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.14154.3

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

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Study Protocol

Revised

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

[version 3; peer review: 4 approved]

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 18 Jan 2026

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 barriers 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 Within A Review (SWAR) will adopt a mixed-methods approach. Undergraduate and postgraduate students in health-related disciplines engaged in or having just completed their first evidence synthesis at the University of Limerick (Ireland) will be recruited through academic networks and word of mouth. Data will be collected primarily via focus groups, in addition to a short online survey. Thematic analysis will be employed to analyse qualitative data, while descriptive statistics will be used for survey responses. Qualitative and quantitative data will be collected concurrently and narratively integrated at the point of analysis using a weaving approach.

Results

This study aims to describe the 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: © 2026 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 3; peer review: 4 approved]. HRB Open Res 2026, 8:74 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14154.3) First published: 02 Jul 2025, 8:74 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14154.1) Latest published: 18 Jan 2026, 8:74 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14154.3)

Revised Amendments from Version 2

Version 2 addresses the comments made by Reviewers 2,3 and 4. Edits have been made in line with their valuable feedback. These include:
•   Specification of the location of the study within the abstract and methods.
•   Clearer details regarding the inclusion and exclusion criteria of participants (e.g. age, experience in conducting evidence syntheses).
•   Change to the framing of how a "Study within a Review" approach was utilised.
•   Clarification regarding the planned mixed-methods analysis and presentation.
•   Clarification on the relationship between focus group moderators and participants.
•   Clarification of bias mitigation strategies within the protocol.
•   Clarification of how disagreements in coding will be addressed (via the inclusion of the third researcher if consensus cannot be reached).
•   Inclusion of a data management and storage paragraph, which details how data was collected and handled, as well as the retention policy being followed.
The authors would like to sincerely thank the reviewers for sharing their time and expertise.

See the authors' detailed response to the review by Gregory Whitley, Isobel Abbott and Georgia Charles
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Laura Pickell
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Maura Dowling
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Guilherme Henrique Dalaqua Grande

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. Evidence syntheses approaches vary, based on the research question and type of data to be synthesised, with scoping reviews, qualitative syntheses, and systematic reviews among popular approaches³. 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 outcomes⁴. Evidence synthesis is a popular methodological approach, with rapid increases in their publication in the past decade⁵. Although clear guidelines for the reporting and conduct of the varying evidence syntheses types exist^6–9, quality is inconsistent¹⁰.

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, often 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 practice¹¹. 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 evidence syntheses. 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 findings¹². 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, barriers, and perceived facilitators during the review process. Existing literature has primarily focused on early career researchers¹³. 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 expertise¹⁴, 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 research adopts a Study Within A Review (SWAR) approach, which is designed to evaluate methodological processes within evidence synthesis¹⁵. SWARs aim to generate evidence on how evidence syntheses are conducted, structured, and reported, thereby informing best practices. By employing this approach, the research aims to understand student experiences and training in relation to evidence synthesis. Specifically, 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. Novice student team members will be defined as students currently participating or those with recent experience (within the past year) of participating in their first evidence synthesis project.

Methods

Design

This SWAR will be conducted in the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences within the University of Limerick (Ireland), which spans many health-related disciplines and offers both undergraduate and postgraduate study opportunities. This SWAR will adopt a mixed method, embedded design¹⁶. 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 interaction¹⁷. 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 elements¹⁸. The Good Reporting of A Mixed Methods Study (GRAMMs) will also be used to ensure transparent reporting¹⁹. In lieu of mixed method protocol guidelines, this protocol has been reported in accordance with established guidelines for qualitative protocol reporting²⁰.

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. Focus groups will be conducted by researchers with no prior relationship to the participants. At this point, the researcher will verify transcribed data and participants will be pseudonymised.

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. Students at levels 8, 9 and 10 will be included (undergraduate, postgraduate (taught), and postgraduate (by research)). Participants will be considered eligible if they are (i) over 18 years old, (ii) enrolled in higher education, (iii) have access to the internet and (iv) are currently participating, or have participated within the past year, in their first evidence synthesis project in the field of health or behavioural sciences. Students must have had experience with one or more of the following: database searching, study screening, data extraction, quality appraisal or evidence synthesis. Students will be excluded if they have completed more than one evidence synthesis and therefore are no longer considered “novice”.

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 recommendations²¹. 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. 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. Students will be made aware that all experiences and opinions will be welcomed, including those of a negative nature, from the outset of the study in an attempt to reduce social desirability bias.

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^22,23. 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. Disagreements in codes will be discussed until a consensus has been reached; if this is not possible, a third reviewer (EA) will aid in reaching a decision. Themes will be presented, with exemplar quotations provided. 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 merged with qualitative data at the point of interpretation¹⁶. Narrative integration will be employed by weaving qualitative and quantitative findings on a theme-by-theme basis²⁴.

Data management and storage

The Qualtrics survey data will be collected anonymously. Transcriptions from the focus groups will be downloaded to the PI's password-protected GDPR-compliant University one-drive account. These transcriptions will be pseudonymised by removing participant names and replacing them with an ID within 7 days of data collection. No attempt will be made to link survey and transcript data. Data will be stored in line with the University Policy for data retention.

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/y5eh7/²⁵.

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 checklist²⁰.

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 COREQ¹⁸ and GRAMM¹⁹ Guidelines. This protocol has been reported in line with the ObsQual checklist in the absence of mixed method protocol reporting guidelines²⁰.

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. Nussbaumer-Streit B, Booth A, Garritty C, et al.: Overview of evidence synthesis types and modes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2025; 187: 111970. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. 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
5. 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
6. 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
7. 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
8. 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
9. Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, et al.: Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Implement. 2021; 19(1): 3–10. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
10. Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, et al.: Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012; 12: 181. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
11. 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
12. 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
13. 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
14. Soilemezi D, Linceviciute S: Synthesizing qualitative research: reflections and lessons learnt by two new reviewers. Int J Qual Methods. 2018; 17(1). Publisher Full Text
15. Devane D, Burke NN, Treweek S, et al.: Study Within A Review (SWAR). J Evid Based Med. 2022; 15(4): 328–332. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
16. Schoonenboom J, Johnson RB: How to construct a mixed methods research design. Kolner Z Soz Sozpsychol. 2017; 69(Suppl 2): 107–131. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
17. Creswell J, Poth C: Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approache. 4th ed: Sage, 2018. Reference Source
18. 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; 214–226. Publisher Full Text
19. 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): 92–98. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
20. 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
21. Breen RL: A practical guide to focus-group research. Journal of Geography in Higher Education. 2006; 30(3): 463–475. Publisher Full Text
22. Braun V, Clarke V: Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006; 3(2): 77–101. Publisher Full Text
23. Braun V, Clarke V: One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? 2020. Publisher Full Text
24. Fetters FD, Curry LA, Creswell JW: Achieving integration in mixed methods designs—principles and practices. Health Serv Res. 2013; 48(6 Pt 2): 2134–2156. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
25. 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 3

VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 02 Jul 2025

Author details Author details

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 (3)

version 3

Revised

Published: 18 Jan 2026, 8:74

https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14154.3

version 2

Revised

Published: 10 Nov 2025, 8:74

https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14154.2

version 1

Published: 02 Jul 2025, 8:74

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

© 2026 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

232

downloads

Citations

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 3; peer review: 4 approved]. HRB Open Res 2026, 8:74 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14154.3)

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

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 3

VERSION 3

PUBLISHED 18 Jan 2026

Revised

Views

Reviewer Report 24 Jan 2026

Gregory Whitley, Clinical Audit and Research Unit, East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Lincoln, UK; School of Health and Care Sciences, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, England, UK

Georgia Charles, East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Lincoln, UK

Isobel Abbott, East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, UK

Approved

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15775.r52945

Thank you for addressing our comments. The work ... Continue reading

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

Reviewer Report 20 Jan 2026

Guilherme Henrique Dalaqua Grande, University of Western São Paulo, Presidente Prudente, Brazil

Approved

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15775.r52946

The authors have satisfactorily addressed all the comments and suggestions raised by the reviewers. The revised version ... Continue reading

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

Reviewer Report 19 Jan 2026

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

Approved

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15775.r52943

No further ... Continue reading

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Version 2

VERSION 2

PUBLISHED 10 Nov 2025

Revised

Views

Reviewer Report 30 Dec 2025

Guilherme Henrique Dalaqua Grande, University of Western São Paulo, Presidente Prudente, Brazil

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15720.r51931

The protocol is well-constructed, methodologically coherent, and appropriately aligned with its stated aims. The study design is suitable for addressing the research objectives, and ethical and operational considerations are clearly presented. But I have some concerns that the authors could improve for indexing.

Justification for the SWAR Framework
Further clarification on how this study operationalises the SWAR framework would strengthen methodological justification.

Participant Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion criteria lack detail. It is unclear whether the type of evidence synthesis undertaken, timing of completion, and academic discipline should influence eligibility or stratification.

Moderation and Researcher–Participant Relationship
Although reflexivity is addressed, potential prior relationships between moderators and participants are not explained. This is particularly relevant for COREQ compliance.

Bias Mitigation Strategies
Potential biases—such as social desirability bias, moderator influence, and heterogeneity across academic levels—are not explicitly discussed, nor are strategies for their mitigation.

Data Management and Storage Procedures
Details regarding secure data storage, duration of retention, and data protection processes are not fully outlined.

Resolution of Coding Discrepancies
The protocol does not specify how disagreements between independent coders will be resolved during thematic analysis.

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: musculoskeletal disorders, falls prevential and systematic review.

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

Author Response 18 Jan 2026

Sarah Dillon, School of Allied Health, University of Limerick Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland

18 Jan 2026

Author Response

Many thanks to each reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and agree that they have improved the quality of this protocol, which we ... Continue reading Many thanks to each reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and agree that they have improved the quality of this protocol, which we have now updated. We will be mindful of your valuable input as we move forward with the research.
Reviewer 4
Thank you for your time in reading and reviewing our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and have responded to each of them below.
Justification for the SWAR Framework
Further clarification on how this study operationalises the SWAR framework would strengthen methodological justification.
Thank you, we agree with this point, one that is similar to what has been stated by Reviewer 2. We have reflected on this point and have decided that the framing of the SWAR approach may not have been optimal in the text. We have changed the way we have framed this throughout.
Abstract:
“This Study Within A Review (SWAR) will use a mixed-methods approach.”
From aims/objectives:
“This research adopts a Study Within A Review (SWAR) approach, which is designed to evaluate methodological processes within evidence synthesis ¹⁵. SWARs aim to generate evidence on how evidence syntheses are conducted, structured, and reported, thereby informing best practices. By employing this approach, the research aims to understand student experiences and training in relation to evidence synthesis. Specifically, this SWAR aims to address the following objectives…”

Participant Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion criteria lack detail. It is unclear whether the type of evidence synthesis undertaken, timing of completion, and academic discipline should influence eligibility or stratification.
Thanks for the suggestion. More detail has been added to this section to address the valid points raised regarding the lack of detail:
“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. Students at levels 8, 9 and 10 will be included (undergraduate, postgraduate (taught), and postgraduate (by research)). Participants will be considered eligible if they are (i) over 18 years old, (ii) enrolled in higher education, (iii) have access to the internet and (iv) are currently participating, or have participated within the past year, in their first evidence synthesis project in the field of health or behavioural sciences. Students must have had experience with one or more of the following: database searching, study screening, data extraction, quality appraisal or evidence synthesis. Students will be excluded if they have completed more than one evidence synthesis and therefore are no longer considered “novice”.”

Moderation and Researcher–Participant Relationship
Although reflexivity is addressed, potential prior relationships between moderators and participants are not explained. This is particularly relevant for COREQ compliance.
Thanks for this point, We have added additional text to address this point:
“Focus groups will be conducted by researchers with no prior relationship to the participants. At this point, the researcher will verify transcribed data and participants will be pseudonymised.”

Additionally, the following statement is in the procedure:
“Groups will not be moderated by research team members who have previously worked in a supervisory capacity with focus group members.”

Bias Mitigation Strategies
Potential biases—such as social desirability bias, moderator influence, and heterogeneity across academic levels—are not explicitly discussed, nor are strategies for their mitigation.
This is a fair point, and we have edited the text to address this. The following line has been inserted:
“Students will be made aware that all experiences and opinions will be welcomed, including those of a negative nature, from the outset of the study in an attempt to reduce social desirability bias.”
We believe that we have made efforts to address the potential for moderator bias, by implementing a focus group topic guide which has been prepared a priori, though we acknowledge that the influence of the moderator cannot be completely removed. We have also addressed the potential biases brought by moderators in the following lines:
“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.”
We acknowledge that the differing academic levels may also change results, and aim to bring this point forward to our interpretations of research, or have it reflected in the limitations.

Data Management and Storage Procedures
Details regarding secure data storage, duration of retention, and data protection processes are not fully outlined.
Thank you for this suggestion. As section has been inserted to address the concerns raised:
“Data Management and Storage
The Qualtrics survey data will be collected anonymously. Transcriptions from the focus groups will be downloaded to the PI's password-protected GDPR-compliant University one-drive account. These transcriptions will be pseudonymised by removing participant names and replacing them with an ID within 7 days of data collection. No attempt will be made to link survey and transcript data. Data will be stored in line with the University Policy for data retention.”

Resolution of Coding Discrepancies
The protocol does not specify how disagreements between independent coders will be resolved during thematic analysis.
This is a valid point. We have added a sentence to address this concern:
“Disagreements in codes will be discussed until a consensus has been reached, if this is not possible, a third reviewer (EA) will aid in reaching a decision.”
Many thanks to each reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and agree that they have improved the quality of this protocol, which we have now updated. We will be mindful of your valuable input as we move forward with the research.
Reviewer 4
Thank you for your time in reading and reviewing our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and have responded to each of them below.
Justification for the SWAR Framework
Further clarification on how this study operationalises the SWAR framework would strengthen methodological justification.
Thank you, we agree with this point, one that is similar to what has been stated by Reviewer 2. We have reflected on this point and have decided that the framing of the SWAR approach may not have been optimal in the text. We have changed the way we have framed this throughout.
Abstract:
“This Study Within A Review (SWAR) will use a mixed-methods approach.”
From aims/objectives:
“This research adopts a Study Within A Review (SWAR) approach, which is designed to evaluate methodological processes within evidence synthesis ¹⁵. SWARs aim to generate evidence on how evidence syntheses are conducted, structured, and reported, thereby informing best practices. By employing this approach, the research aims to understand student experiences and training in relation to evidence synthesis. Specifically, this SWAR aims to address the following objectives…”

Participant Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion criteria lack detail. It is unclear whether the type of evidence synthesis undertaken, timing of completion, and academic discipline should influence eligibility or stratification.
Thanks for the suggestion. More detail has been added to this section to address the valid points raised regarding the lack of detail:
“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. Students at levels 8, 9 and 10 will be included (undergraduate, postgraduate (taught), and postgraduate (by research)). Participants will be considered eligible if they are (i) over 18 years old, (ii) enrolled in higher education, (iii) have access to the internet and (iv) are currently participating, or have participated within the past year, in their first evidence synthesis project in the field of health or behavioural sciences. Students must have had experience with one or more of the following: database searching, study screening, data extraction, quality appraisal or evidence synthesis. Students will be excluded if they have completed more than one evidence synthesis and therefore are no longer considered “novice”.”

Moderation and Researcher–Participant Relationship
Although reflexivity is addressed, potential prior relationships between moderators and participants are not explained. This is particularly relevant for COREQ compliance.
Thanks for this point, We have added additional text to address this point:
“Focus groups will be conducted by researchers with no prior relationship to the participants. At this point, the researcher will verify transcribed data and participants will be pseudonymised.”

Additionally, the following statement is in the procedure:
“Groups will not be moderated by research team members who have previously worked in a supervisory capacity with focus group members.”

Bias Mitigation Strategies
Potential biases—such as social desirability bias, moderator influence, and heterogeneity across academic levels—are not explicitly discussed, nor are strategies for their mitigation.
This is a fair point, and we have edited the text to address this. The following line has been inserted:
“Students will be made aware that all experiences and opinions will be welcomed, including those of a negative nature, from the outset of the study in an attempt to reduce social desirability bias.”
We believe that we have made efforts to address the potential for moderator bias, by implementing a focus group topic guide which has been prepared a priori, though we acknowledge that the influence of the moderator cannot be completely removed. We have also addressed the potential biases brought by moderators in the following lines:
“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.”
We acknowledge that the differing academic levels may also change results, and aim to bring this point forward to our interpretations of research, or have it reflected in the limitations.

Data Management and Storage Procedures
Details regarding secure data storage, duration of retention, and data protection processes are not fully outlined.
Thank you for this suggestion. As section has been inserted to address the concerns raised:
“Data Management and Storage
The Qualtrics survey data will be collected anonymously. Transcriptions from the focus groups will be downloaded to the PI's password-protected GDPR-compliant University one-drive account. These transcriptions will be pseudonymised by removing participant names and replacing them with an ID within 7 days of data collection. No attempt will be made to link survey and transcript data. Data will be stored in line with the University Policy for data retention.”

Resolution of Coding Discrepancies
The protocol does not specify how disagreements between independent coders will be resolved during thematic analysis.
This is a valid point. We have added a sentence to address this concern:
“Disagreements in codes will be discussed until a consensus has been reached, if this is not possible, a third reviewer (EA) will aid in reaching a decision.”
Competing Interests: N/A Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 18 Jan 2026

Sarah Dillon, School of Allied Health, University of Limerick Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland

18 Jan 2026

Author Response

Many thanks to each reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and agree that they have improved the quality of this protocol, which we ... Continue reading Many thanks to each reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and agree that they have improved the quality of this protocol, which we have now updated. We will be mindful of your valuable input as we move forward with the research.
Reviewer 4
Thank you for your time in reading and reviewing our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and have responded to each of them below.
Justification for the SWAR Framework
Further clarification on how this study operationalises the SWAR framework would strengthen methodological justification.
Thank you, we agree with this point, one that is similar to what has been stated by Reviewer 2. We have reflected on this point and have decided that the framing of the SWAR approach may not have been optimal in the text. We have changed the way we have framed this throughout.
Abstract:
“This Study Within A Review (SWAR) will use a mixed-methods approach.”
From aims/objectives:
“This research adopts a Study Within A Review (SWAR) approach, which is designed to evaluate methodological processes within evidence synthesis ¹⁵. SWARs aim to generate evidence on how evidence syntheses are conducted, structured, and reported, thereby informing best practices. By employing this approach, the research aims to understand student experiences and training in relation to evidence synthesis. Specifically, this SWAR aims to address the following objectives…”

Participant Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion criteria lack detail. It is unclear whether the type of evidence synthesis undertaken, timing of completion, and academic discipline should influence eligibility or stratification.
Thanks for the suggestion. More detail has been added to this section to address the valid points raised regarding the lack of detail:
“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. Students at levels 8, 9 and 10 will be included (undergraduate, postgraduate (taught), and postgraduate (by research)). Participants will be considered eligible if they are (i) over 18 years old, (ii) enrolled in higher education, (iii) have access to the internet and (iv) are currently participating, or have participated within the past year, in their first evidence synthesis project in the field of health or behavioural sciences. Students must have had experience with one or more of the following: database searching, study screening, data extraction, quality appraisal or evidence synthesis. Students will be excluded if they have completed more than one evidence synthesis and therefore are no longer considered “novice”.”

Moderation and Researcher–Participant Relationship
Although reflexivity is addressed, potential prior relationships between moderators and participants are not explained. This is particularly relevant for COREQ compliance.
Thanks for this point, We have added additional text to address this point:
“Focus groups will be conducted by researchers with no prior relationship to the participants. At this point, the researcher will verify transcribed data and participants will be pseudonymised.”

Additionally, the following statement is in the procedure:
“Groups will not be moderated by research team members who have previously worked in a supervisory capacity with focus group members.”

Bias Mitigation Strategies
Potential biases—such as social desirability bias, moderator influence, and heterogeneity across academic levels—are not explicitly discussed, nor are strategies for their mitigation.
This is a fair point, and we have edited the text to address this. The following line has been inserted:
“Students will be made aware that all experiences and opinions will be welcomed, including those of a negative nature, from the outset of the study in an attempt to reduce social desirability bias.”
We believe that we have made efforts to address the potential for moderator bias, by implementing a focus group topic guide which has been prepared a priori, though we acknowledge that the influence of the moderator cannot be completely removed. We have also addressed the potential biases brought by moderators in the following lines:
“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.”
We acknowledge that the differing academic levels may also change results, and aim to bring this point forward to our interpretations of research, or have it reflected in the limitations.

Data Management and Storage Procedures
Details regarding secure data storage, duration of retention, and data protection processes are not fully outlined.
Thank you for this suggestion. As section has been inserted to address the concerns raised:
“Data Management and Storage
The Qualtrics survey data will be collected anonymously. Transcriptions from the focus groups will be downloaded to the PI's password-protected GDPR-compliant University one-drive account. These transcriptions will be pseudonymised by removing participant names and replacing them with an ID within 7 days of data collection. No attempt will be made to link survey and transcript data. Data will be stored in line with the University Policy for data retention.”

Resolution of Coding Discrepancies
The protocol does not specify how disagreements between independent coders will be resolved during thematic analysis.
This is a valid point. We have added a sentence to address this concern:
“Disagreements in codes will be discussed until a consensus has been reached, if this is not possible, a third reviewer (EA) will aid in reaching a decision.”
Many thanks to each reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and agree that they have improved the quality of this protocol, which we have now updated. We will be mindful of your valuable input as we move forward with the research.
Reviewer 4
Thank you for your time in reading and reviewing our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and have responded to each of them below.
Justification for the SWAR Framework
Further clarification on how this study operationalises the SWAR framework would strengthen methodological justification.
Thank you, we agree with this point, one that is similar to what has been stated by Reviewer 2. We have reflected on this point and have decided that the framing of the SWAR approach may not have been optimal in the text. We have changed the way we have framed this throughout.
Abstract:
“This Study Within A Review (SWAR) will use a mixed-methods approach.”
From aims/objectives:
“This research adopts a Study Within A Review (SWAR) approach, which is designed to evaluate methodological processes within evidence synthesis ¹⁵. SWARs aim to generate evidence on how evidence syntheses are conducted, structured, and reported, thereby informing best practices. By employing this approach, the research aims to understand student experiences and training in relation to evidence synthesis. Specifically, this SWAR aims to address the following objectives…”

Participant Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion criteria lack detail. It is unclear whether the type of evidence synthesis undertaken, timing of completion, and academic discipline should influence eligibility or stratification.
Thanks for the suggestion. More detail has been added to this section to address the valid points raised regarding the lack of detail:
“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. Students at levels 8, 9 and 10 will be included (undergraduate, postgraduate (taught), and postgraduate (by research)). Participants will be considered eligible if they are (i) over 18 years old, (ii) enrolled in higher education, (iii) have access to the internet and (iv) are currently participating, or have participated within the past year, in their first evidence synthesis project in the field of health or behavioural sciences. Students must have had experience with one or more of the following: database searching, study screening, data extraction, quality appraisal or evidence synthesis. Students will be excluded if they have completed more than one evidence synthesis and therefore are no longer considered “novice”.”

Moderation and Researcher–Participant Relationship
Although reflexivity is addressed, potential prior relationships between moderators and participants are not explained. This is particularly relevant for COREQ compliance.
Thanks for this point, We have added additional text to address this point:
“Focus groups will be conducted by researchers with no prior relationship to the participants. At this point, the researcher will verify transcribed data and participants will be pseudonymised.”

Additionally, the following statement is in the procedure:
“Groups will not be moderated by research team members who have previously worked in a supervisory capacity with focus group members.”

Bias Mitigation Strategies
Potential biases—such as social desirability bias, moderator influence, and heterogeneity across academic levels—are not explicitly discussed, nor are strategies for their mitigation.
This is a fair point, and we have edited the text to address this. The following line has been inserted:
“Students will be made aware that all experiences and opinions will be welcomed, including those of a negative nature, from the outset of the study in an attempt to reduce social desirability bias.”
We believe that we have made efforts to address the potential for moderator bias, by implementing a focus group topic guide which has been prepared a priori, though we acknowledge that the influence of the moderator cannot be completely removed. We have also addressed the potential biases brought by moderators in the following lines:
“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.”
We acknowledge that the differing academic levels may also change results, and aim to bring this point forward to our interpretations of research, or have it reflected in the limitations.

Data Management and Storage Procedures
Details regarding secure data storage, duration of retention, and data protection processes are not fully outlined.
Thank you for this suggestion. As section has been inserted to address the concerns raised:
“Data Management and Storage
The Qualtrics survey data will be collected anonymously. Transcriptions from the focus groups will be downloaded to the PI's password-protected GDPR-compliant University one-drive account. These transcriptions will be pseudonymised by removing participant names and replacing them with an ID within 7 days of data collection. No attempt will be made to link survey and transcript data. Data will be stored in line with the University Policy for data retention.”

Resolution of Coding Discrepancies
The protocol does not specify how disagreements between independent coders will be resolved during thematic analysis.
This is a valid point. We have added a sentence to address this concern:
“Disagreements in codes will be discussed until a consensus has been reached, if this is not possible, a third reviewer (EA) will aid in reaching a decision.”
Competing Interests: N/A Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 30 Dec 2025

Laura Pickell, Carleton University Department of Health Sciences, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Approved

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15720.r51377

This review examines the published research protocol entitled “Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis: Study protocol for a study within a review,” a study within a review (SWAR) exploring the experiences of students as novices conducting knowledge synthesis research.

The rationale and aims of the study are clearly outlined and accurate. An additional relevant scoping review by Premji, Hayden, and Rutherford (2021) may also be useful in further situating this work within the existing literature. (Ref 1 - Premji Z, et al., 2021)

The study design is appropriate in addressing the study research questions and demonstrates strong alignment between the study aims, design, and planned data collection and analysis. A notable strength is the inclusion of strategies to enhance trustworthiness and transparency, such as reflexivity, the use of agreed-upon interview guides, adherence to reporting guidelines, and researcher triangulation in the thematic analysis. The protocol also demonstrates careful attention to ethical considerations.

The comments from the previous reviewer regarding the need to mitigate potential conflicts of interest or undue influence over students are important and are echoed here. It is also suggested that caution be applied in the data analysis and interpretation given the potential for self-report bias. Transparent reporting of the limitations associated with this form of data collection will therefore be important. In addition, maintaining detailed records as an audit trail is encouraged to further enhance transparency, particularly to document and justify any changes or additions made to focus group or survey questions over the course of the study.

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?

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

Not applicable

References

1. Premji Z, Hayden K, Rutherford S: Teaching Knowledge Synthesis Methodologies in a Higher Education Setting: A Scoping Review of Face-to-Face Instructional Programs. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice. 2021; 16 (2): 111-144 Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL), health education, evidence synthesis and research methods instruction

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.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 18 Jan 2026

Sarah Dillon, School of Allied Health, University of Limerick Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland

18 Jan 2026

Author Response

Many thanks to each reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and agree that they have improved the quality of this protocol, which we ... Continue reading Many thanks to each reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and agree that they have improved the quality of this protocol, which we have now updated. We will be mindful of your valuable input as we move forward with the research.
Reviewer 3
The comments from the previous reviewer regarding the need to mitigate potential conflicts of interest or undue influence over students are important and are echoed here. It is also suggested that caution be applied in the data analysis and interpretation given the potential for self-report bias. Transparent reporting of the limitations associated with this form of data collection will therefore be important. In addition, maintaining detailed records as an audit trail is encouraged to further enhance transparency, particularly to document and justify any changes or additions made to focus group or survey questions over the course of the study.
Thank you very much for these valuable comments. We acknowledge that this is indeed a limitation and we will ensure to mention the limitations of self-report bias in the final manuscript. Thank you also for your other points regarding transparency and audit tracking, we will take these on board.
Many thanks to each reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and agree that they have improved the quality of this protocol, which we have now updated. We will be mindful of your valuable input as we move forward with the research.
Reviewer 3
The comments from the previous reviewer regarding the need to mitigate potential conflicts of interest or undue influence over students are important and are echoed here. It is also suggested that caution be applied in the data analysis and interpretation given the potential for self-report bias. Transparent reporting of the limitations associated with this form of data collection will therefore be important. In addition, maintaining detailed records as an audit trail is encouraged to further enhance transparency, particularly to document and justify any changes or additions made to focus group or survey questions over the course of the study.
Thank you very much for these valuable comments. We acknowledge that this is indeed a limitation and we will ensure to mention the limitations of self-report bias in the final manuscript. Thank you also for your other points regarding transparency and audit tracking, we will take these on board.
Competing Interests: N/A Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 18 Jan 2026

Sarah Dillon, School of Allied Health, University of Limerick Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland

18 Jan 2026

Author Response

Many thanks to each reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and agree that they have improved the quality of this protocol, which we ... Continue reading Many thanks to each reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and agree that they have improved the quality of this protocol, which we have now updated. We will be mindful of your valuable input as we move forward with the research.
Reviewer 3
The comments from the previous reviewer regarding the need to mitigate potential conflicts of interest or undue influence over students are important and are echoed here. It is also suggested that caution be applied in the data analysis and interpretation given the potential for self-report bias. Transparent reporting of the limitations associated with this form of data collection will therefore be important. In addition, maintaining detailed records as an audit trail is encouraged to further enhance transparency, particularly to document and justify any changes or additions made to focus group or survey questions over the course of the study.
Thank you very much for these valuable comments. We acknowledge that this is indeed a limitation and we will ensure to mention the limitations of self-report bias in the final manuscript. Thank you also for your other points regarding transparency and audit tracking, we will take these on board.
Many thanks to each reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and agree that they have improved the quality of this protocol, which we have now updated. We will be mindful of your valuable input as we move forward with the research.
Reviewer 3
The comments from the previous reviewer regarding the need to mitigate potential conflicts of interest or undue influence over students are important and are echoed here. It is also suggested that caution be applied in the data analysis and interpretation given the potential for self-report bias. Transparent reporting of the limitations associated with this form of data collection will therefore be important. In addition, maintaining detailed records as an audit trail is encouraged to further enhance transparency, particularly to document and justify any changes or additions made to focus group or survey questions over the course of the study.
Thank you very much for these valuable comments. We acknowledge that this is indeed a limitation and we will ensure to mention the limitations of self-report bias in the final manuscript. Thank you also for your other points regarding transparency and audit tracking, we will take these on board.
Competing Interests: N/A Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 25 Dec 2025

Gregory Whitley, Clinical Audit and Research Unit, East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Lincoln, UK; School of Health and Care Sciences, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, England, UK

Isobel Abbott, East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Lincoln, UK

Georgia Charles, East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Lincoln, UK

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15720.r51379

Thank you for the opportunity to review your revised manuscript (Version 2), titled “Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis: Study protocol for a study within a review”. Along with two previous students of mine (Isobel Abbott and Georgia Charles – novice students who have conducted evidence synthesis) I have reviewed this work and concluded that overall, the work is good quality. You have responded well to Reviewer #1. I have provided some comments below you may wish to consider – I believe these will improve the quality of your manuscript.

Major comments include:
None.

Minor comments include:
There is room for improvement with the abstract in our opinion:
Abstract – Methods – It would be helpful to explain the geographic remit of your recruitment (state that this study will be conducted within the University of Limerick, Ireland) and specify that undergraduate and postgraduate students will be recruited.
You use the phrases “challenges and facilitators”, “barriers and opportunities” and barriers and facilitators” throughout, it would be helpful to refer to one of these consistently throughout the manuscript.
Abstract – Methods – You have identified the study as mixed methods, however there is no description of integration techniques within the abstract – this is key to mixed methods research.

Background - It would be helpful to define what is meant by a “novice” student team member by providing a definition of what a novice is, for the purpose of this study.

Background - “Increasingly, novice researchers and students are included in evidence synthesis teams, either as part of research training or formal coursework.” – It may be better to say “…often as part of research training or formal coursework.” As students may engage with evidence synthesis by other means.

Aims and Objectives - You have stated that the study is embedded with the SWAR framework – from what I can see from the reference this isn’t a “framework” as such, rather guidance. Maybe better to state you have followed SWAR guidance? I raise this because stating you used a framework makes me wonder what the framework looks like, what the steps are, etc. I would have asked you to describe the framework within this protocol.

Methods – Design – I’m assuming that “This SWAR will be conducted in the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences” means this is a University of Limerick only study? It would be helpful to make that clear: “This SWAR will be conducted in the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, University of Limerick, …”

Methods – Participants and Recruitment – While the study notes that students were recruited via a convenience sample, it would be useful to clarify the exact inclusion and exclusion criteria that were applied to ensure that only novice student participants were recruited. For example, what do you mean by “just completed” – what timeframe does this include? Were any exclusion criteria applied?

Methods – Data analysis – The final statement alludes to data integration, however there is no description of how this will be performed. You might consider the use of a joint display, for example? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26553895/

Methods – Data analysis – Given the diversity of data, can you say a little about how the results will be presented? Illustrated via a thematic map? Exemplar quotations provided? Tabular format? Joint display? Other?

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: Paramedicine, emergency medicine, evidence synthesis, mixed methods.

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

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 18 Jan 2026

Sarah Dillon, School of Allied Health, University of Limerick Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland

18 Jan 2026

Author Response

Many thanks to each reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and agree that they have improved the quality of this protocol, which we ... Continue reading Many thanks to each reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and agree that they have improved the quality of this protocol, which we have now updated. We will be mindful of your valuable input as we move forward with the research.

Reviewer 2:
Thank you for your feedback, we have responded to each of your comments below.
Minor comments include:
There is room for improvement with the abstract in our opinion:
Abstract – Methods – It would be helpful to explain the geographic remit of your recruitment (state that this study will be conducted within the University of Limerick, Ireland) and specify that undergraduate and postgraduate students will be recruited.
This information has been inserted into the abstract section:
Methods This Study Within A Review (SWAR) will use a mixed-methods approach.. Undergraduate and postgraduate students in health-related disciplines engaged in or having just completed their first evidence synthesis at the University of Limerick (Ireland) will be recruited through academic networks and word of mouth.

You use the phrases “challenges and facilitators”, “barriers and opportunities” and barriers and facilitators” throughout, it would be helpful to refer to one of these consistently throughout the manuscript.
We have removed “challenges” and have replaced with “barriers” throughout the protocol.

Abstract – Methods – You have identified the study as mixed methods, however there is no description of integration techniques within the abstract – this is key to mixed methods research.
Thanks for pointing out this oversight. This has been addressed in the following sentence:
“Qualitative and quantitative data will be collected concurrently and narratively integrated at the point of analysis using a weaving approach.” We have additionally updated the analysis section of the main manuscript for clarity.

Background - It would be helpful to define what is meant by a “novice” student team member by providing a definition of what a novice is, for the purpose of this study.
We have inserted this into the background:
“Novice student team members will be defined as students currently participating or those with recent experience (within the past year) of participating in their first evidence synthesis project.”

Background - “Increasingly, novice researchers and students are included in evidence synthesis teams, either as part of research training or formal coursework.” – It may be better to say “…often as part of research training or formal coursework.” As students may engage with evidence synthesis by other means.
Thanks for the editing note, we agree and have amended the sentence as advised.

Aims and Objectives - You have stated that the study is embedded with the SWAR framework – from what I can see from the reference this isn’t a “framework” as such, rather guidance. Maybe better to state you have followed SWAR guidance? I raise this because stating you used a framework makes me wonder what the framework looks like, what the steps are, etc. I would have asked you to describe the framework within this protocol.
Thank you, this is a good point and one we have considered, in the context of the previous article. On reflection, we agree that this may not be the most appropriate terminology. We have changed the way we have framed this throughout.
Abstract:
“This Study Within A Review (SWAR) will use a mixed-methods approach.”
From aims/objectives:
“This research adopts a Study Within A Review (SWAR) approach, which is designed to evaluate methodological processes within evidence synthesis ¹⁵. SWARs aim to generate evidence on how evidence syntheses are conducted, structured, and reported, thereby informing best practices. By employing this approach, the research aims to understand student experiences and training in relation to evidence synthesis. Specifically, this SWAR aims to address the following objectives…”

Methods – Design – I’m assuming that “This SWAR will be conducted in the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences” means this is a University of Limerick only study? It would be helpful to make that clear: “This SWAR will be conducted in the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, University of Limerick, …”
We have made this amendment.
“This SWAR will be conducted in the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences within the University of Limerick (Ireland)…”

Methods – Participants and Recruitment – While the study notes that students were recruited via a convenience sample, it would be useful to clarify the exact inclusion and exclusion criteria that were applied to ensure that only novice student participants were recruited. For example, what do you mean by “just completed” – what timeframe does this include? Were any exclusion criteria applied?
Many thanks for this point. We have added further clarifications to the Participants and recruitment section:
“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. Students at levels 8, 9 and 10 will be included (undergraduate, postgraduate (taught), and postgraduate (by research)). Participants will be considered eligible if they are (i) over 18 years old, (ii) enrolled in higher education, (iii) have access to the internet and (iv) are currently participating, or have participated within the past year, in their first evidence synthesis project in the field of health or behavioural sciences. Students must have had experience with one or more of the following: database searching, study screening, data extraction, quality appraisal or evidence synthesis. Students will be excluded if they have completed more than one evidence synthesis and therefore are no longer considered “novice”.”

Methods – Data analysis – The final statement alludes to data integration, however there is no description of how this will be performed. You might consider the use of a joint display, for example? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26553895/

Methods – Data analysis – Given the diversity of data, can you say a little about how the results will be presented? Illustrated via a thematic map? Exemplar quotations provided? Tabular format? Joint display? Other?
We agree that this was not sufficiently clarified and thank the reviewer for their suggestions. This is a qualitatively dominant mixed-methods study and will include narrative integration (weaving of qualitative and quantitative data). We have added clarification regarding how these results will be presented/analysed:
“Themes will be presented, with exemplar quotations provided. 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 merged with qualitative data at the point of interpretation and then integrated at the inferential stage 16 . Narrative integration will be employed by weaving qualitative and quantitative findings on a theme-by-theme basis 25.”
Many thanks to each reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and agree that they have improved the quality of this protocol, which we have now updated. We will be mindful of your valuable input as we move forward with the research.

Reviewer 2:
Thank you for your feedback, we have responded to each of your comments below.
Minor comments include:
There is room for improvement with the abstract in our opinion:
Abstract – Methods – It would be helpful to explain the geographic remit of your recruitment (state that this study will be conducted within the University of Limerick, Ireland) and specify that undergraduate and postgraduate students will be recruited.
This information has been inserted into the abstract section:
Methods This Study Within A Review (SWAR) will use a mixed-methods approach.. Undergraduate and postgraduate students in health-related disciplines engaged in or having just completed their first evidence synthesis at the University of Limerick (Ireland) will be recruited through academic networks and word of mouth.

You use the phrases “challenges and facilitators”, “barriers and opportunities” and barriers and facilitators” throughout, it would be helpful to refer to one of these consistently throughout the manuscript.
We have removed “challenges” and have replaced with “barriers” throughout the protocol.

Abstract – Methods – You have identified the study as mixed methods, however there is no description of integration techniques within the abstract – this is key to mixed methods research.
Thanks for pointing out this oversight. This has been addressed in the following sentence:
“Qualitative and quantitative data will be collected concurrently and narratively integrated at the point of analysis using a weaving approach.” We have additionally updated the analysis section of the main manuscript for clarity.

Background - It would be helpful to define what is meant by a “novice” student team member by providing a definition of what a novice is, for the purpose of this study.
We have inserted this into the background:
“Novice student team members will be defined as students currently participating or those with recent experience (within the past year) of participating in their first evidence synthesis project.”

Background - “Increasingly, novice researchers and students are included in evidence synthesis teams, either as part of research training or formal coursework.” – It may be better to say “…often as part of research training or formal coursework.” As students may engage with evidence synthesis by other means.
Thanks for the editing note, we agree and have amended the sentence as advised.

Aims and Objectives - You have stated that the study is embedded with the SWAR framework – from what I can see from the reference this isn’t a “framework” as such, rather guidance. Maybe better to state you have followed SWAR guidance? I raise this because stating you used a framework makes me wonder what the framework looks like, what the steps are, etc. I would have asked you to describe the framework within this protocol.
Thank you, this is a good point and one we have considered, in the context of the previous article. On reflection, we agree that this may not be the most appropriate terminology. We have changed the way we have framed this throughout.
Abstract:
“This Study Within A Review (SWAR) will use a mixed-methods approach.”
From aims/objectives:
“This research adopts a Study Within A Review (SWAR) approach, which is designed to evaluate methodological processes within evidence synthesis ¹⁵. SWARs aim to generate evidence on how evidence syntheses are conducted, structured, and reported, thereby informing best practices. By employing this approach, the research aims to understand student experiences and training in relation to evidence synthesis. Specifically, this SWAR aims to address the following objectives…”

Methods – Design – I’m assuming that “This SWAR will be conducted in the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences” means this is a University of Limerick only study? It would be helpful to make that clear: “This SWAR will be conducted in the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, University of Limerick, …”
We have made this amendment.
“This SWAR will be conducted in the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences within the University of Limerick (Ireland)…”

Methods – Participants and Recruitment – While the study notes that students were recruited via a convenience sample, it would be useful to clarify the exact inclusion and exclusion criteria that were applied to ensure that only novice student participants were recruited. For example, what do you mean by “just completed” – what timeframe does this include? Were any exclusion criteria applied?
Many thanks for this point. We have added further clarifications to the Participants and recruitment section:
“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. Students at levels 8, 9 and 10 will be included (undergraduate, postgraduate (taught), and postgraduate (by research)). Participants will be considered eligible if they are (i) over 18 years old, (ii) enrolled in higher education, (iii) have access to the internet and (iv) are currently participating, or have participated within the past year, in their first evidence synthesis project in the field of health or behavioural sciences. Students must have had experience with one or more of the following: database searching, study screening, data extraction, quality appraisal or evidence synthesis. Students will be excluded if they have completed more than one evidence synthesis and therefore are no longer considered “novice”.”

Methods – Data analysis – The final statement alludes to data integration, however there is no description of how this will be performed. You might consider the use of a joint display, for example? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26553895/

Methods – Data analysis – Given the diversity of data, can you say a little about how the results will be presented? Illustrated via a thematic map? Exemplar quotations provided? Tabular format? Joint display? Other?
We agree that this was not sufficiently clarified and thank the reviewer for their suggestions. This is a qualitatively dominant mixed-methods study and will include narrative integration (weaving of qualitative and quantitative data). We have added clarification regarding how these results will be presented/analysed:
“Themes will be presented, with exemplar quotations provided. 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 merged with qualitative data at the point of interpretation and then integrated at the inferential stage 16 . Narrative integration will be employed by weaving qualitative and quantitative findings on a theme-by-theme basis 25.”
Competing Interests: N/A Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 18 Jan 2026

Sarah Dillon, School of Allied Health, University of Limerick Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland

18 Jan 2026

Author Response

Many thanks to each reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and agree that they have improved the quality of this protocol, which we ... Continue reading Many thanks to each reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and agree that they have improved the quality of this protocol, which we have now updated. We will be mindful of your valuable input as we move forward with the research.

Reviewer 2:
Thank you for your feedback, we have responded to each of your comments below.
Minor comments include:
There is room for improvement with the abstract in our opinion:
Abstract – Methods – It would be helpful to explain the geographic remit of your recruitment (state that this study will be conducted within the University of Limerick, Ireland) and specify that undergraduate and postgraduate students will be recruited.
This information has been inserted into the abstract section:
Methods This Study Within A Review (SWAR) will use a mixed-methods approach.. Undergraduate and postgraduate students in health-related disciplines engaged in or having just completed their first evidence synthesis at the University of Limerick (Ireland) will be recruited through academic networks and word of mouth.

You use the phrases “challenges and facilitators”, “barriers and opportunities” and barriers and facilitators” throughout, it would be helpful to refer to one of these consistently throughout the manuscript.
We have removed “challenges” and have replaced with “barriers” throughout the protocol.

Abstract – Methods – You have identified the study as mixed methods, however there is no description of integration techniques within the abstract – this is key to mixed methods research.
Thanks for pointing out this oversight. This has been addressed in the following sentence:
“Qualitative and quantitative data will be collected concurrently and narratively integrated at the point of analysis using a weaving approach.” We have additionally updated the analysis section of the main manuscript for clarity.

Background - It would be helpful to define what is meant by a “novice” student team member by providing a definition of what a novice is, for the purpose of this study.
We have inserted this into the background:
“Novice student team members will be defined as students currently participating or those with recent experience (within the past year) of participating in their first evidence synthesis project.”

Background - “Increasingly, novice researchers and students are included in evidence synthesis teams, either as part of research training or formal coursework.” – It may be better to say “…often as part of research training or formal coursework.” As students may engage with evidence synthesis by other means.
Thanks for the editing note, we agree and have amended the sentence as advised.

Aims and Objectives - You have stated that the study is embedded with the SWAR framework – from what I can see from the reference this isn’t a “framework” as such, rather guidance. Maybe better to state you have followed SWAR guidance? I raise this because stating you used a framework makes me wonder what the framework looks like, what the steps are, etc. I would have asked you to describe the framework within this protocol.
Thank you, this is a good point and one we have considered, in the context of the previous article. On reflection, we agree that this may not be the most appropriate terminology. We have changed the way we have framed this throughout.
Abstract:
“This Study Within A Review (SWAR) will use a mixed-methods approach.”
From aims/objectives:
“This research adopts a Study Within A Review (SWAR) approach, which is designed to evaluate methodological processes within evidence synthesis ¹⁵. SWARs aim to generate evidence on how evidence syntheses are conducted, structured, and reported, thereby informing best practices. By employing this approach, the research aims to understand student experiences and training in relation to evidence synthesis. Specifically, this SWAR aims to address the following objectives…”

Methods – Design – I’m assuming that “This SWAR will be conducted in the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences” means this is a University of Limerick only study? It would be helpful to make that clear: “This SWAR will be conducted in the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, University of Limerick, …”
We have made this amendment.
“This SWAR will be conducted in the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences within the University of Limerick (Ireland)…”

Methods – Participants and Recruitment – While the study notes that students were recruited via a convenience sample, it would be useful to clarify the exact inclusion and exclusion criteria that were applied to ensure that only novice student participants were recruited. For example, what do you mean by “just completed” – what timeframe does this include? Were any exclusion criteria applied?
Many thanks for this point. We have added further clarifications to the Participants and recruitment section:
“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. Students at levels 8, 9 and 10 will be included (undergraduate, postgraduate (taught), and postgraduate (by research)). Participants will be considered eligible if they are (i) over 18 years old, (ii) enrolled in higher education, (iii) have access to the internet and (iv) are currently participating, or have participated within the past year, in their first evidence synthesis project in the field of health or behavioural sciences. Students must have had experience with one or more of the following: database searching, study screening, data extraction, quality appraisal or evidence synthesis. Students will be excluded if they have completed more than one evidence synthesis and therefore are no longer considered “novice”.”

Methods – Data analysis – The final statement alludes to data integration, however there is no description of how this will be performed. You might consider the use of a joint display, for example? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26553895/

Methods – Data analysis – Given the diversity of data, can you say a little about how the results will be presented? Illustrated via a thematic map? Exemplar quotations provided? Tabular format? Joint display? Other?
We agree that this was not sufficiently clarified and thank the reviewer for their suggestions. This is a qualitatively dominant mixed-methods study and will include narrative integration (weaving of qualitative and quantitative data). We have added clarification regarding how these results will be presented/analysed:
“Themes will be presented, with exemplar quotations provided. 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 merged with qualitative data at the point of interpretation and then integrated at the inferential stage 16 . Narrative integration will be employed by weaving qualitative and quantitative findings on a theme-by-theme basis 25.”
Many thanks to each reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and agree that they have improved the quality of this protocol, which we have now updated. We will be mindful of your valuable input as we move forward with the research.

Reviewer 2:
Thank you for your feedback, we have responded to each of your comments below.
Minor comments include:
There is room for improvement with the abstract in our opinion:
Abstract – Methods – It would be helpful to explain the geographic remit of your recruitment (state that this study will be conducted within the University of Limerick, Ireland) and specify that undergraduate and postgraduate students will be recruited.
This information has been inserted into the abstract section:
Methods This Study Within A Review (SWAR) will use a mixed-methods approach.. Undergraduate and postgraduate students in health-related disciplines engaged in or having just completed their first evidence synthesis at the University of Limerick (Ireland) will be recruited through academic networks and word of mouth.

You use the phrases “challenges and facilitators”, “barriers and opportunities” and barriers and facilitators” throughout, it would be helpful to refer to one of these consistently throughout the manuscript.
We have removed “challenges” and have replaced with “barriers” throughout the protocol.

Abstract – Methods – You have identified the study as mixed methods, however there is no description of integration techniques within the abstract – this is key to mixed methods research.
Thanks for pointing out this oversight. This has been addressed in the following sentence:
“Qualitative and quantitative data will be collected concurrently and narratively integrated at the point of analysis using a weaving approach.” We have additionally updated the analysis section of the main manuscript for clarity.

Background - It would be helpful to define what is meant by a “novice” student team member by providing a definition of what a novice is, for the purpose of this study.
We have inserted this into the background:
“Novice student team members will be defined as students currently participating or those with recent experience (within the past year) of participating in their first evidence synthesis project.”

Background - “Increasingly, novice researchers and students are included in evidence synthesis teams, either as part of research training or formal coursework.” – It may be better to say “…often as part of research training or formal coursework.” As students may engage with evidence synthesis by other means.
Thanks for the editing note, we agree and have amended the sentence as advised.

Aims and Objectives - You have stated that the study is embedded with the SWAR framework – from what I can see from the reference this isn’t a “framework” as such, rather guidance. Maybe better to state you have followed SWAR guidance? I raise this because stating you used a framework makes me wonder what the framework looks like, what the steps are, etc. I would have asked you to describe the framework within this protocol.
Thank you, this is a good point and one we have considered, in the context of the previous article. On reflection, we agree that this may not be the most appropriate terminology. We have changed the way we have framed this throughout.
Abstract:
“This Study Within A Review (SWAR) will use a mixed-methods approach.”
From aims/objectives:
“This research adopts a Study Within A Review (SWAR) approach, which is designed to evaluate methodological processes within evidence synthesis ¹⁵. SWARs aim to generate evidence on how evidence syntheses are conducted, structured, and reported, thereby informing best practices. By employing this approach, the research aims to understand student experiences and training in relation to evidence synthesis. Specifically, this SWAR aims to address the following objectives…”

Methods – Design – I’m assuming that “This SWAR will be conducted in the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences” means this is a University of Limerick only study? It would be helpful to make that clear: “This SWAR will be conducted in the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, University of Limerick, …”
We have made this amendment.
“This SWAR will be conducted in the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences within the University of Limerick (Ireland)…”

Methods – Participants and Recruitment – While the study notes that students were recruited via a convenience sample, it would be useful to clarify the exact inclusion and exclusion criteria that were applied to ensure that only novice student participants were recruited. For example, what do you mean by “just completed” – what timeframe does this include? Were any exclusion criteria applied?
Many thanks for this point. We have added further clarifications to the Participants and recruitment section:
“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. Students at levels 8, 9 and 10 will be included (undergraduate, postgraduate (taught), and postgraduate (by research)). Participants will be considered eligible if they are (i) over 18 years old, (ii) enrolled in higher education, (iii) have access to the internet and (iv) are currently participating, or have participated within the past year, in their first evidence synthesis project in the field of health or behavioural sciences. Students must have had experience with one or more of the following: database searching, study screening, data extraction, quality appraisal or evidence synthesis. Students will be excluded if they have completed more than one evidence synthesis and therefore are no longer considered “novice”.”

Methods – Data analysis – The final statement alludes to data integration, however there is no description of how this will be performed. You might consider the use of a joint display, for example? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26553895/

Methods – Data analysis – Given the diversity of data, can you say a little about how the results will be presented? Illustrated via a thematic map? Exemplar quotations provided? Tabular format? Joint display? Other?
We agree that this was not sufficiently clarified and thank the reviewer for their suggestions. This is a qualitatively dominant mixed-methods study and will include narrative integration (weaving of qualitative and quantitative data). We have added clarification regarding how these results will be presented/analysed:
“Themes will be presented, with exemplar quotations provided. 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 merged with qualitative data at the point of interpretation and then integrated at the inferential stage 16 . Narrative integration will be employed by weaving qualitative and quantitative findings on a theme-by-theme basis 25.”
Competing Interests: N/A Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 21 Nov 2025

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

Approved

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15720.r51350

Thank you for addressing ... Continue reading

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 02 Jul 2025

Views

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 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.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 10 Nov 2025

Sarah Dillon, School of Allied Health, University of Limerick Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland

10 Nov 2025

Author Response

Dear Dr Dowling,

Many thanks for your thoughtful feedback. We have carefully considered and addressed your comments in the revised version, and we are grateful for your insights, which ... Continue reading Dear Dr Dowling,

Many thanks for your thoughtful feedback. We have carefully considered and addressed your comments in the revised version, and we are grateful for your insights, which have helped us strengthen this protocol. Please find our detailed responses to your comments below.

Sincere thanks.
Best wishes,
Sarah Dillon and the rest of the authorship team.

Reviewer: 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)?

Authors: Students at levels 8, 9 and 10 will be included (undergraduate, postgraduate (taught), postgraduate (by research)). This line has been inserted into the protocol. Thank you for flagging this omission.

Reviewer: 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).

Authors: Many thanks for this point, we agree that this is fundamental to ensure more honest reflections of the evidence synthesis experience of students.

Reviewer: 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.

Authors: Thank you, we agree that this was inconsistently clarified. We have clarified this in the text by ensuring evidence synthesis is referred to, rather than systematic reviews. We have inserted references to scoping review and qualitative evidence synthesis guidelines in the introduction. We have also inserted the line:

“Evidence syntheses approaches vary, based on the research question and type of data to be synthesised, with scoping reviews, qualitative syntheses, and systematic reviews among popular approaches (3).”
Dear Dr Dowling,

Many thanks for your thoughtful feedback. We have carefully considered and addressed your comments in the revised version, and we are grateful for your insights, which have helped us strengthen this protocol. Please find our detailed responses to your comments below.

Sincere thanks.
Best wishes,
Sarah Dillon and the rest of the authorship team.

Reviewer: 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)?

Authors: Students at levels 8, 9 and 10 will be included (undergraduate, postgraduate (taught), postgraduate (by research)). This line has been inserted into the protocol. Thank you for flagging this omission.

Reviewer: 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).

Authors: Many thanks for this point, we agree that this is fundamental to ensure more honest reflections of the evidence synthesis experience of students.

Reviewer: 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.

Authors: Thank you, we agree that this was inconsistently clarified. We have clarified this in the text by ensuring evidence synthesis is referred to, rather than systematic reviews. We have inserted references to scoping review and qualitative evidence synthesis guidelines in the introduction. We have also inserted the line:

“Evidence syntheses approaches vary, based on the research question and type of data to be synthesised, with scoping reviews, qualitative syntheses, and systematic reviews among popular approaches (3).”
Competing Interests: N/A Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 10 Nov 2025

Sarah Dillon, School of Allied Health, University of Limerick Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland

10 Nov 2025

Author Response

Dear Dr Dowling,

Many thanks for your thoughtful feedback. We have carefully considered and addressed your comments in the revised version, and we are grateful for your insights, which ... Continue reading Dear Dr Dowling,

Many thanks for your thoughtful feedback. We have carefully considered and addressed your comments in the revised version, and we are grateful for your insights, which have helped us strengthen this protocol. Please find our detailed responses to your comments below.

Sincere thanks.
Best wishes,
Sarah Dillon and the rest of the authorship team.

Reviewer: 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)?

Authors: Students at levels 8, 9 and 10 will be included (undergraduate, postgraduate (taught), postgraduate (by research)). This line has been inserted into the protocol. Thank you for flagging this omission.

Reviewer: 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).

Authors: Many thanks for this point, we agree that this is fundamental to ensure more honest reflections of the evidence synthesis experience of students.

Reviewer: 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.

Authors: Thank you, we agree that this was inconsistently clarified. We have clarified this in the text by ensuring evidence synthesis is referred to, rather than systematic reviews. We have inserted references to scoping review and qualitative evidence synthesis guidelines in the introduction. We have also inserted the line:

“Evidence syntheses approaches vary, based on the research question and type of data to be synthesised, with scoping reviews, qualitative syntheses, and systematic reviews among popular approaches (3).”
Dear Dr Dowling,

Many thanks for your thoughtful feedback. We have carefully considered and addressed your comments in the revised version, and we are grateful for your insights, which have helped us strengthen this protocol. Please find our detailed responses to your comments below.

Sincere thanks.
Best wishes,
Sarah Dillon and the rest of the authorship team.

Reviewer: 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)?

Authors: Students at levels 8, 9 and 10 will be included (undergraduate, postgraduate (taught), postgraduate (by research)). This line has been inserted into the protocol. Thank you for flagging this omission.

Reviewer: 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).

Authors: Many thanks for this point, we agree that this is fundamental to ensure more honest reflections of the evidence synthesis experience of students.

Reviewer: 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.

Authors: Thank you, we agree that this was inconsistently clarified. We have clarified this in the text by ensuring evidence synthesis is referred to, rather than systematic reviews. We have inserted references to scoping review and qualitative evidence synthesis guidelines in the introduction. We have also inserted the line:

“Evidence syntheses approaches vary, based on the research question and type of data to be synthesised, with scoping reviews, qualitative syntheses, and systematic reviews among popular approaches (3).”
Competing Interests: N/A Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3

VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 02 Jul 2025

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2	3	4
Version 3 (revision) 18 Jan 26	read	read		read
Version 2 (revision) 10 Nov 25	read	read	read	read
Version 1 02 Jul 25	read

Maura Dowling, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland
Gregory Whitley, East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Lincoln, UK; University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK

Georgia Charles, East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Lincoln, UK

Isobel Abbott, East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Lincoln, UK

Isobel Abbott, East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
Laura Pickell, Carleton University Department of Health Sciences, Ottawa, Canada
Guilherme Henrique Dalaqua Grande, University of Western São Paulo, Presidente Prudente, Brazil

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

1 Views

24 Jan 2026 | for Version 3

Gregory Whitley, Clinical Audit and Research Unit, East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Lincoln, UK; School of Health and Care Sciences, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, England, UK

Georgia Charles, East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Lincoln, UK

Isobel Abbott, East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, UK

1 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

Thank you for addressing our comments. The work is much improved. Nothing else to add. Well done.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Paramedicine, emergency medicine, evidence synthesis, mixed methods.

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

0 Views

20 Jan 2026 | for Version 3

Guilherme Henrique Dalaqua Grande, University of Western São Paulo, Presidente Prudente, Brazil

0 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

The authors have satisfactorily addressed all the comments and suggestions raised by the reviewers. The revised version demonstrates careful consideration of each point, resulting in clear improvements to the quality and clarity of the manuscript.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

musculoskeletal disorders, falls prevential and systematic review.

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.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

3 Views

19 Jan 2026 | for Version 3

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

3 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

No further comments to make.

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.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

10 Views

30 Dec 2025 | for Version 2

Guilherme Henrique Dalaqua Grande, University of Western São Paulo, Presidente Prudente, Brazil

10 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

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

musculoskeletal disorders, falls prevential and systematic review.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

18 Jan 2026

Sarah Dillon, School of Allied Health, University of Limerick Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland

Many thanks to each reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and agree that they have improved the quality of this protocol, which we have now updated. We will be mindful of your valuable input as we move forward with the research.
Reviewer 4
Thank you for your time in reading and reviewing our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and have responded to each of them below.
Justification for the SWAR Framework
Further clarification on how this study operationalises the SWAR framework would strengthen methodological justification.
Thank you, we agree with this point, one that is similar to what has been stated by Reviewer 2. We have reflected on this point and have decided that the framing of the SWAR approach may not have been optimal in the text. We have changed the way we have framed this throughout.
Abstract:
“This Study Within A Review (SWAR) will use a mixed-methods approach.”
From aims/objectives:
“This research adopts a Study Within A Review (SWAR) approach, which is designed to evaluate methodological processes within evidence synthesis ¹⁵. SWARs aim to generate evidence on how evidence syntheses are conducted, structured, and reported, thereby informing best practices. By employing this approach, the research aims to understand student experiences and training in relation to evidence synthesis. Specifically, this SWAR aims to address the following objectives…”

Participant Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion criteria lack detail. It is unclear whether the type of evidence synthesis undertaken, timing of completion, and academic discipline should influence eligibility or stratification.
Thanks for the suggestion. More detail has been added to this section to address the valid points raised regarding the lack of detail:
“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. Students at levels 8, 9 and 10 will be included (undergraduate, postgraduate (taught), and postgraduate (by research)). Participants will be considered eligible if they are (i) over 18 years old, (ii) enrolled in higher education, (iii) have access to the internet and (iv) are currently participating, or have participated within the past year, in their first evidence synthesis project in the field of health or behavioural sciences. Students must have had experience with one or more of the following: database searching, study screening, data extraction, quality appraisal or evidence synthesis. Students will be excluded if they have completed more than one evidence synthesis and therefore are no longer considered “novice”.”

Moderation and Researcher–Participant Relationship
Although reflexivity is addressed, potential prior relationships between moderators and participants are not explained. This is particularly relevant for COREQ compliance.
Thanks for this point, We have added additional text to address this point:
“Focus groups will be conducted by researchers with no prior relationship to the participants. At this point, the researcher will verify transcribed data and participants will be pseudonymised.”

Additionally, the following statement is in the procedure:
“Groups will not be moderated by research team members who have previously worked in a supervisory capacity with focus group members.”

Bias Mitigation Strategies
Potential biases—such as social desirability bias, moderator influence, and heterogeneity across academic levels—are not explicitly discussed, nor are strategies for their mitigation.
This is a fair point, and we have edited the text to address this. The following line has been inserted:
“Students will be made aware that all experiences and opinions will be welcomed, including those of a negative nature, from the outset of the study in an attempt to reduce social desirability bias.”
We believe that we have made efforts to address the potential for moderator bias, by implementing a focus group topic guide which has been prepared a priori, though we acknowledge that the influence of the moderator cannot be completely removed. We have also addressed the potential biases brought by moderators in the following lines:
“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.”
We acknowledge that the differing academic levels may also change results, and aim to bring this point forward to our interpretations of research, or have it reflected in the limitations.

Data Management and Storage Procedures
Details regarding secure data storage, duration of retention, and data protection processes are not fully outlined.
Thank you for this suggestion. As section has been inserted to address the concerns raised:
“Data Management and Storage
The Qualtrics survey data will be collected anonymously. Transcriptions from the focus groups will be downloaded to the PI's password-protected GDPR-compliant University one-drive account. These transcriptions will be pseudonymised by removing participant names and replacing them with an ID within 7 days of data collection. No attempt will be made to link survey and transcript data. Data will be stored in line with the University Policy for data retention.”

Resolution of Coding Discrepancies
The protocol does not specify how disagreements between independent coders will be resolved during thematic analysis.
This is a valid point. We have added a sentence to address this concern:
“Disagreements in codes will be discussed until a consensus has been reached, if this is not possible, a third reviewer (EA) will aid in reaching a decision.”

View more View less

Competing Interests

N/A

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

10 Views

30 Dec 2025 | for Version 2

Laura Pickell, Carleton University Department of Health Sciences, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

10 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved

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?

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

Not applicable

References

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL), health education, evidence synthesis and research methods instruction

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.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

18 Jan 2026

Sarah Dillon, School of Allied Health, University of Limerick Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland

View more View less

Competing Interests

N/A

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

10 Views

25 Dec 2025 | for Version 2

Gregory Whitley, Clinical Audit and Research Unit, East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Lincoln, UK; School of Health and Care Sciences, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, England, UK

Isobel Abbott, East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Lincoln, UK

Georgia Charles, East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Lincoln, UK

10 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

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

Paramedicine, emergency medicine, evidence synthesis, mixed methods.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

18 Jan 2026

Sarah Dillon, School of Allied Health, University of Limerick Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland

Many thanks to each reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and agree that they have improved the quality of this protocol, which we have now updated. We will be mindful of your valuable input as we move forward with the research.

Reviewer 2:
Thank you for your feedback, we have responded to each of your comments below.
Minor comments include:
There is room for improvement with the abstract in our opinion:
Abstract – Methods – It would be helpful to explain the geographic remit of your recruitment (state that this study will be conducted within the University of Limerick, Ireland) and specify that undergraduate and postgraduate students will be recruited.
This information has been inserted into the abstract section:
Methods This Study Within A Review (SWAR) will use a mixed-methods approach.. Undergraduate and postgraduate students in health-related disciplines engaged in or having just completed their first evidence synthesis at the University of Limerick (Ireland) will be recruited through academic networks and word of mouth.

You use the phrases “challenges and facilitators”, “barriers and opportunities” and barriers and facilitators” throughout, it would be helpful to refer to one of these consistently throughout the manuscript.
We have removed “challenges” and have replaced with “barriers” throughout the protocol.

Abstract – Methods – You have identified the study as mixed methods, however there is no description of integration techniques within the abstract – this is key to mixed methods research.
Thanks for pointing out this oversight. This has been addressed in the following sentence:
“Qualitative and quantitative data will be collected concurrently and narratively integrated at the point of analysis using a weaving approach.” We have additionally updated the analysis section of the main manuscript for clarity.

Background - It would be helpful to define what is meant by a “novice” student team member by providing a definition of what a novice is, for the purpose of this study.
We have inserted this into the background:
“Novice student team members will be defined as students currently participating or those with recent experience (within the past year) of participating in their first evidence synthesis project.”

Background - “Increasingly, novice researchers and students are included in evidence synthesis teams, either as part of research training or formal coursework.” – It may be better to say “…often as part of research training or formal coursework.” As students may engage with evidence synthesis by other means.
Thanks for the editing note, we agree and have amended the sentence as advised.

Aims and Objectives - You have stated that the study is embedded with the SWAR framework – from what I can see from the reference this isn’t a “framework” as such, rather guidance. Maybe better to state you have followed SWAR guidance? I raise this because stating you used a framework makes me wonder what the framework looks like, what the steps are, etc. I would have asked you to describe the framework within this protocol.
Thank you, this is a good point and one we have considered, in the context of the previous article. On reflection, we agree that this may not be the most appropriate terminology. We have changed the way we have framed this throughout.
Abstract:
“This Study Within A Review (SWAR) will use a mixed-methods approach.”
From aims/objectives:
“This research adopts a Study Within A Review (SWAR) approach, which is designed to evaluate methodological processes within evidence synthesis ¹⁵. SWARs aim to generate evidence on how evidence syntheses are conducted, structured, and reported, thereby informing best practices. By employing this approach, the research aims to understand student experiences and training in relation to evidence synthesis. Specifically, this SWAR aims to address the following objectives…”

Methods – Design – I’m assuming that “This SWAR will be conducted in the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences” means this is a University of Limerick only study? It would be helpful to make that clear: “This SWAR will be conducted in the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, University of Limerick, …”
We have made this amendment.
“This SWAR will be conducted in the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences within the University of Limerick (Ireland)…”

Methods – Participants and Recruitment – While the study notes that students were recruited via a convenience sample, it would be useful to clarify the exact inclusion and exclusion criteria that were applied to ensure that only novice student participants were recruited. For example, what do you mean by “just completed” – what timeframe does this include? Were any exclusion criteria applied?
Many thanks for this point. We have added further clarifications to the Participants and recruitment section:
“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. Students at levels 8, 9 and 10 will be included (undergraduate, postgraduate (taught), and postgraduate (by research)). Participants will be considered eligible if they are (i) over 18 years old, (ii) enrolled in higher education, (iii) have access to the internet and (iv) are currently participating, or have participated within the past year, in their first evidence synthesis project in the field of health or behavioural sciences. Students must have had experience with one or more of the following: database searching, study screening, data extraction, quality appraisal or evidence synthesis. Students will be excluded if they have completed more than one evidence synthesis and therefore are no longer considered “novice”.”

Methods – Data analysis – The final statement alludes to data integration, however there is no description of how this will be performed. You might consider the use of a joint display, for example? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26553895/

Methods – Data analysis – Given the diversity of data, can you say a little about how the results will be presented? Illustrated via a thematic map? Exemplar quotations provided? Tabular format? Joint display? Other?
We agree that this was not sufficiently clarified and thank the reviewer for their suggestions. This is a qualitatively dominant mixed-methods study and will include narrative integration (weaving of qualitative and quantitative data). We have added clarification regarding how these results will be presented/analysed:
“Themes will be presented, with exemplar quotations provided. 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 merged with qualitative data at the point of interpretation and then integrated at the inferential stage 16 . Narrative integration will be employed by weaving qualitative and quantitative findings on a theme-by-theme basis 25.”

View more View less

Competing Interests

N/A

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

7 Views

21 Nov 2025 | for Version 2

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

7 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

Thank you for addressing the queries raised—no further comments.

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.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

17 Views

16 Sep 2025 | for Version 1

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

17 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

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.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

10 Nov 2025

Sarah Dillon, School of Allied Health, University of Limerick Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland

Dear Dr Dowling,

Many thanks for your thoughtful feedback. We have carefully considered and addressed your comments in the revised version, and we are grateful for your insights, which have helped us strengthen this protocol. Please find our detailed responses to your comments below.

Sincere thanks.
Best wishes,
Sarah Dillon and the rest of the authorship team.

Reviewer: 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)?

Authors: Students at levels 8, 9 and 10 will be included (undergraduate, postgraduate (taught), postgraduate (by research)). This line has been inserted into the protocol. Thank you for flagging this omission.

Reviewer: 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).

Authors: Many thanks for this point, we agree that this is fundamental to ensure more honest reflections of the evidence synthesis experience of students.

Reviewer: 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.

Authors: Thank you, we agree that this was inconsistently clarified. We have clarified this in the text by ensuring evidence synthesis is referred to, rather than systematic reviews. We have inserted references to scoping review and qualitative evidence synthesis guidelines in the introduction. We have also inserted the line:

“Evidence syntheses approaches vary, based on the research question and type of data to be synthesised, with scoping reviews, qualitative syntheses, and systematic reviews among popular approaches (3).”

View more View less

Competing Interests

N/A

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[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. Nussbaumer-Streit B, Booth A, Garritty C, et al.: Overview of evidence synthesis types and modes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2025; 187: 111970. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[4] 4. 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

[5] 5. 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

[6] 6. 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

[7] 7. 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

[8] 8. 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

[9] 9. Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, et al.: Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Implement. 2021; 19(1): 3–10. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[10] 10. Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, et al.: Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012; 12: 181. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[11] 11. 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

[12] 12. 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

[13] 13. 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

[14] 14. Soilemezi D, Linceviciute S: Synthesizing qualitative research: reflections and lessons learnt by two new reviewers. Int J Qual Methods. 2018; 17(1). Publisher Full Text

[15] 15. Devane D, Burke NN, Treweek S, et al.: Study Within A Review (SWAR). J Evid Based Med. 2022; 15(4): 328–332. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[16] 16. Schoonenboom J, Johnson RB: How to construct a mixed methods research design. Kolner Z Soz Sozpsychol. 2017; 69(Suppl 2): 107–131. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

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

[18] 18. 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; 214–226. Publisher Full Text

[19] 19. 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): 92–98. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[20] 20. 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

[21] 21. Breen RL: A practical guide to focus-group research. Journal of Geography in Higher Education. 2006; 30(3): 463–475. Publisher Full Text

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

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

[24] 24. Fetters FD, Curry LA, Creswell JW: Achieving integration in mixed methods designs—principles and practices. Health Serv Res. 2013; 48(6 Pt 2): 2134–2156. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[25] 25. 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

Revised Amendments from Version 2

Background

Aims and objectives

Methods

Design

Research team roles and experience

Reflexivity

Participants and recruitment

Procedure

Data analysis

Data management and storage

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

Revised Amendments from Version 2

Background

Aims and objectives

Methods

Design

Research team roles and experience

Reflexivity

Participants and recruitment

Procedure

Data analysis

Data management and storage

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!