Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis: Study protocol for a study within a review.

Sarah Dillon; Alex Gall; Elayne Ahern; Aoife Whiston; Rose Galvin

doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.14154.1

Home Browse Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis:...

ALL Metrics

-

Views

15

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Study Protocol

Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis: Study protocol for a study within a review.

[version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations]

Sarah Dillon ^1,2, Alex Gall^1,3, Elayne Ahern^2,3, Aoife Whiston^2,3, Rose Galvin^1,2

Sarah Dillon ^1,2, Alex Gall^1,3, [...] Elayne Ahern^2,3, Aoife Whiston^2,3, Rose Galvin^1,2

PUBLISHED 02 Jul 2025

Author details Author details

¹ School of Allied Health, University of Limerick Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, Limerick, County Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland
² Health Research Institute, University of Limerick, Limerick, County Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland
³ Department of Psychology, University of Limerick Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, Limerick, County Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland

Sarah Dillon
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Alex Gall
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Elayne Ahern
Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Resources, Writing – Review & Editing

Aoife Whiston
Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Resources, Writing – Review & Editing

Rose Galvin
Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Resources, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Background

Evidence synthesis plays a vital role in healthcare research, informing clinical practice and policy. Increasingly, students are involved in reviews, yet their experiences, including the challenges and facilitators for participation, remain underexplored. This study aims to examine the barriers and opportunities encountered by novice student team members in evidence synthesis.

Methods

This study is embedded within the Study Within A Review (SWAR) framework and will use a mixed-methods approach. Students in health-related disciplines engaged in or having just completed their first evidence synthesis will be recruited through academic networks and word of mouth. Data will be collected primarily via focus groups, in addition to a short, embedded survey. Thematic analysis will be employed to analyse qualitative data, while descriptive statistics will be used for survey responses.

Results

The study aims to describe experiences of students involved in evidence synthesis, identifying barriers and facilitators related to their participation. Findings will inform recommendations for improving evidence synthesis training, mentorship, and student engagement strategies.

Conclusion

Understanding student experiences in evidence synthesis may inform the development of targeted training and support mechanisms. The findings will provide valuable insights for academic institutions and research teams seeking to optimise student involvement in evidence synthesis.

Keywords

Evidence synthesis, systematic review, novice researchers, student experiences

Corresponding author: Sarah Dillon

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: This study was supported by the Health Research Board (Ireland) and the HSC Public Health Agency [Grant number ESI-2021-001] through Evidence Synthesis Ireland/Cochrane Ireland. 
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2025 Dillon S et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Dillon S, Gall A, Ahern E et al. Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis: Study protocol for a study within a review. [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations]. HRB Open Res 2025, 8:74 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14154.1) First published: 02 Jul 2025, 8:74 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14154.1) Latest published: 02 Jul 2025, 8:74 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14154.1)

Background

Evidence synthesis is a critical research methodology in healthcare, providing a structured and transparent approach to consolidating findings across studies and identifying key knowledge gaps^1,2. Furthermore, evidence synthesis plays a central role in informing policy and practice recommendations. This is especially important in light of the association between the implementation of evidence-based decision making and positive health outcomes³. Evidence synthesis is a popular methodological approach, with rapid increases in the publication of systematic reviews in the past decade⁴. Although clear guidelines for the reporting and conduct of evidence syntheses exist^5,6, quality is inconsistent⁷.

One key factor influencing the quality and efficiency of evidence synthesis is the composition and expertise of the review team. Increasingly, novice researchers and students are included in evidence synthesis teams, either as part of research training or formal coursework. The involvement of students in research brings with it numerous benefits. Student participation in evidence synthesis fosters skill development in systematic searching, critical appraisal, and synthesis methodologies, all of which are foundational in developing research competence. Moreover, the involvement of students in research projects enables the development of knowledge, which is often integrated into clinical practice⁸. However, novices may face unique barriers and facilitators during the evidence synthesis process, with more research needed to investigate what these are and how successful student participation in evidence syntheses can be nurtured.

Addressing this gap is particularly relevant in the healthcare domain, where students engaged in evidence synthesis may later apply these skills in clinical practice, policymaking, or academic research. Given that health and social care students represent an important subset of end-users of evidence synthesis, evaluating their experiences with a view to improvement may enhance research literacy and encourage more healthcare professionals to contribute to systematic reviews. Moreover, many clinicians return to education, completing postgraduate programmes as a form of professional development. It has been suggested that establishing and fostering partnerships with policy makers and managers may facilitate the implementation of systematic review findings⁹. Similarly, encouraging the participation of currently practicing clinicians in the conduct of reviews may enhance the relevance and impact of the output itself.

Although numerous publicly available training resources exist to support students in conducting evidence syntheses, there has been limited research on their actual experiences, challenges, and perceived facilitators during the review process. Existing literature has primarily focused on early career researchers¹⁰. Yet, there is a distinct gap in understanding how students navigate the evidence synthesis process. Unlike early career researchers, students may have less access to structured mentorship, formal research networks, and methodological expertise¹¹, which can impact their ability to engage meaningfully in evidence synthesis projects. Identifying factors that could either facilitate or impede student participation in these projects may help create a more supportive environment for their involvement and enhance the quality of outputs. Furthermore, examining students' experiences can provide insights into their learning journeys, the knowledge they acquire, and whether their learning is applied to practice.

Aims and objectives

This study is embedded within the Study Within A Review (SWAR) framework, an approach designed to evaluate methodological processes within evidence synthesis¹². SWARs aim to generate evidence on how systematic reviews are conducted, structured, and reported, thereby informing best practices. By embedding this study within a SWAR framework, the research aims to understand student experiences and training approaches. This SWAR aims to address the following objectives:

Explore the experiences of novice student team members who have worked on/are working on evidence synthesis projects.
Identify key barriers and facilitators influencing the ability of student researchers to contribute effectively to evidence synthesis projects.

Methods

Design

This SWAR will be conducted in the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, which spans many health-related disciplines and offers both undergraduate and postgraduate study opportunities. This SWAR will adopt a mixed method, embedded design¹³. A qualitative dominant approach will be taken, with quantitative data collection aiming to complement qualitative findings. For the qualitative element, focus groups will explore the experiences and opinions of students in relation to evidence synthesis. A constructivist approach will be taken, acknowledging the creation of meaning through interaction¹⁴. The quantitative element will consist of a short accompanying survey detailing demographic information and three Likert Scale questions pertaining to satisfaction with the evidence synthesis experience. Qualitative and quantitative elements will be collected concurrently. The topic guide and survey are available in Section 6, Extended Data. Given the primarily qualitative approach, the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies (COREQ) Checklist will be adhered to for qualitative elements¹⁵. The Good Reporting of A Mixed Methods Study (GRAMMs) will also be used to ensure transparent reporting¹⁶. In lieu of mixed method protocol guidelines, this protocol has been reported in accordance with established guidelines for qualitative protocol reporting¹⁷.

Research team roles and experience

This research team comprises five researchers. SD and AG will be involved in facilitating the focus groups. SD (BSc, PhD) is a Chartered Physiotherapist and an Assistant Professor within the School of Allied Health. She has experience in completing and supervising several evidence synthesis projects and has completed an Evidence Synthesis Ireland Fellowship. AG (BSc) is a student within the Department of Psychology, undertaking his MSc in psychology of global mobility, inclusion and diversity in society. AG has no previous experience completing evidence synthesis projects. RG (BSc, PhD), EA (BSc, PhD) and AW (BSc, PhD) are academic staff within the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences. Each of these authors has previously conducted and supervised numerous evidence synthesis projects.

Reflexivity

The backgrounds, beliefs, and experiences of the researchers collecting, analysing, and interpreting the qualitative data will be acknowledged. Researchers will examine their biases through the use of reflective diaries and critical discussion of interpretations during the analysis process. This aims to strengthen the trustworthiness of the study, however, the inherent subjectivity of researchers in the creation of themes and codes is recognised.

Participants and recruitment

A convenience sample of students who have just completed or are in the process of completing their first evidence synthesis within a health-related discipline will be recruited via virtual learning platform announcement and word of mouth.

Procedure

Students wishing to participate in the study will be asked to participate in a single online focus group and survey, led by members of the research team (SD or AG). Each focus group will consist of up to 6 students, in line with previous recommendations¹⁸. It is envisaged that 10–15 participants will be recruited across 3 focus groups.

Focus groups will be used to explore the experiences of students who have contributed to an evidence synthesis, using an interview guide agreed a priori through discussion among the research team and consideration of previous literature. The focus group will explore topics such as satisfaction with evidence synthesis experiences, barriers and facilitators to completion, and applicability to clinical practice. Each focus group will be audio recorded and will be allocated approximately 1 hour. One interviewer (SD/AG) will be present at each focus group and will make field notes. Where possible, groups will not be moderated by research team members who have previously worked in a supervisory capacity with focus group members. Students will also be asked to complete a short custom survey (5–10 minutes in duration) (Qualtrics), detailing their clinical position (if any), evidence synthesis experience, and perceptions of the experience.

Data analysis

Focus groups will be transcribed verbatim by the investigators and verified against audio recordings for accuracy. Data will be analysed in line with Braun and Clarke’s reflexive thematic analysis^19,20. Two researchers (SD and AG) will independently familiarise themselves with the data by reading transcripts and listening to audio recordings. These researchers will independently code interviews using NVivo (Version 15), with subsequent comparison and discussion of codes, as well as the creation of themes emerging from the codes. Quantitative survey data will be used to complement qualitative elements and will be analysed using descriptive statistics in SPSS (IBM). Qualitative and quantitative data will be analysed independently and then integrated at the inferential stage¹³.

Ethical considerations

Ethical approval for this study has been obtained from the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee at the University of Limerick on 27/11/2024 (Approval Number: 2024_11_23_EHS). The information sheet explaining the study will be sent to interested participants to review. On the day of data collection, written informed consent will be collected via the Qualtrics platform. All participants will be notified of their right to withdraw at any time, up until data anonymisation. Minimal risks are anticipated for participants in this study.

Dissemination

The findings of this study will be disseminated via journal publication and locally via a “Knowledge Exchange Event”.

Study status

At the time of protocol submission, recruitment has commenced, with data collection on-going.

Conclusions

This SWAR aims to address a critical gap in the literature by exploring the experiences of novice student contributors to evidence synthesis projects, with a particular focus on the barriers and facilitators encountered throughout the process. As evidence synthesis plays an increasingly vital role in healthcare research and decision-making, it is essential to understand how students, both as current learners and future professionals, engage with this methodology.

Findings from this SWAR will have implications for academic institutions and research teams seeking to involve students in evidence synthesis projects. The identification of key facilitators and barriers may be used to inform the development of tailored training resources, mentorship strategies, and support mechanisms to enhance student engagement and skill development. Furthermore, by increasing stakeholder literacy in evidence synthesis, this research may contribute to broader efforts to integrate evidence-based practice into healthcare education and clinical settings.

Data availability

Underlying data

No underlying data are associated with this study.

Extended data

The OSF project contains the following extended data:

Open Science Framework: OSF | Experiences of novice team members in evidence synthesis: Barriers, facilitators and opportunities for the future. https://osf.io/y5eh7/²¹.

The folder “Consent Form and Participant Information Sheet” contains the consent form and information sheet. The folder “Survey and Topic Guide” contains the survey questions and focus group topic guide. The folder “SWAR Registration” contains the published Protocol as per the SWAR Repository Store. The folder “Checklist” contains the qualitative protocol checklist¹⁷.

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CCBY 4 .0 Attribution International Deed).

Protocol registration

The Northern Ireland Network for Trials Methodology Research. SWAR Repository Store. SWAR registration for “Experiences of novice team members in evidence synthesis: Barriers, facilitators and opportunities for the future.”

SWAR44 Sarah Dillon, Elayne Ahern, Aoife Whiston, Rose Galvin (2024 SEP 03 2359).pdf

Reporting guidelines

Data will be reported in line with the COREQ¹⁵ and GRAMM¹⁶ Guidelines. This protocol has been reported in line with the ObsQual checklist in the absence of mixed method protocol reporting guidelines¹⁷.

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

1. Flemming K, Noyes J: Qualitative evidence synthesis: where are we at? Int J Qual Methods. 2021; 20. Publisher Full Text
2. Sutton AJ, Cooper NJ, Jones DR: Evidence synthesis as the key to more coherent and efficient research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009; 9: 29. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
3. Connor L, Dean J, McNett M, et al.: Evidence-based practice improves patient outcomes and healthcare system return on investment: findings from a scoping review. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2023; 20(1): 6–15. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. Hoffmann F, Allers K, Rombey T, et al.: Nearly 80 systematic reviews were published each day: observational study on trends in epidemiology and reporting over the years 2000–2019. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021; 138: 1–11. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
5. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al.: The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372: n71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
6. Kung J, Chiappelli F, Cajulis OO, et al.: From systematic reviews to clinical recommendations for evidence-based health care: Validation of Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) for Grading of Clinical Relevance. Open Dent J. 2010; 4: 84–91. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
7. Pussegoda K, Turner L, Garritty C, et al.: Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality. Syst Rev. 2017; 6(1): 131. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
8. Loura DS, Bernardes RA, Baixinho CL, et al.: Nursing students' learning from involvement in research projects: an integrative literature review. Rev Bras Enferm. 2021; 75(1): e20210053. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
9. Tricco AC, Cardoso R, Thomas SM, et al.: Barriers and facilitators to uptake of systematic reviews by policy makers and health care managers: a scoping review. Implement Sci. 2016; 11: 4. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
10. Ayala AP, Sikora L, Kirtley S, et al.: Barriers and facilitators for early career researchers completing systematic or scoping reviews in health sciences: a scoping review. Open Science Framework. 2019. Publisher Full Text
11. Soilemezi D, Linceviciute S: Synthesizing qualitative research. Int J Qual Methods. 2018; 17(1).
12. Devane D, Burke NN, Treweek S, et al.: Study Within A Review (SWAR). J Evid Based Med. 2022; 15(4): 328–32. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
13. Schoonenboom J, Johnson RB: How to construct a mixed methods research design. Kolner Z Soz Sozpsychol. 2017; 69(Suppl 2): 107–31. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
14. Creswell J, Poth C: Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approache. 4th ed: Sage, 2018.
15. Booth A, Hannes K, Harden A, et al.: COREQ (Consolidated criteria for Reporting Qualitative studies). Guidelines for Reporting Health Research: A User's Manual. 2014; 214–26. Publisher Full Text
16. O'Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J: The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008; 13(2): 92–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
17. Low GK, Subedi S, Omosumwen OF, et al.: Development and validation of observational and qualitative study protocol reporting checklists for novice researchers (ObsQual checklist). Eval Program Plann. 2024; 106: 102468. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
18. Breen RL: A practical guide to focus-group research. Journal of Geography in Higher Education. 2006; 30(3): 463–75. Publisher Full Text
19. Braun V, Clarke V: Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006; 3(2): 77–101. Publisher Full Text
20. Braun V, Clarke V: One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? 2020. Publisher Full Text
21. Experiences of novice team members in evidence synthesis: barriers, facilitators and opportunities for the future. Open Science Framework. 2025. https://osf.io/y5eh7/

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 02 Jul 2025

Author details Author details

¹ School of Allied Health, University of Limerick Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, Limerick, County Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland
² Health Research Institute, University of Limerick, Limerick, County Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland
³ Department of Psychology, University of Limerick Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, Limerick, County Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland

Sarah Dillon
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Alex Gall
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Elayne Ahern
Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Resources, Writing – Review & Editing

Aoife Whiston
Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Resources, Writing – Review & Editing

Rose Galvin
Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Resources, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

This study was supported by the Health Research Board (Ireland) and the HSC Public Health Agency [Grant number ESI-2021-001] through Evidence Synthesis Ireland/Cochrane Ireland. 
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (1)

version 1

Published: 02 Jul 2025, 8:74

https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14154.1

Copyright

© 2025 Dillon S et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

VIEWS

85

downloads

15

Citations

0

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Dillon S, Gall A, Ahern E et al. Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis: Study protocol for a study within a review. [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations]. HRB Open Res 2025, 8:74 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14154.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 02 Jul 2025

Views

8

Reviewer Report 16 Sep 2025

Maura Dowling, University of Galway, Galway, County Galway, Ireland

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15566.r49640

Thank you for the opportunity to review the protocol of a study within a review (SWAR) examining the barriers and opportunities encountered by students undertaking evidence synthesis.

The proposed reporting guidelines are appropriate, complemented by focus group ... Continue reading

Thank you for the opportunity to review the protocol of a study within a review (SWAR) examining the barriers and opportunities encountered by students undertaking evidence synthesis.

The proposed reporting guidelines are appropriate, complemented by focus group interviews and a short survey that ascertains students' experiences and perceptions.

The protocol would benefit from an explicit explanation of which students will be included in the recruitment. Will it be students from all levels, i.e., undergraduate, postgraduate (taught), and postgraduate (PhD)?

In the focus groups, it is outlined that, where possible, groups will not be moderated by research team members who previously worked in a supervisory capacity with focus group members. This is wise as students’ experiences of undertaking an evidence synthesis are heavily influenced by their supervisory experience (e.g. their confidence in the supervisors’ expertise in undertaking and publishing evidence syntheses and/or assistance with screening if needed).

The protocol uses the term ‘systematic review’ when referring to evidence synthesis. It would be helpful to clarify if this term is being used in a broader sense, also to include qualitative evidence synthesis and scoping reviews. And if so, provide citations for the reporting guidelines for these as well.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Evidence synthesis (Qualitative evidence synthesis, Scoping reviews); qualitative research, cancer nursing.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 02 Jul 2025

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1
Version 1 02 Jul 25	read

Maura Dowling, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Sign up for content alerts

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

8 Views

16 Sep 2025 | for Version 1

Maura Dowling, University of Galway, Galway, County Galway, Ireland

8 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

Thank you for the opportunity to review the protocol of a study within a review (SWAR) examining the barriers and opportunities encountered by students undertaking evidence synthesis.

The proposed reporting guidelines are appropriate, complemented by focus group interviews and a short survey that ascertains students' experiences and perceptions.

The protocol would benefit from an explicit explanation of which students will be included in the recruitment. Will it be students from all levels, i.e., undergraduate, postgraduate (taught), and postgraduate (PhD)?

In the focus groups, it is outlined that, where possible, groups will not be moderated by research team members who previously worked in a supervisory capacity with focus group members. This is wise as students’ experiences of undertaking an evidence synthesis are heavily influenced by their supervisory experience (e.g. their confidence in the supervisors’ expertise in undertaking and publishing evidence syntheses and/or assistance with screening if needed).

The protocol uses the term ‘systematic review’ when referring to evidence synthesis. It would be helpful to clarify if this term is being used in a broader sense, also to include qualitative evidence synthesis and scoping reviews. And if so, provide citations for the reporting guidelines for these as well.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Evidence synthesis (Qualitative evidence synthesis, Scoping reviews); qualitative research, cancer nursing.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

[1] 1. Flemming K, Noyes J: Qualitative evidence synthesis: where are we at? Int J Qual Methods. 2021; 20. Publisher Full Text

[2] 2. Sutton AJ, Cooper NJ, Jones DR: Evidence synthesis as the key to more coherent and efficient research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009; 9: 29. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[3] 3. Connor L, Dean J, McNett M, et al.: Evidence-based practice improves patient outcomes and healthcare system return on investment: findings from a scoping review. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2023; 20(1): 6–15. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[4] 4. Hoffmann F, Allers K, Rombey T, et al.: Nearly 80 systematic reviews were published each day: observational study on trends in epidemiology and reporting over the years 2000–2019. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021; 138: 1–11. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[5] 5. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al.: The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372: n71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[6] 6. Kung J, Chiappelli F, Cajulis OO, et al.: From systematic reviews to clinical recommendations for evidence-based health care: Validation of Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) for Grading of Clinical Relevance. Open Dent J. 2010; 4: 84–91. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[7] 7. Pussegoda K, Turner L, Garritty C, et al.: Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality. Syst Rev. 2017; 6(1): 131. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[8] 8. Loura DS, Bernardes RA, Baixinho CL, et al.: Nursing students' learning from involvement in research projects: an integrative literature review. Rev Bras Enferm. 2021; 75(1): e20210053. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[9] 9. Tricco AC, Cardoso R, Thomas SM, et al.: Barriers and facilitators to uptake of systematic reviews by policy makers and health care managers: a scoping review. Implement Sci. 2016; 11: 4. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[10] 10. Ayala AP, Sikora L, Kirtley S, et al.: Barriers and facilitators for early career researchers completing systematic or scoping reviews in health sciences: a scoping review. Open Science Framework. 2019. Publisher Full Text

[11] 11. Soilemezi D, Linceviciute S: Synthesizing qualitative research. Int J Qual Methods. 2018; 17(1).

[12] 12. Devane D, Burke NN, Treweek S, et al.: Study Within A Review (SWAR). J Evid Based Med. 2022; 15(4): 328–32. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[13] 13. Schoonenboom J, Johnson RB: How to construct a mixed methods research design. Kolner Z Soz Sozpsychol. 2017; 69(Suppl 2): 107–31. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[14] 14. Creswell J, Poth C: Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approache. 4th ed: Sage, 2018.

[15] 15. Booth A, Hannes K, Harden A, et al.: COREQ (Consolidated criteria for Reporting Qualitative studies). Guidelines for Reporting Health Research: A User's Manual. 2014; 214–26. Publisher Full Text

[16] 16. O'Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J: The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008; 13(2): 92–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[17] 17. Low GK, Subedi S, Omosumwen OF, et al.: Development and validation of observational and qualitative study protocol reporting checklists for novice researchers (ObsQual checklist). Eval Program Plann. 2024; 106: 102468. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. Breen RL: A practical guide to focus-group research. Journal of Geography in Higher Education. 2006; 30(3): 463–75. Publisher Full Text

[19] 19. Braun V, Clarke V: Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006; 3(2): 77–101. Publisher Full Text

[20] 20. Braun V, Clarke V: One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? 2020. Publisher Full Text

[21] 21. Experiences of novice team members in evidence synthesis: barriers, facilitators and opportunities for the future. Open Science Framework. 2025. https://osf.io/y5eh7/

Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis: Study protocol for a study within a review.

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Background

Aims and objectives

Methods

Design

Research team roles and experience

Reflexivity

Participants and recruitment

Procedure

Data analysis

Ethical considerations

Dissemination

Study status

Conclusions

Data availability

Underlying data

Extended data

Protocol registration

Reporting guidelines

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Are you a HRB-funded researcher?

Thank you!

Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis: Study protocol for a study within a review.

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Background

Aims and objectives

Methods

Design

Research team roles and experience

Reflexivity

Participants and recruitment

Procedure

Data analysis

Ethical considerations

Dissemination

Study status

Conclusions

Data availability

Underlying data

Extended data

Protocol registration

Reporting guidelines

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated

Are you a HRB-funded researcher?

Thank you!