8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Using Participatory and Creative Methods to Research Gender-Based Violence in the Global South and With Indigenous Communities: Findings From a Scoping Review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This review provides a synthesis of existing research on best practice recommendations for the use of participatory and creative methods to research gender-based violence in the Global South. Following a five-stage scoping review process, 44 papers, which each related to at least two of the three parts of the topic, were selected for inclusion. A frequency table was compiled to identify the elements of best practice, which were most common across the literature. Qualitative content analysis was then used to group these elements into inductive themes. An overarching theme of safety was identified, along with four broad and intersecting domains underpinning ethical research approaches in this area: contextual, reflexive, relational, and transformative. The validity of these themes was confirmed through consultation with partners, who also emphasized the importance of a survivor-centered approach. The aims, methods, barriers, evidence for practice, and research recommendations (AMBER) framework was developed for this project as an innovative tool for analyzing the data collected and drawing out the relevance for research practice. The framework draws out the aims, methods, and barriers involved in participatory research in this context and sets out best practice recommendations and directions for future research in the following areas: (1) ensuring safety of participants and researchers, (2) redressing power inequalities within the research process, (3) embedding locally responsive ethical frameworks, and (4) understanding cultural context and respecting cultural norms.

          Related collections

          Most cited references68

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Scoping studies: advancing the methodology

            Background Scoping studies are an increasingly popular approach to reviewing health research evidence. In 2005, Arksey and O'Malley published the first methodological framework for conducting scoping studies. While this framework provides an excellent foundation for scoping study methodology, further clarifying and enhancing this framework will help support the consistency with which authors undertake and report scoping studies and may encourage researchers and clinicians to engage in this process. Discussion We build upon our experiences conducting three scoping studies using the Arksey and O'Malley methodology to propose recommendations that clarify and enhance each stage of the framework. Recommendations include: clarifying and linking the purpose and research question (stage one); balancing feasibility with breadth and comprehensiveness of the scoping process (stage two); using an iterative team approach to selecting studies (stage three) and extracting data (stage four); incorporating a numerical summary and qualitative thematic analysis, reporting results, and considering the implications of study findings to policy, practice, or research (stage five); and incorporating consultation with stakeholders as a required knowledge translation component of scoping study methodology (stage six). Lastly, we propose additional considerations for scoping study methodology in order to support the advancement, application and relevance of scoping studies in health research. Summary Specific recommendations to clarify and enhance this methodology are outlined for each stage of the Arksey and O'Malley framework. Continued debate and development about scoping study methodology will help to maximize the usefulness and rigor of scoping study findings within healthcare research and practice.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews.

              Reviews of primary research are becoming more common as evidence-based practice gains recognition as the benchmark for care, and the number of, and access to, primary research sources has grown. One of the newer review types is the 'scoping review'. In general, scoping reviews are commonly used for 'reconnaissance' - to clarify working definitions and conceptual boundaries of a topic or field. Scoping reviews are therefore particularly useful when a body of literature has not yet been comprehensively reviewed, or exhibits a complex or heterogeneous nature not amenable to a more precise systematic review of the evidence. While scoping reviews may be conducted to determine the value and probable scope of a full systematic review, they may also be undertaken as exercises in and of themselves to summarize and disseminate research findings, to identify research gaps, and to make recommendations for the future research. This article briefly introduces the reader to scoping reviews, how they are different to systematic reviews, and why they might be conducted. The methodology and guidance for the conduct of systematic scoping reviews outlined below was developed by members of the Joanna Briggs Institute and members of five Joanna Briggs Collaborating Centres.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Trauma Violence Abuse
                Trauma Violence Abuse
                TVA
                sptva
                Trauma, Violence & Abuse
                SAGE Publications (Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA )
                1524-8380
                1552-8324
                22 May 2020
                April 2022
                : 23
                : 2
                : 342-355
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Social Policy, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom
                [2 ]International Development Department, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom
                [3 ]School of Nursing, Institute of Clinical Sciences, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom
                Author notes
                [*]Caroline Bradbury-Jones, School of Nursing, Institute of Clinical Sciences, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, United Kingdom. Email: c.bradbury-jones-@ 123456bham.ac.uk
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2152-4319
                Article
                10.1177_1524838020925775
                10.1177/1524838020925775
                8905117
                32441215
                2ef1ea3e-f2ff-4bf5-99ad-38f831e8c652
                © The Author(s) 2020

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                Funding
                Funded by: Institute for Global Innovation;
                Categories
                Review Manuscripts
                Custom metadata
                ts10

                gender-based violence,participatory research,research ethics,global south

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content203

                Cited by5

                Most referenced authors517