line with the methodological guidelines for systematic reviews, these authors: (a) developed and registered with prospero (www.crd.york.air conditioning.great britain/prospero/) an a priori review protocol; (b) conducted comprehensive searches for eligible studies using multiple databases and other supplementary strategies (e.g., forward searches); and (c) subsequently carried out study option, data extraction, and gamble 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 stop, the authors resorted to using narrative analysis and synthesis to describe the effectiveness of handheld computers on accessing information for clinical knowledge, adherence to safety and clinical quality guidelines, and diagnostic controlling.

In contempo years, the number of systematic reviews in the field of health information science has increased considerably. Systematic reviews with discordant findings tin can cause not bad confusion and make information technology difficult for determination-makers to translate the review-level evidence (Moher, 2013). Therefore, there 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 evidence. Umbrella reviews, also known as overviews of systematic reviews, are tertiary types of show synthesis that aim to achieve this; that is, they aim to compare and dissimilarity findings from multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Becker & Oxman, 2008). Umbrella reviews generally adhere to the aforementioned principles and rigorous methodological guidelines used in systematic reviews. However, the unit of assay in umbrella reviews is the systematic review rather than the primary study (Becker & Oxman, 2008). Unlike systematic reviews that have a narrow focus of inquiry, 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 furnishings of dwelling telemonitoring interventions for patients with heart failure critically appraised, compared, and synthesized testify from 15 systematic reviews to investigate which types of abode telemonitoring technologies and forms of interventions are more constructive in reducing mortality and hospital admissions (Kitsiou, Paré, & Jaana, 2015).

9.iii.5. Realist Reviews

Realist reviews are theory-driven interpretative reviews developed to inform, enhance, or supplement conventional systematic reviews past making sense of heterogeneous show about complex interventions applied in diverse contexts in a fashion that informs policy decision-making (Greenhalgh, Wong, Westhorp, & Pawson, 2011). They originated from criticisms of positivist systematic reviews which centre on their "simplistic" underlying assumptions (Oates, 2011). As explained higher up, systematic reviews seek to identify causation. Such logic is appropriate for fields similar medicine and education where findings of randomized controlled trials can be aggregated to see whether a new treatment or intervention does improve outcomes. Nevertheless, many debate that it is not possible to establish such direct causal links between interventions and outcomes in fields such equally social policy, management, and information systems where for whatever intervention there is unlikely to be a regular or consequent outcome (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 mechanism of how "complex interventions" work in particular contexts. The bones inquiry question — what works? — which is unremarkably associated with systematic reviews changes to: what is it 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. Equally a theory-building approach, a realist review usually starts by articulating likely underlying mechanisms and then scrutinizes available bear witness to find out whether and where these mechanisms are applicable (Shepperd et al., 2009). Master studies found in the extant literature are viewed as case studies which can test and change the initial theories (Rousseau et al., 2008).

The main 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 health service delivery and patient outcomes. The specific goals were to investigate how outcomes are produced and, most chiefly, how variations in outcomes can exist explained. The inquiry 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 confronting the information in the evaluation studies. These studies were identified through a formal and systematic search in four databases betwixt 2003 and 2013. Ii members of the research team selected the articles using a pre-established list of inclusion and exclusion criteria and following a two-step procedure. The authors then extracted data from the selected articles and created several tables, one for each outcome category. They organized information to bring frontward those mechanisms where patient portals contribute to outcomes and the variation in outcomes beyond dissimilar contexts.

9.3.six. Critical Reviews

Lastly, critical reviews aim to provide a disquisitional evaluation and interpretive analysis of existing literature on a particular topic of involvement to reveal strengths, weaknesses, contradictions, controversies, inconsistencies, and/or other of import issues with respect to theories, hypotheses, inquiry methods or results (Baumeister & Leary, 1997; Kirkevold, 1997). Unlike other review types, disquisitional reviews attempt to accept a cogitating account of the research that has been done in a particular area of interest, and assess its brownie by using appraisal instruments or critical interpretive methods. In this way, critical reviews attempt to constructively inform other scholars almost the weaknesses of prior enquiry and strengthen knowledge development by giving focus and direction to studies for further improvement (Kirkevold, 1997).

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

9.4. Summary

Tabular array 9.i outlines the main types of literature reviews that were described in the previous sub-sections and summarizes the main characteristics that distinguish one review blazon from another. It also includes cardinal references to methodological guidelines and useful sources that tin can be used by eHealth scholars and researchers for planning and developing reviews.

Table 9.ane

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

Every bit shown in Table ix.1, each review type addresses different kinds of research questions or objectives, which subsequently define and dictate the methods and approaches that need to be used to achieve the overarching goal(south) of the review. For case, in the case of narrative reviews, there is greater flexibility in searching and synthesizing articles (Light-green et al., 2006). Researchers are frequently relatively gratuitous to utilise a diverseness of approaches to search, identify, and select relevant scientific manufactures, describe their operational characteristics, present how the individual studies fit together, and codify conclusions. On the other hand, systematic reviews are characterized by their high level of systematicity, rigour, and use 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 (east.chiliad., scoping/mapping reviews), whereas others may be conducted to discover patterns (e.g., descriptive reviews) or involve a synthesis approach that may include the disquisitional assay of prior research (Paré et al., 2015). Hence, in order to select the well-nigh appropriate blazon of review, it is disquisitional to know before embarking on a review project, why the enquiry synthesis is conducted and what type of methods are best aligned with the pursued goals.

9.5. Concluding Remarks

In calorie-free of the increased use of testify-based practice and research generating stronger testify (Grady et al., 2011; Lyden et al., 2013), review manufactures have become essential tools for summarizing, synthesizing, integrating or critically appraising prior knowledge in the eHealth field. As mentioned earlier, when rigorously conducted review articles represent powerful data 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 proceeds a better agreement of the similarities and differences betwixt review types.

We must stress that this nomenclature scheme does not privilege any specific type of review as being of higher quality than another (Paré et al., 2015). As explained above, each blazon of review has its own strengths and limitations. Having said that, we realize that the methodological rigour of whatever review — be information technology qualitative, quantitative or mixed — is a disquisitional 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 9.2. For one matter, reliability is related to the reproducibility of the review procedure and steps, which is facilitated past a comprehensive documentation of the literature search procedure, extraction, coding and analysis performed in the review. Whether the search is comprehensive or not, whether information technology involves a methodical approach for data extraction and synthesis or not, it is important that the review documents in an explicit and transparent style the steps and approach 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 option of the sources, the search terms used, the menstruum of time covered, the manufactures selected in the search, and the application of backward and forward searches (vom Brocke et al., 2009). In short, the rigour of whatsoever 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 various types of literature reviews that are central to the continuous development of the eHealth field. It is our hope that our descriptive account will serve every bit a valuable source for those conducting, evaluating or using reviews in this important and growing domain.

References

Ammenwerth E., de Keizer North. An inventory of evaluation studies of information technology in health care. Trends in evaluation research, 1982-2002. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2004;44(i):44–56. [PubMed: 15778794]
Anderson S., Allen P., Peckham S., Goodwin North. Asking the correct questions: scoping studies in the commissioning of inquiry on the arrangement and delivery of wellness services. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2008;6(7):i–12. [PMC free article: PMC2500008] [PubMed: 18613961] [CrossRef]
Archer N., Fevrier-Thomas U., Lokker C., McKibbon G. A., Straus South.Eastward. Personal wellness records: a scoping review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2011;xviii(4):515–522. [PMC costless commodity: PMC3128401] [PubMed: 21672914]
Arksey H., O'Malley 50. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Inquiry Methodology. 2005;8(one):19–32.
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 S., editors. Hoboken, nj: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Overviews of reviews; pp. 607–631.
Borenstein M., Hedges L., 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 best evidence for clinical decisions. Register of Internal Medicine. 1997;126(5):376–380. [PubMed: 9054282]
Cooper H., Hedges L.Five. In: The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. second ed. Cooper H., Hedges L. V., Valentine J. C., editors. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009. Research synthesis equally a scientific process; pp. iii–17.
Cooper H. Thou. Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Club. 1988;1(1):104–126.
Cronin P., Ryan F., Coughlan M. Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-footstep approach. British Periodical of Nursing. 2008;17(i):38–43. [PubMed: 18399395]
Darlow South., Wen K.Y. Development testing of mobile health interventions for cancer patient self-direction: A review. Health Informatics Journal. 2015 (online before impress). [PubMed: 25916831] [CrossRef]
Daudt H. M., van Mossel C., Scott South.J. Enhancing the scoping report methodology: a large, inter-professional squad's experience with Arksey and O'Malley'southward framework. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2013;xiii:48. [PMC free commodity: PMC3614526] [PubMed: 23522333] [CrossRef]
Davies P. The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and exercise. Oxford Review of Teaching. 2000;26(iii-four):365–378.
Deeks J. J., Higgins J. P. T., Altman D.G. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Dark-green S., editors. Hoboken, nj: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses; pp. 243–296.
Deshazo J. P., Lavallie D. 50., Wolf F.Thousand. Publication trends in the medical informatics literature: 20 years of "Medical Informatics" in mesh. bmc Medical Computer science and Determination Making. 2009;9:7. [PMC costless article: PMC2652453] [PubMed: 19159472] [CrossRef]
Dixon-Wood Thousand., Agarwal S., Jones D., Young B., Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Enquiry and Policy. 2005;10(1):45–53. [PubMed: 15667704]
Finfgeld-Connett D., Johnson E.D. Literature search strategies for conducting cognition-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Periodical of Advanced Nursing. 2013;69(i):194–204. [PMC free commodity: PMC3424349] [PubMed: 22591030]
Grady B., Myers K. K., Nelson Eastward. L., Belz Due north., Bennett 50., Carnahan Fifty. … Guidelines Working Grouping. Evidence-based practice for telemental wellness. Telemedicine Journal and E Health. 2011;17(ii):131–148. [PubMed: 21385026]
Green B. N., Johnson C. D., Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine. 2006;5(3):101–117. [PMC free commodity: PMC2647067] [PubMed: 19674681]
Greenhalgh T., Wong G., Westhorp K., Pawson R. Protocol–realist and meta-narrative testify synthesis: evolving standards (rameses). bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011;11:115. [PMC free article: PMC3173389] [PubMed: 21843376]
Gurol-Urganci I., de Jongh T., Vodopivec-Jamsek V., Atun R., Machine J. Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments. Cochrane Database System Review. 2013;12 cd007458. [PMC free commodity: 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 serial. 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 West. R., He J. Understanding the role and methods of meta-assay in IS enquiry. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2005;16:1.
Kirkevold M. Integrative nursing enquiry — 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 Study Version two.three. Keele & Durham. u.k.: Keele University & University of Durham; 2007. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering.
Kitsiou S., Paré G., Jaana M. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with chronic diseases: a critical cess of their methodological quality. Periodical of Medical Internet Inquiry. 2013;15(7):e150. [PMC free article: PMC3785977] [PubMed: 23880072]
Kitsiou Due south., Paré G., Jaana One thousand. Furnishings of home telemonitoring interventions on patients with chronic center failure: an overview of systematic reviews. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2015;17(3):e63. [PMC free article: PMC4376138] [PubMed: 25768664]
Levy Y., Ellis T.J. A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems inquiry. 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 health care interventions: Explanation 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 Thou. B., Fischer G. S. et al. McTigue K. Thou. Implementing health information technology in a patient-centered manner: Patient experiences with an online evidence-based lifestyle intervention. Journal for Healthcare Quality. 2013;35(5):47–57. [PubMed: 24004039]
Mickan Southward., Atherton H., Roberts N. W., Heneghan C., Tilson J.K. Utilize of handheld computers in clinical practise: a systematic review. bmc Medical Computer science and Decision Making. 2014;14:56. [PMC free article: PMC4099138] [PubMed: 24998515]
Moher D. The problem of duplicate systematic reviews. British Medical Journal. 2013;347(5040) [PubMed: 23945367] [CrossRef]
Montori V. M., Wilczynski N. Fifty., Morgan D., Haynes R. B., Hedges T. Systematic reviews: a cantankerous-exclusive study of location and citation counts. bmc Medicine. 2003;one:2. [PMC free 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 Thousand. A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information systems research. ssrn Electronic Journal. 2010
Otte-Trojel T., de Bont A., Rundall T. G., van de Klundert J. How outcomes are accomplished through patient portals: a realist review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2014;21(4):751–757. [PMC gratuitous article: PMC4078283] [PubMed: 24503882]
Paré Chiliad., Trudel M.-C., Jaana Yard., Kitsiou Due south. Synthesizing information systems noesis: A typology of literature reviews. Data & Direction. 2015;52(2):183–199.
Patsopoulos N. A., Analatos A. A., Ioannidis J.P. A. Relative commendation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. Journal of the American Medical Clan. 2005;293(nineteen):2362–2366. [PubMed: 15900006]
Paul One thousand. M., Greene C. M., Newton-Dame R., Thorpe L. E., Perlman South. Due east., McVeigh K. H., Gourevitch M.Due north. The country of population health surveillance using electronic wellness records: A narrative review. Population Health Management. 2015;18(three):209–216. [PubMed: 25608033]
Pawson R. Bear witness-based policy: a realist perspective. London: SAGE Publications; 2006.
Pawson R., Greenhalgh T., Harvey One thousand., Walshe Thousand. Realist review—a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Periodical of Health Services Research & Policy. 2005;10(Suppl ane):21–34. [PubMed: 16053581]
Petersen K., Vakkalanka S., Kuzniarz L. Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software technology: An update. Information and Software Engineering. 2015;64:1–18.
Petticrew M., Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A applied guide. Malden, ma: Blackwell Publishing Co; 2006.
Rousseau D. Thou., Manning J., Denyer D. Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the field's total weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. The Academy of Management Annals. 2008;2(1):475–515.
Rowe F. What literature review is non: diversity, boundaries and recommendations. European Journal of Information Systems. 2014;23(three):241–255.
Shea B. J., Hamel C., Wells G. A., Bouter L. M., Kristjansson E., Grimshaw J. et al. Boers M. amstar is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009;62(10):1013–1020. [PubMed: 19230606]
Shepperd S., Lewin S., Straus Due south., Clarke M., Eccles M. P., Fitzpatrick R. et al. Sheikh A. Tin we systematically review studies that evaluate complex interventions? PLoS Medicine. 2009;6(eight):e1000086. [PMC free article: PMC2717209] [PubMed: 19668360]
Silva B. G., Rodrigues J. J., de la Torre Díez I., López-Coronado M., Saleem K. Mobile-wellness: A review of current land in 2015. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2015;56:265–272. [PubMed: 26071682]
Smith V., Devane D., Begley C., Clarke M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. bmc Medical Enquiry Methodology. 2011;11(i):15. [PMC free article: PMC3039637] [PubMed: 21291558]
Sylvester A., Tate M., Johnstone D. Across synthesis: re-presenting heterogeneous research literature. Behaviour & Information Technology. 2013;32(12):1199–1215.
Templier M., Paré G. A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2015;37(6):112–137.
Thomas J., Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. bmc Medical Inquiry Methodology. 2008;8(1):45. [PMC costless article: PMC2478656] [PubMed: 18616818]
Reconstructing the giant: on the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. Newspaper 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 set up for the futurity: Writing a literature review. Direction Information Systems Quarterly. 2002;26(2):11.
Whitlock E. P., Lin J. S., Chou R., Shekelle P., Robinson Thou.A. Using existing systematic reviews in circuitous systematic reviews. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2008;148(10):776–782. [PubMed: 18490690]