Could a Case Study Be Used as a Literature Review

nine.ane. Introduction

Literature reviews play a disquisitional role in scholarship because scientific discipline remains, first and foremost, a cumulative endeavor (vom Brocke et al., 2009). As in any academic discipline, rigorous cognition syntheses are becoming indispensable in keeping up with an exponentially growing eHealth literature, profitable 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 area reveals any interpretable trends or patterns; (c) accumulation empirical findings related to a narrow enquiry question to support evidence-based practice; (d) generating new frameworks and theories; and (e) identifying topics or questions requiring more than investigation (Paré, Trudel, Jaana, & Kitsiou, 2015).

Literature reviews can have 2 major forms. The virtually prevalent one is the "literature review" or "groundwork" department within a journal newspaper or a chapter in a graduate thesis. This section synthesizes the extant literature and commonly identifies the gaps in knowledge that the empirical study addresses (Sylvester, Tate, & Johnstone, 2013). Information technology may besides provide a theoretical foundation for the proposed study, substantiate the presence of the inquiry problem, justify the inquiry every bit one that contributes something new to the cumulated knowledge, or validate the methods and approaches for the proposed study (Hart, 1998; Levy & Ellis, 2006).

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

When appropriately conducted, review manufactures represent powerful information sources for practitioners looking for country-of-the art bear witness to guide their controlling and work practices (Paré et al., 2015). Further, high-quality reviews become frequently cited pieces of piece 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 gauge the impact of articles have institute that review papers are cited and downloaded more often 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 one to take an overview, if not a detailed knowledge of the area in question, as well equally references to the most useful primary sources (Cronin et al., 2008). Although they are not like shooting fish in a barrel to bear, the commitment to consummate a review article provides a tremendous service to one's bookish customs (Paré et al., 2015; Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). Most, if non all, peer-reviewed journals in the fields of medical informatics publish review articles of some blazon.

The main objectives of this affiliate 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 different types of review articles that can contribute to the eHealth knowledge base; (c) to illustrate each review blazon 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.two. Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps

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

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

Although these steps are presented hither in sequential social club, one must proceed in heed that the review process tin can be iterative and that many activities can be initiated during the planning stage and later refined during subsequent phases (Finfgeld-Connett & Johnson, 2013; Kitchenham & Charters, 2007).

Formulating the research question(south) and objective(southward): As a first stride, members of the review squad must appropriately justify the need for the review itself (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006), identify the review's 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 besides need to articulate the inquiry question(s) they propose to investigate (Kitchenham & Charters, 2007). In this regard, we concord with Jesson, Matheson, and Lacey (2011) that clearly articulated research questions are fundamental ingredients that guide the entire review methodology; they underscore the blazon of data 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 material to be considered in the review (Cooper, 1988). There be three primary coverage strategies. Commencement, exhaustive coverage means an effort is made to be as comprehensive every bit 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 of operations. The second type of coverage consists of presenting materials that are representative of nigh other works in a given field or area. Often authors who adopt this strategy volition search for relevant articles in a small number of top-tier journals in a field (Paré et al., 2015). In the third strategy, the review team concentrates on prior works that have been central or pivotal to a particular topic. This may include empirical studies or conceptual papers that initiated a line of investigation, changed how problems 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 textile identified in the preceding step (Levy & Ellis, 2006; vom Brocke et al., 2009). Once a group 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 gear up of predetermined rules provides a ground for including or excluding certain studies. This practice requires a meaning investment on the function of researchers, who must ensure enhanced objectivity and avoid biases or mistakes. Equally discussed afterwards in this chapter, for sure types of reviews there must be at least two independent reviewers involved in the screening process and a procedure to resolve disagreements must too be in identify (Liberati et al., 2009; Shea et al., 2009).

Assessing the quality of primary studies: In addition to screening material for inclusion, members of the review team may need to assess the scientific quality of the selected studies, that is, assess the rigour of the inquiry design and methods. Such formal assessment, which is usually conducted independently past at least two coders, helps members of the review team refine which studies to include in the terminal sample, determine whether or not the differences in quality may bear upon their conclusions, or guide how they clarify the data and translate the findings (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). Ascribing quality scores to each primary written report or considering through domain-based evaluations which study components have or take non been designed and executed accordingly makes it possible to reflect on the extent to which the selected study addresses possible biases and maximizes validity (Shea et al., 2009).

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

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

9.three. Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations

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

ix.3.1. Narrative Reviews

The narrative review is the "traditional" way of reviewing the extant literature and is skewed towards a qualitative estimation of prior knowledge (Sylvester et al., 2013). Put just, a narrative review attempts to summarize or synthesize what has been written on a particular topic just does not seek generalization or cumulative noesis from what is reviewed (Davies, 2000; Light-green et al., 2006). Instead, the review squad frequently undertakes the task of accumulating and synthesizing the literature to demonstrate the value of a particular signal of view (Baumeister & Leary, 1997). Equally such, reviewers may selectively ignore or limit the attention paid to certain studies in society to make a point. In this rather unsystematic approach, the selection of information from primary articles is subjective, lacks explicit criteria for inclusion and can pb to biased interpretations or inferences (Greenish et al., 2006). In that location are several narrative reviews in the detail eHealth domain, as in all fields, which follow such an unstructured arroyo (Silva et al., 2015; Paul et al., 2015).

Despite these criticisms, this blazon of review can exist very useful in gathering together a volume of literature in a specific subject field and synthesizing information technology. As mentioned above, its master purpose is to provide the reader with a comprehensive background for understanding current knowledge and highlighting the significance of new research (Cronin et al., 2008). Faculty similar to use narrative reviews in the classroom considering they are frequently 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 trunk of noesis, thus helping researchers to determine research questions or formulate hypotheses. Chiefly, narrative reviews tin also be used every bit educational manufactures to bring practitioners up to date with certain topics of bug (Light-green et al., 2006).

Recently, there take been several efforts to introduce more than rigour in narrative reviews that will elucidate common pitfalls and bring changes into their publication standards. Data systems researchers, amidst others, have contributed to advancing cognition on how to structure a "traditional" review. For example, 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 analysis; 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 some other 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 knowledge. Last, Bandara, Miskon, and Fielt (2011) proposed a structured, predefined and tool-supported method to identify principal studies within a feasible scope, extract relevant content from identified manufactures, 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 instance of a highly structured narrative review in the eHealth field. These authors synthesized published articles that draw the development process of mobile wellness (m-health) interventions for patients' cancer care self-management. As in most narrative reviews, the scope of the enquiry questions being investigated is wide: (a) how development of these systems are carried out; (b) which methods are used to investigate these systems; and (c) what conclusions can be fatigued as a consequence 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 manner. Four inclusion and three exclusion criteria were utilized during the screening procedure. Both authors independently reviewed each of the identified articles to determine eligibility and extract study data. A flow diagram shows the number of studies identified, screened, and included or excluded at each phase of study option. In terms of contributions, this review provides a series of applied recommendations for m-health intervention development.

9.3.ii. Descriptive or Mapping Reviews

The primary goal of a descriptive review is to determine the extent to which a body of knowledge in a particular inquiry topic reveals whatever interpretable design 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 course a representative sample of a larger group of published works (Paré et al., 2015). Further, authors of descriptive reviews extract from each study certain characteristics of interest, such equally publication year, inquiry methods, data collection techniques, and direction or strength of inquiry outcomes (e.g., positive, negative, or non-significant) in the form of frequency analysis to produce quantitative results (Sylvester et al., 2013). In essence, each report included in a descriptive review is treated as the unit of measurement of assay and the published literature as a whole provides a database from which the authors attempt to place 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 merits that its findings represent the state 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 surface area are described past Anderson, Allen, Peckham, and Goodwin (2008) as mapping reviews. Like descriptive reviews, the research questions are generic and usually chronicle to publication patterns and trends. At that place is no preconceived plan to systematically review all of the literature although this tin can be washed. Instead, researchers often nowadays studies that are representative of nigh works published in a particular area and they consider a specific time frame to be mapped.

An example 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 narrate publication trends in the medical informatics literature over a xx-year period (1987 to 2006). To achieve this ambitious objective, the authors performed a bibliometric assay of medical informatics citations indexed in medline using publication trends, periodical frequencies, bear upon factors, Medical Bailiwick Headings (MeSH) term frequencies, and characteristics of citations. Findings revealed that there were over 77,000 medical informatics articles published during the covered menstruation in numerous journals and that the boilerplate annual growth rate was 12%. The MeSH term analysis also suggested a stiff interdisciplinary tendency. Finally, average impact scores increased over fourth dimension with two notable growth periods. Overall, patterns in enquiry outputs that seem to characterize the historic trends and current components of the field of medical informatics suggest it may exist a maturing discipline (DeShazo et al., 2009).

9.3.three. 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 be conducted to examine the extent, range and nature of research activities in a detail expanse, determine the value of undertaking a full systematic review (discussed side by side), or place enquiry gaps in the extant literature (Paré et al., 2015). In line with their main objective, scoping reviews normally conclude with the presentation of a detailed inquiry agenda for future works along with potential implications for both practice and research.

Different narrative and descriptive reviews, the whole point of scoping the field is to be as comprehensive as possible, including greyness 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 also recommended that at least two independent coders review abstracts yielded from the search strategy and then the full articles for study selection (Daudt et al., 2013). The synthesized bear witness from content or thematic analysis is relatively easy to nowadays in tabular course (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005; Thomas & Harden, 2008).

One of the nearly highly cited scoping reviews in the eHealth domain was published past Archer, Fevrier-Thomas, Lokker, McKibbon, and Straus (2011). These authors reviewed the existing literature on personal health record (phr) systems including pattern, functionality, implementation, applications, outcomes, and benefits. 7 databases were searched from 1985 to March 2010. Several search terms relating to phrs were used during this process. Ii authors independently screened titles and abstracts to make up one's mind inclusion condition. A second screen of full-text articles, once again by two contained members of the inquiry squad, ensured that the studies described phrs. All in all, 130 articles met the criteria and their information were extracted manually into a database. The authors ended that although there is a large corporeality of survey, observational, cohort/panel, and anecdotal show 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 evidence from randomized controlled trials or other studies through the use of phrdue south. Hence, they suggested that more research is needed that addresses the electric current lack of agreement of optimal functionality and usability of these systems, and how they tin can play a benign role in supporting patient self-direction (Archer et al., 2011).

9.3.4. Forms of Aggregative Reviews

Healthcare providers, practitioners, and policy-makers are nowadays overwhelmed with large volumes of data, including research-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 volition have the time, skills, and necessary resources to identify the available show in the expanse of their expertise and consider it when making decisions. Systematic reviews that involve the rigorous awarding of scientific strategies aimed at limiting subjectivity and bias (i.eastward., systematic and random errors) can reply to this challenge.

Systematic reviews attempt to aggregate, appraise, and synthesize in a unmarried source all empirical evidence that meet a set of previously specified eligibility criteria in guild to respond a conspicuously formulated and often narrow research question on a detail topic of involvement to support testify-based practice (Liberati et al., 2009). They adhere closely to explicit scientific principles (Liberati et al., 2009) and rigorous methodological guidelines (Higgins & Green, 2008) aimed at reducing random and systematic errors that can lead to deviations from the truth in results or inferences. The use of explicit methods allows systematic reviews to aggregate a large trunk of research evidence, assess whether effects or relationships are in the aforementioned direction and of the same general magnitude, explain possible inconsistencies betwixt study results, and determine the strength of the overall evidence for every outcome of involvement based on the quality of included studies and the full general consistency amongst 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 (ordinarily described in the context of a detailed review protocol).
Searching for eligible studies using multiple databases and information sources, including gray literature sources, without any language restrictions.
Selecting studies, extracting data, and assessing gamble of bias in a duplicate manner using ii 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 cartoon conclusions.

Many systematic reviews, merely not all, use statistical methods to combine the results of independent studies into a single quantitative judge or summary effect size. Known every bit meta-analyses, these reviews use specific data extraction and statistical techniques (e.k., network, frequentist, or Bayesian meta-analyses) to calculate from each report by outcome of interest an effect size along with a conviction interval that reflects the degree of doubtfulness behind the point estimate of effect (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009; Deeks, Higgins, & Altman, 2008). Subsequently, they utilise fixed or random-furnishings analysis models to combine the results of the included studies, assess statistical heterogeneity, and summate a weighted average of the effect estimates from the different studies, taking into account their sample sizes. The summary upshot size is a value that reflects the boilerplate magnitude of the intervention issue for a item outcome of interest or, more generally, the strength 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 private studies alone, when these are examined independently equally discrete sources of information.

The review past Gurol-Urganci, de Jongh, Vodopivec-Jamsek, Atun, and Car (2013) on the effects of mobile telephone 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 monetary costs to wellness systems. These authors sought to assess 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 end, they conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases using highly sensitive search strategies without linguistic communication or publication-type restrictions to identify all rctsouthward that are eligible for inclusion. In order to minimize the hazard of omitting eligible studies not captured by the original search, they supplemented all electronic searches with manual screening of trial registers and references contained in the included studies. Study selection, information extraction, and gamble of bias assessments were performed independently past two coders using standardized methods to ensure consistency and to eliminate potential errors. Findings from 8 rcts involving half dozen,615 participants were pooled into meta-analyses to calculate the magnitude of furnishings that mobile text message reminders accept on the rate of omnipresence at healthcare appointments compared to no reminders and phone telephone call reminders.

Meta-analyses are regarded every bit powerful tools for deriving meaningful conclusions. However, in that location are situations in which it is neither reasonable nor appropriate to pool studies together using meta-analytic methods simply because at that place is all-encompassing clinical heterogeneity betwixt the included studies or variation in measurement tools, comparisons, or outcomes of interest. In these cases, systematic reviews can apply qualitative synthesis methods such every bit vote counting, content assay, classification schemes and tabulations, as an alternative arroyo to narratively synthesize the results of the contained studies included in the review. This form of review is known every bit qualitative systematic review.

A rigorous instance of one 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 affect on access to information and clinical decision-making. In line with the methodological guidelines for systematic reviews, these authors: (a) adult and registered with prospero (www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/) an a priori review protocol; (b) conducted comprehensive searches for eligible studies using multiple databases and other supplementary strategies (e.g., forwards searches); and (c) after carried out report selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments in a duplicate mode to eliminate potential errors in the review process. 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 describe the effectiveness of handheld computers on accessing information for clinical knowledge, adherence to safe and clinical quality guidelines, and diagnostic decision-making.

In recent years, the number of systematic reviews in the field of wellness computer science has increased considerably. Systematic reviews with discordant findings can crusade great confusion and brand it difficult for decision-makers to interpret the review-level bear witness (Moher, 2013). Therefore, there is a growing need for appraisal and synthesis of prior systematic reviews to ensure that conclusion-making is constantly informed by the all-time available accumulated evidence. Umbrella reviews, also known equally overviews of systematic reviews, are third types of testify synthesis that aim to accomplish 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. However, the unit of analysis in umbrella reviews is the systematic review rather than the primary study (Becker & Oxman, 2008). Different systematic reviews that have a narrow focus of inquiry, umbrella reviews focus on broader research topics for which at that place are several potential interventions (Smith, Devane, Begley, & Clarke, 2011). A recent umbrella review on the effects of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with heart failure critically appraised, compared, and synthesized evidence from fifteen systematic reviews to investigate which types of home telemonitoring technologies and forms of interventions are more effective in reducing mortality and hospital admissions (Kitsiou, Paré, & Jaana, 2015).

9.3.five. Realist Reviews

Realist reviews are theory-driven interpretative reviews developed to inform, enhance, or supplement conventional systematic reviews by making sense of heterogeneous prove nearly circuitous interventions applied in diverse contexts in a way 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). Equally explained in a higher place, systematic reviews seek to place causation. Such logic is appropriate for fields similar medicine and educational activity where findings of randomized controlled trials tin be aggregated to see whether a new treatment or intervention does better outcomes. However, many argue that information technology is not possible to establish such direct causal links between interventions and outcomes in fields such as social policy, management, and data systems where for whatever intervention there is unlikely to be a regular or consistent 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 detail contexts. The bones research question — what works? — which is usually 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. As a theory-building arroyo, a realist review usually starts by articulating likely underlying mechanisms so scrutinizes available evidence to find out whether and where these mechanisms are applicative (Shepperd et al., 2009). Principal studies found in the extant literature are viewed as case studies which can examination and modify 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 wellness service commitment and patient outcomes. The specific goals were to investigate how outcomes are produced and, most importantly, how variations in outcomes tin can be 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 half dozen main ways which correspond "educated guesses" to be tested confronting the data in the evaluation studies. These studies were identified through a formal and systematic search in 4 databases betwixt 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 two-step process. The authors then extracted data from the selected articles and created several tables, 1 for each event category. They organized information to bring forward those mechanisms where patient portals contribute to outcomes and the variation in outcomes across different contexts.

ix.3.6. 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 important issues with respect to theories, hypotheses, enquiry methods or results (Baumeister & Leary, 1997; Kirkevold, 1997). Unlike other review types, critical reviews attempt to take a reflective account of the research that has been done in a particular area of interest, and assess its brownie past using appraisement instruments or disquisitional interpretive methods. In this fashion, disquisitional reviews attempt to constructively inform other scholars about the weaknesses of prior research and strengthen noesis evolution past giving focus and direction to studies for further improvement (Kirkevold, 1997).

Kitsiou, Paré, and Jaana (2013) provide an case 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 identify eligible reviews and subsequently used a validated instrument to conduct an in-depth quality appraisal. Results indicate that the bulk of systematic reviews in this particular area suffer from of import 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 knowledge development towards improving the design and execution of time to come reviews on home telemonitoring.

9.four. Summary

Table nine.1 outlines the main types of literature reviews that were described in the previous sub-sections and summarizes the principal characteristics that distinguish i review type from another. Information technology also includes central references to methodological guidelines and useful sources that can exist used by eHealth scholars and researchers for planning and developing reviews.

Table nine.1

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

Every bit shown in Table nine.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(s) of the review. For example, in the example of narrative reviews, there is greater flexibility in searching and synthesizing articles (Greenish et al., 2006). Researchers are oft relatively free to utilise a variety of approaches to search, identify, and select relevant scientific manufactures, describe their operational characteristics, nowadays how the individual studies fit together, and formulate conclusions. On the other manus, systematic reviews are characterized by their loftier level of systematicity, rigour, and employ of explicit methods, based on an "a priori" review programme that aims to minimize bias in the analysis and synthesis process (Higgins & Green, 2008). Some reviews are exploratory in nature (e.thou., scoping/mapping reviews), whereas others may be conducted to discover patterns (e.g., descriptive reviews) or involve a synthesis approach that may include the critical analysis of prior research (Paré et al., 2015). Hence, in order to select the nearly appropriate type of review, it is critical to know before embarking on a review project, why the research synthesis is conducted and what type of methods are best aligned with the pursued goals.

9.v. Concluding Remarks

In light of the increased use of evidence-based exercise and research generating stronger evidence (Grady et al., 2011; Lyden et al., 2013), review articles have get essential tools for summarizing, synthesizing, integrating or critically appraising prior knowledge in the eHealth field. As mentioned before, 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 we used herein volition allow eHealth researchers, graduate students and practitioners to proceeds a ameliorate understanding of the similarities and differences betwixt review types.

We must stress that this classification scheme does not privilege whatever specific type of review every bit being of higher quality than some other (Paré et al., 2015). As explained above, each type of review has its own strengths and limitations. Having said that, nosotros 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 present context, the notion of rigour refers to the reliability and validity of the review procedure described in section 9.two. For ane 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 assay performed in the review. Whether the search is comprehensive or not, whether it involves a methodical approach for data extraction and synthesis or not, it is important that the review documents in an explicit and transparent manner the steps and approach that were used in the procedure of its evolution. Adjacent, validity characterizes the caste to which the review process was conducted accordingly. It goes beyond documentation and reflects decisions related to the selection of the sources, the search terms used, the period of time covered, the articles selected in the search, and the application of backward and frontward searches (vom Brocke et al., 2009). In short, the rigour of any review article is reflected by the explicitness of its methods (i.due east., transparency) and the soundness of the approach used. Nosotros refer those interested in the concepts of rigour and quality to the work of Templier and Paré (2015) which offers a detailed set of methodological guidelines for conducting and evaluating various types of review articles.

To conclude, our chief objective in this chapter was to demystify the various types of literature reviews that are cardinal to the continuous evolution of the eHealth field. Information technology is our hope that our descriptive account volition serve equally 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 it in wellness care. Trends in evaluation research, 1982-2002. International Periodical of Medical Computer science. 2004;44(1):44–56. [PubMed: 15778794]
Anderson S., Allen P., Peckham S., Goodwin N. Asking the correct questions: scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the arrangement and delivery of health services. Health Inquiry Policy and Systems. 2008;6(vii):1–12. [PMC costless article: PMC2500008] [PubMed: 18613961] [CrossRef]
Archer N., Fevrier-Thomas U., Lokker C., McKibbon 1000. A., Straus Southward.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 Periodical of Social Enquiry Methodology. 2005;8(ane):19–32.
A systematic, tool-supported method for conducting literature reviews in information systems. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 19th European Briefing on Information Systems (ecis 2011); June 9 to 11; Helsinki, Republic of finland. 2011.
Baumeister R. F., Leary M.R. Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology. 1997;1(3):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 Thousand., 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 testify for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1997;126(5):376–380. [PubMed: 9054282]
Cooper H., Hedges L.Five. In: The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. 2nd ed. Cooper H., Hedges L. 5., Valentine J. C., editors. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009. Research synthesis as a scientific process; pp. three–17.
Cooper H. Grand. Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society. 1988;1(1):104–126.
Cronin P., Ryan F., Coughlan M. Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step arroyo. British Journal of Nursing. 2008;17(1):38–43. [PubMed: 18399395]
Darlow S., Wen Thousand.Y. Development testing of mobile health interventions for cancer patient self-direction: A review. Health Informatics Periodical. 2015 (online before print). [PubMed: 25916831] [CrossRef]
Daudt H. M., van Mossel C., Scott South.J. Enhancing the scoping report methodology: a large, inter-professional squad'southward experience with Arksey and O'Malley'southward framework. bmc Medical Inquiry 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(3-4):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 South., 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: xx years of "Medical Informatics" in mesh. bmc Medical Informatics and Determination Making. 2009;9:7. [PMC gratuitous article: PMC2652453] [PubMed: 19159472] [CrossRef]
Dixon-Woods M., Agarwal S., Jones D., Young B., Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative bear witness: a review of possible methods. Periodical of Health Services Research and Policy. 2005;10(1):45–53. [PubMed: 15667704]
Finfgeld-Connett D., Johnson E.D. Literature search strategies for conducting knowledge-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 Thou. K., Nelson Due east. L., Belz N., Bennett L., Carnahan L. … Guidelines Working Group. Evidence-based practise for telemental health. Telemedicine Journal and E Wellness. 2011;17(ii):131–148. [PubMed: 21385026]
Green B. Northward., 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 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;11:115. [PMC complimentary article: PMC3173389] [PubMed: 21843376]
Gurol-Urganci I., de Jongh T., Vodopivec-Jamsek Five., Atun R., Motorcar J. Mobile phone 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 scientific discipline research imagination. London: SAGE Publications; 1998.
Higgins J. P. T., Light-green Southward., editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Cochrane volume serial. Hoboken, nj: Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.
Jesson J., Matheson 50., Lacey F.1000. Doing your literature review: traditional and systematic techniques. Los Angeles & London: SAGE Publications; 2011.
King W. R., He J. Understanding the role and methods of meta-analysis in IS inquiry. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2005;16:1.
Kirkevold One thousand. Integrative nursing inquiry — an important strategy to further the evolution of nursing science and nursing practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1997;25(5):977–984. [PubMed: 9147203]
Kitchenham B., Charters S. ebse Technical Study Version 2.three. Keele & Durham. britain: Keele University & University of Durham; 2007. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering.
Kitsiou S., Paré G., Jaana Grand. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with chronic diseases: a critical cess of their methodological quality. Journal of Medical Net Research. 2013;15(vii):e150. [PMC gratuitous article: PMC3785977] [PubMed: 23880072]
Kitsiou South., Paré Chiliad., Jaana Chiliad. Effects of home telemonitoring interventions on patients with chronic heart failure: an overview of systematic reviews. Periodical of Medical Internet Inquiry. 2015;17(3):e63. [PMC free article: PMC4376138] [PubMed: 25768664]
Levy Y., Ellis T.J. A systems approach to conduct an constructive literature review in support of information systems research. Informing Scientific discipline. 2006;9:181–211.
Liberati A., Altman D. 1000., Tetzlaff J., Mulrow C., Gøtzsche P. C., Ioannidis J. P. A. et al. Moher D. The prisma argument for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health intendance interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2009;151(iv):W-65. [PubMed: 19622512]
Lyden J. R., Zickmund S. Fifty., Bhargava T. D., Bryce C. 50., Conroy M. B., Fischer G. S. et al. McTigue K. M. Implementing health data technology in a patient-centered mode: Patient experiences with an online bear witness-based lifestyle intervention. Periodical for Healthcare Quality. 2013;35(5):47–57. [PubMed: 24004039]
Mickan S., Atherton H., Roberts N. West., Heneghan C., Tilson J.K. Use of handheld computers in clinical practice: 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. L., Morgan D., Haynes R. B., Hedges T. Systematic reviews: a cantankerous-sectional written report of location and citation counts. bmc Medicine. 2003;1:2. [PMC free article: PMC281591] [PubMed: 14633274]
Mulrow C. D. The medical review article: state of the science. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1987;106(3):485–488. [PubMed: 3813259] [CrossRef]
Okoli C., Schabram M. 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 achieved through patient portals: a realist review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Clan. 2014;21(4):751–757. [PMC free commodity: PMC4078283] [PubMed: 24503882]
Paré Thousand., Trudel Thou.-C., Jaana M., Kitsiou S. Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management. 2015;52(ii):183–199.
Patsopoulos N. A., Analatos A. A., Ioannidis J.P. A. Relative citation bear upon of various report designs in the health sciences. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2005;293(nineteen):2362–2366. [PubMed: 15900006]
Paul G. M., Greene C. M., Newton-Dame R., Thorpe 50. E., Perlman Due south. E., McVeigh K. H., Gourevitch M.N. The country of population health surveillance using electronic health records: A narrative review. Population Health Direction. 2015;18(3):209–216. [PubMed: 25608033]
Pawson R. Bear witness-based policy: a realist perspective. London: SAGE Publications; 2006.
Pawson R., Greenhalgh T., Harvey G., Walshe Grand. Realist review—a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of Health Services Inquiry & Policy. 2005;10(Suppl 1):21–34. [PubMed: 16053581]
Petersen Thousand., Vakkalanka S., Kuzniarz L. Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering science: An update. Information and Software Technology. 2015;64:1–xviii.
Petticrew M., Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A applied guide. Malden, ma: Blackwell Publishing Co; 2006.
Rousseau D. G., Manning J., Denyer D. Evidence in management and organizational scientific discipline: Assembling the field'south full weight of scientific noesis through syntheses. The Academy of Direction Annals. 2008;two(i):475–515.
Rowe F. What literature review is not: diversity, boundaries and recommendations. European Journal of Information Systems. 2014;23(3):241–255.
Shea B. J., Hamel C., Wells Grand. A., Bouter L. K., Kristjansson E., Grimshaw J. et al. Boers Thousand. amstar is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Periodical of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009;62(10):1013–1020. [PubMed: 19230606]
Shepperd S., Lewin Due south., Straus S., Clarke Thousand., Eccles M. P., Fitzpatrick R. et al. Sheikh A. Can we systematically review studies that evaluate complex interventions? PLoS Medicine. 2009;6(8):e1000086. [PMC free article: PMC2717209] [PubMed: 19668360]
Silva B. One thousand., Rodrigues J. J., de la Torre Díez I., López-Coronado K., Saleem K. Mobile-health: A review of electric current country in 2015. Periodical 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 Research Methodology. 2011;11(ane):fifteen. [PMC free article: PMC3039637] [PubMed: 21291558]
Sylvester A., Tate M., Johnstone D. Beyond synthesis: re-presenting heterogeneous research literature. Behaviour & It. 2013;32(12):1199–1215.
Templier M., Paré M. A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2015;37(half dozen):112–137.
Thomas J., Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative enquiry in systematic reviews. bmc Medical Inquiry Methodology. 2008;8(1):45. [PMC free article: PMC2478656] [PubMed: 18616818]
Reconstructing the behemothic: on the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 17th European Briefing 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 Information Systems Quarterly. 2002;26(2):11.
Whitlock E. P., Lin J. Due south., Chou R., Shekelle P., Robinson K.A. Using existing systematic reviews in circuitous systematic reviews. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2008;148(x):776–782. [PubMed: 18490690]

smithexames1941.blogspot.com

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