Protocol for a scoping review of work system design in health care

Oladunni Sarah Okunade; Victor O. Oladokun; Chinwe Juliana Iwu-Jaja; Anelisa Jaca; Charles Shey Wiysonge

doi:10.12688/f1000research.128913.2

Home Browse Protocol for a scoping review of work system design in health care

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Study Protocol

Revised

Protocol for a scoping review of work system design in health care

[version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]

Oladunni Sarah Okunade ^1,2, Victor O. Oladokun², Chinwe Juliana Iwu-Jaja¹, Anelisa Jaca¹, Charles Shey Wiysonge^1,3-5

Oladunni Sarah Okunade ^1,2, Victor O. Oladokun², [...] Chinwe Juliana Iwu-Jaja¹, Anelisa Jaca¹, Charles Shey Wiysonge^1,3-5

PUBLISHED 30 Oct 2023

Author details Author details

¹ Cochrane South Africa, South African Medical Research Council, Parow Valley 7500, Cape Town, South Africa
² Department of Industrial and Production Engineering, Faculty of Technology, University of Ibadan, Oduduwa Road, Ibadan, 200132, Nigeria
³ HIV and other Infectious Diseases Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Overport 4091, Durban, South Africa
⁴ Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Tygerberg 7505, Cape Town, South Africa
⁵ School of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town, Observatory 7925, Cape Town, South Africa

Oladunni Sarah Okunade
Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Victor O. Oladokun
Roles: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Chinwe Juliana Iwu-Jaja
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Anelisa Jaca
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Charles Shey Wiysonge
Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Health Services gateway.

Abstract

Background: Delivery of safe and reliable healthcare to patients and the healthcare workforce shortage amidst growing demand has been major challenge to the healthcare system. Addressing this challenge calls for designing or redesigning of healthcare work system. Work system design which is usually associated with productivity in manufacturing offers a wide spectrum of applicability in addressing this challenge of healthcare system. Despite the availability of primary studies on work system design in healthcare, there are sparse published reviews in specific contexts. This scoping review explores the existing evidence to understand the state of the art of work system design in healthcare.

Methods: The scoping review adopts the methodology of Joanna Briggs Institute for scoping review which is based on the methodological framework of Arksey and O’Malley. The search will be done on PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for the identification of eligible studies. A grey literature search will also be performed. A two-phase screening and extraction of data will be done by two independent reviewers. Data extraction will be done on a pre-piloted data extraction form. The findings will be presented in tables, figures, and a narrative summary. The scoping review will highlight the state of the art, gaps in knowledge and provide directions for future research.

Ethics and dissemination: This is a scoping review of primary studies and therefore ethical approval is not required. The report of the findings will be presented in line with the PRISMA reporting guidelines for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). The results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal for publication and presented at relevant conferences.

Keywords

Health care, Work system design, Work design, Work place design,Macroergonomics; Time and motion study, System engineering, Human factors

Corresponding author: Oladunni Sarah Okunade

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The study was financially supported by the African German Network of Excellence in Science (AGNES), through the “Programme Advocating Women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics” (grant number: N/A). OSO is supported by the fund to carry out this study at the South Africa Medical Research Council, Cape Town. I confirm that the funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2023 Okunade OS 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: Okunade OS, Oladokun VO, Iwu-Jaja CJ et al. Protocol for a scoping review of work system design in health care [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2023, 12:21 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.128913.2) First published: 09 Jan 2023, 12:21 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.128913.1) Latest published: 30 Oct 2023, 12:21 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.128913.2)

Revised Amendments from Version 1

The revised version reviewed RQ2 to increase clarity and the background of the study was strengthened by providing the overview of the work system as suggested by one of the reviewers

See the authors' detailed response to the review by Cecilia Berlin
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Carlo Fabricatore

Introduction

The provision of safe and reliable healthcare for patients with an adequate and accessible health workforce is the bedrock of an efficient and effective healthcare work system. The ability of the healthcare system to deliver safe and reliable healthcare to patients is vital to earning public trust.¹ Delivery of safe and reliable healthcare to the patient has been a challenge due to ineffectiveness and inefficiencies in the performance of the healthcare work system thereby resulting in patient’s safety problems.

Adequate and accessible health workforce is fundamental to an integrated and effective health system and provision of care. However, there is a global projection of a shortfall of 15 million health workers by 2030, with a major proportion in the low and middle-income countries.¹ Poor design of the healthcare work environment also contributes to the shortage of health workers. For example, the shortage of nurses has been linked to the inability to attract and retain nurses because of poor working condition.²^,³ Carayon et al. (2012)⁴ argue that the working conditions of healthcare professionals and workers are sources of stress, burn out and dissatisfaction. Poor infrastructure, unsafe environment, and unfair distribution of incentives among other factors are accountable for poor working conditions of health care personnel.⁵

Addressing these challenges call for a designing or redesigning of healthcare work systems for improved performance. Work system design, an approach often deployed to achieve productivity improvements in the manufacturing sector offers a wide spectrum of applicability in addressing the challenges of healthcare systems.⁶^–¹² The knowledge and application of work system design characteristics and principles provide the basis for healthcare organizations to engage in work improvements that can ultimately result in a variety of positive outcomes such as reduced turnover for organizations, increased job satisfaction for the workers and improved quality and safety of care for patients and their caregivers.⁴^,¹³^–¹⁶ The term “system” as used in healthcare literature refers to an entity that aids the improvement of quality of care.¹⁷^–²⁰ But the concept of “system” from the Industrial and Systems Engineering point of view, as positioned by Carayon et al.⁴ refers to “various elements of work that healthcare personnel use, encounter or experience in order to perform thier jobs”. The system approach considers all elements of the system and their interconnections as well as the system’s layout in ensuring the achievement of the system goal(s).²¹

A typical work system comprises elements that interact with each other to achieve the desired outputs. The elements include tasks, tools, technology, work organisation, environment of work and humans. Kleiner²² remarks that in work system, humans are employed to carry out some defined task as teams, and interact with the technology within an environment. Edwards and Jensen²³ identify workers, technology, facilities, formal and informal organizations as the entities of a work system. Five elements of work system as given by Smith and Sainfort²⁴ with respect to balance theory are tools and technologies, human, physical environment, tasks and the organization. The interface and relationship that exist among these entities gives the desired outputs. Wilson²⁵ argues that the interactions between people, task, equipment and environment are critical in addressing the work system performance and safety issues. Understanding the elements of healthcare work system and their interactions is important in its design or redesign.

Work system design has been influenced by organizational theoretical views of classic and human relation theory²² as well as balance theory²⁴ which supported the integration of classic and human relation theory. Work system design is rooted in socio-technical system theory which posit that the improvement on design and performance of a system is achievable only if there is interconnection and integration of social and technical aspect of work system.¹⁰

Work system design (WSD) involves a systematic approach that considers various components that make up the work system. It aims at minimizing or eliminating the negative aspects of work which contribute to the poor performance of the work system.⁴ Work system design ensures that the work environment is designed for workers to have optimal workload, human safety, health and well-being ensured and optimal overall system performance.²⁶ The design of work systems has benefited greatly from the principles, theories, tools and techniques of Human Factors, Systems and Method Engineering. Human Factors Engineering has been identified by the National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine as an important tool for designing better healthcare systems.⁴^,²⁷ This suggests that work system design is a robust tool which has potential in improving the healthcare system. However, there is a need to investigate work system design approaches that have been used in health care.

Despite the availability of primary research studies on work system design in healthcare, there are sparse published reviews. Also, published reviews considered specific context in the application of work system design to healthcare. For instance, reviews have explored the use of human factors and ergonomics approach to work system design in healthcare.²⁸^,²⁹ Also, a review has demonstrated the use of the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model to improve patient work.³⁰ To the best of our knowledge, a review with focus on work system design in healthcare in a broader context has not been conducted. A comprehensive understanding of work system design in healthcare is vital to exploring its approaches to addressing the challenges of the healthcare system. Consistent with scoping review which is known for mapping out the body of literature on a topic area,³¹ this scoping review aims to explore the existing evidence to understand the state of the art of work system design in healthcare. To achieve this aim, the review objectives are:

1. to report work system design approaches in healthcare
2. to identify areas where it has been applied in healthcare
3. to identify gaps for further research and make recommendations for future research.

Methods

Protocol design

The scoping review adopts Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review methodology which is based on the methodological framework of Arksey and O’Malley.³²^,³³ The methodology has 6 stages which are as follows:

Stage 1. identification of the research question;

Stage 2. identification of relevant studies;

Stage 3. selection of eligible studies;

Stage 4. charting the data;

Stage 5. collating, summarising and reporting the results;

Stage 6. consultation with stakeholders,

Stage 6 of the methodology, although optional, is valuable if it can be explored. This scoping review will not consider it because of constraints of budget and time. Also, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist was followed in preparing the protocol.

Identifying the research questions

The research questions were developed using the iterative process of Arksey and O’Malley through consultation with the team and the team came up with the following questions: (1) What are the work system design approaches used in healthcare? (2) How have work system design interventions been applied in healthcare? (3) What are the gaps in the existing literature and recommendations for future studies with respect to work system design in healthcare?

Identification of relevant studies

Population, Concept, and Context (PPC) framework was used to determine relevant terms and studies.³² The search will identify all studies without any restriction to date and geographical location. The search will be implemented across three electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. These databases were selected for comprehensiveness and coverage of a broad range of disciplines. The search strategy consists of keywords generated from related studies and are approved by all authors to describe the scoping review and its methodology: work system design, work system, systems engineering, human factors, work design, workplace design, job design, organisation design, macroergonomics, work organisation, time and motion study, healthcare, health system, health care. The preliminary search on PubMed (see Table 1) combines keywords with Boolean operators. This will be adapted for search in other databases in consultation with a librarian.

Table 1. Search strategy for PubMed.

Search #	Search strategy
#3	#1 AND #2
#2	TITLE-ABS (healthcare OR “health care” OR “health system” OR “healthcare systems”)
#1	TITLE-ABS (“work system design” OR “work system” OR “systems engineering” OR “work design” OR “workplace design” OR “job design” OR “organizational design” OR macroergonomics OR work AND organization AND time OR “motion study”)

The same search strategy will be used for a web search to be conducted on Google Scholar to identify grey literature. In consideration of screening time for each hit and the likelihood of not yielding many more relevant articles, the decision to screen only the first 50 hits was made. Other identified websites such as National Academy of Engineering, Ergonomics and Human factors organization will be manually searched. The studies to be included in this scoping review must meet the following inclusion and exclusion criteria as depicted in Table 2.

Table 2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

	Inclusion criteria	Exclusion criteria
Focus	Primary studies on Work system design in healthcare	Exclude all review articles
Context	Global
Language	English	Other languages
Publication year	No restriction on the study publication year

The Population/Concept/Context (PCC) framework is outlined to guide in the identification and screening of relevant studies. The population which identifies important characteristics of participants is not applicable to this study. The concept is focused on exploring the existing evidences in understanding work system design approaches as applied to healthcare. Primary studies on work system design in healthcare will be included. All reviews articles whether literature or systematic will be excluded. The context for the scoping review is global and studies in the English language only will be included while all studies in other languages will be excluded. There is no date limit to this study.

Selection of eligible studies

The screening process is in two phases; screening of titles and abstracts and screening of full texts. Two independent reviewers will carry out screening of titles and abstracts, to select studies that are in line with PPC framework as given in the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Full-text screening which is the second phase of screening process is to be done by two independent reviewers to select studies that met the inclusion criteria for this scoping review. At this phase, full-text studies will be excluded if they do not meet inclusion requirements and the reason for excluding the studies will be provided in the final report. Data generated by two independent reviewers will be extracted, assessed and discussed. The report of the final results of the search will be presented following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) flow diagram. Disagreements in the selection process by the two independent reviews will be resolved through dialogue or a third-party reviewer. A consensus approach will be used in resolving disagreement if any exists. However, if this is not achieved, a third reviewer will be consulted.

Data extraction

Data extraction gives a descriptive summary of study results to address scoping review objectives and research questions. Excel spreadsheet was used in the development of a template for data extraction. The validity of the template will be piloted and tested prior to the commencement of data charting. Key information to be extracted include authors, year, title, journal, study objectives, study setting, and study site, to mention a few. Table 3 gives the data charting framework for this scoping review. A data extraction form will be used for the collection of general information from relevant studies and data that will be helpful in answering the research questions. Data extraction will be done by independent reviewers and consensus will be reached by team members on resolving discrepancies. Revision and update will be done on the data extraction form during the review process to accommodate necessary changes.

Table 3. Data charting framework.

Category	Description
Author’s last name
Year and doi
Title
Journal
Study objectives	This describes the stated objective of the study
Study settings	Describes the environment the study was conducted, that is, the area of healthcare where WSD was applied
Study Site	This gives the country where the study was conducted
Research design type	This shows the type of research design used in the study. The review will classify the types into qualitative, quantitative and a combination of qualitative and quantitative
WSD focus	This gives the component(s) of the work system that the study focused on be it the person, task, tools and technology, organisation and environment
WSD approach	This states the WSD method applied to the study and the tool used
Conclusion of the study	This describes the outcome(s) or finding(s) of the study
Limitation of Study	This describes the shortcoming(s) of the study which could be due to research design, and methodology to mention a few.

Data synthesis strategy

The collation of findings from the data extraction form will be analysed using themes relating to the review objectives. Descriptive analysis to summarize the characteristics of the included studies such as publication year, study setting and site and also the evidence on the approaches of work system design in healthcare, the area of its applications in healthcare and the limitations of the approaches and application of work system design in healthcare. On the other hand, areas that are not well-researched and may require further investigation will also be highlighted. Results will be presented in form of tables and figures where appropriate. Also, a narrative summary of the findings will be presented.

This study will explore the existing evidences to understand the state of the art of work system design in healthcare. It aims to provide the breadth and depth of work system design knowledge as an important tool for designing better healthcare systems. It will also identify gaps in knowledge and provide directions for future research.

Study status

Currently developing and piloting data extraction form, and the next step will be running of the search and screening at a later date.

Dissemination

The report of the findings will be presented in line with the PRISMA reporting guidelines for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). The results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal for publication and presented at relevant conferences and events.

Data availability

No data are associated with this article.

Reporting guidelines

Figshare: PRISMA-ScR-Fillable-Checklist-ProtocolSubmission.docx. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21618258.v1.³⁴

- PRISMA-ScR-Fillable-Checklist-Protocol Submission.docx

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero “No rights reserved” data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the South African Medical Research Council for supporting CJI, AJ, and CSW during the preparation of this manuscript. In addition, the article publication cost for this article is paid for by the South African Medical Research Council, through Cochrane South Africa (Project code 43500).

References

1. World Health Organization: World health assembly resolution on human resources for health. Seventy-Fifth World Health Assemby. 2022. Publisher Full Text
2. Buchan J, Aiken L: Solving nursing shortages: A common priority. J. Clin. Nurs. 2008; 17: 3262–3268. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
3. Aiken LH, Sloane DM, Bruyneel L, et al.: Nurses’ reports of working conditions and hospital quality of care in 12 countries in Europe. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2013; 50: 143–153. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. Carayon P, Alvarado CJ, Hundt A: Work System Design in Health Care. Handbook of human factors and ergonomics in health care and patient safety. Carayon P, editor. CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group; 2012; 65–79.
5. Manyisa ZM: The Current Status of Working Conditions in Public Hospitals at a Selected Province, South Africa: Part 1. J. Hum. Ecol. 2016; 56: 210–219. Publisher Full Text
6. Asadzadeh SM, Azadeh A, Negahban A, et al.: Assessment and improvement of integrated HSE and macroergonomics factors by fuzzy cognitive maps: The case of a large gas refinery. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2013; 26: 1015–1026. Publisher Full Text
7. Perez J, de Looze MP , Bosch T, et al.: Discrete event simulation as an ergonomic tool to predict workload exposures during systems design. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2014; 44: 298–306. Publisher Full Text
8. Realyvásquez-Vargas A, Maldonado-Macías AA, García-Alcaraz JL, et al.: A macroergonomic compatibility index for manufacturing systems. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2018; 68: 149–164. Publisher Full Text
9. Murphy LA, Huang YH, Robertson MM, et al.: A sociotechnical systems approach to enhance safety climate in the trucking industry: Results of an in-depth investigation. Appl. Ergon. 2018; 66: 70–81. Publisher Full Text
10. Saurin TA, Patriarca R: A taxonomy of interactions in socio-technical systems: A functional perspective. Appl. Ergon. 2020; 82: 102980. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
11. El Mouayni I, Etienne A, Lux A, et al.: A simulation-based approach for time allowances assessment during production system design with consideration of worker’s fatigue, learning and reliability. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2020; 139: 105650. Publisher Full Text
12. Wahyuni D, Budiman I, Nasution H, et al.: Improving Work System Design using Macro- Ergonomics Approach in Rubber Processing Plant ant. IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 288 012077. 2018. Publisher Full Text
13. Sainfort F, Karsh B, Booske BC, et al.: Applying quality improvement principles to achieve healthy work organizations. J. Qual. Improv. 2001; 27: 469–483. Publisher Full Text
14. Carayon P, et al.: Work system and patient safety. In Human Factors in Organizational Design and Management-VII. Luczak H, Zink KJ, editors. IEA Press; 2003.
15. Carayon P, Alvarado C, Hsieh Y, et al.: A macroergonomic approach to patient process analysis: application in outpatient surgery. Proceedings of the XVth Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association. 2003.
16. Pickup L, Nugent B, Bowie P: A preliminary ergonomic analysis of the MRI work system environment: Implications and recommendations for safety and design. Radiography. 2019; 25: 339–345. Publisher Full Text
17. Leatherman S, Ferris TG, Berwick D, et al.: The role of quality improvement in strengthening health systems in developing countries. Int. J. Qual. Health Care. 2010; 22: 237–243. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
18. Elayan H, Aloqaily M, Guizani M: Digital Twin for Intelligent Context-Aware IoT Healthcare Systems. IEEE Internet Things J. 2021; 8: 16749–16757. Publisher Full Text
19. Arah OA, Klazinga NS, Delnoij DMJ, et al.: Conceptual frameworks for health systems performance: A quest for effectiveness, quality, and improvement. Int. J. Qual. Health Care. 2003; 15: 377–398. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
20. MacNeill AJ, McGain F, Sherman JD: Planetary health care: a framework for sustainable health systems. Lancet Planet. Heal. 2021; 5: e66–e68. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
21. Badiru AB: Handbook of industrial and systems engineering :CRC Press; 2014.
22. Kleiner BM: Macroergonomics: Analysis and design of work systems. Appl. Ergon. 2006; 37: 81–89. Publisher Full Text
23. Edwards K, Jensen PL: Design of systems for productivity and well being. Appl. Ergon. 2014; 45: 26–32. Publisher Full Text
24. Smith MJ, Sainfort PC: A balance theory of job design for stress reduction. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 1989; 4: 67–79. Publisher Full Text
25. Wilson JR: Fundamentals of ergonomics in theory and practice. Appl. Ergon. 2000; 31: 557–567. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
26. Charles-Owaba OE: Organisational Design: a quantitative approach. Oputoru Books; 2002.
27. Khunlertkit A(N), et al.: Human Factors in the Wild. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 2016; 60: 652–656.
28. Xie A, Carayon P: A systematic review of human factors and ergonomics (HFE)-based healthcare system redesign for quality of care and patient safety. Ergonomics. 2015; 58: 33–49. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
29. Carayon P, et al.: A systematic review of mixed methods research on human factors and ergonomics in health care. Appl. Ergon. 2015; 51: 291–321. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
30. Werner NE, Ponnala S, Doutcheva N, et al.: Human factors/ergonomics work system analysis of patient work: State of the science and future directions. Int. J. Qual. Health Care. 2021; 33: 60–71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
31. Hanneke R, Asada Y, Lieberman L, et al.: The Scoping Review Method: Mapping the Literature in “Structural Change” Public Health Interventions. Department of Public Health Scholarship and Creative Works.2017. Publisher Full Text
32. Peters MDJ, et al.: Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid. Synth. 2020; 18: 2119–2126. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
33. Arksey H, O’Malley L: Scoping studies: towards a methodological Framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2005; 8: 19–32. Publisher Full Text
34. Okunade O, Oladokun V, Jaja C-JI, et al.: PRISMA-ScR-Fillable-Checklist-Protocol Submission.docx. figshare. Dataset. 2022. Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 09 Jan 2023

Author details Author details

Oladunni Sarah Okunade
Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Victor O. Oladokun
Roles: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Chinwe Juliana Iwu-Jaja
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Anelisa Jaca
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Charles Shey Wiysonge
Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The study was financially supported by the African German Network of Excellence in Science (AGNES), through the “Programme Advocating Women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics” (grant number: N/A). OSO is supported by the fund to carry out this study at the South Africa Medical Research Council, Cape Town. I confirm that the funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (2)

version 2

Revised

Published: 30 Oct 2023, 12:21

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.128913.2

version 1

Published: 09 Jan 2023, 12:21

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.128913.1

© 2023 Okunade OS 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	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Okunade OS, Oladokun VO, Iwu-Jaja CJ et al. Protocol for a scoping review of work system design in health care [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2023, 12:21 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.128913.2)

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 2

VERSION 2

PUBLISHED 30 Oct 2023

Revised

Views

Reviewer Report 26 Mar 2024

Irwan Budiman, Universitas Prima Indonesia, Medan, North Sumatra, Indonesia

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.158042.r253279

The objectives to be achieved have been well described and the protocol developed can achieve the expected goals. But, please re-check the keywords for the more suitable to this research.
Macroergonomics is closely related to the discussion of ergonomics which focuses on the structure and organization of work direction related to tasks, content, and time factors. Structural reporting flow can be done from the operational level to the functional level, or from the functional level to the strategic / business level in health care. It would be better if the described work system improvements in health care were organized systematically up to the reporting flow. The method has also been compiled quite well. However, it would be better if the method can be described in more detail so that it can be easily replicated by others.
Datasets have been presented in full.

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

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

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

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

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Macroergonomics and Ergonomics Work System Design

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

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 09 Jan 2023

Views

Reviewer Report 01 Aug 2023

Carlo Fabricatore, E.H.E. Europa Hochschule EurAka CH, Therwil, Switzerland

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.141552.r185072

Overall, the core structure and contents of this protocol seem sound.

The article requires some further proofreading to improve readability and amend some sparse typos and/or improve the editing. I believe that there is need and scope ... Continue reading

The introduction proposes a valid emphasis on “work system design”. However, I would recommend strengthening the background, by introducing an overview of the work system theory, in order to better contextualize the reader by explaining what a work system is, what the involved elements and relationships are, and why their perspective is important in healthcare practice.
By focussing on “application areas” RQ2 seems to me overly vague, and it can lead to difficulties in analyzing data from the review. It seems to me that this scoping review warrants a systematic examinations of applications of work system design (WSD) in healthcare, and that “application areas” can be one of the multiple analyses to be done based on the “application data” extracted from the reviewed studies. Other analyses should then ensue, such as, for example, how many studies have empirically corroborated the effects of WSD, types of effects ascertained, etc. A deeper and better structured analysis along these lines would then facilitate the identification of trends and gaps in current research, and the subsequent proposal of orientation for future research.
I would recommend reporting (and further detailing) the systematic literature search protocol based on the PRISMA-S statement (Rethlefsen et al., 2021¹), in order to improve the replicability of the search.
The authors indicate that data extraction will be based on a pre-developed template, and that “The validity of the template will be piloted and tested prior to the commencement of data charting”. This is somewhat confusing to me:

(a) Firstly, what do the authors mean by “charting”? If this is about identifying and classifying excerpts in the original texts based on predefined categories, then this would sound to me like a data coding procedure appropriate to extract data prior to analysis (e.g., identifying all the excerpts describing which elements of a work system have been re-designed, to later on propose a synthesis highlighting which elements have been more frequently addressed, by how many studies, etc.) If “charting” means something else to the authors, then it should be clarified and justified.

(b) Secondly, the authors should clarify how they intend to “pilot and test” the template prior to the commencement of the data extraction process. I would also consider that data extraction templates do not need to be “fixed” a-priori. They may be modified through iterative processes of data extraction and coding, e.g., as suggested by the template analysis technique (King, 2012²).
Consider discussing the broader relevance of the protocol: does it represent a contribution in and of itself? Can it be useful to guide other reviews?

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

Partly
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

References

1. Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, Ayala AP, et al.: PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews.Syst Rev. 2021; 10 (1): 39 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. King N: Doing Template Analysis. 2012. 426-450 Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Human factors engineering in healthcare and education.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 28 Nov 2023

Oladunni Okunade, Department of Industrial and Production Engineering, Faculty of Technology, University of Ibadan, Oduduwa Road, Ibadan, 200132, Nigeria

28 Nov 2023

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. The background of this study has been strengthened as suggested. RQ2 has been reviewed.
The PRISMA-S as given by Rethlefsen et al. (2021) may not be ... Continue reading Thank you for your comments. The background of this study has been strengthened as suggested. RQ2 has been reviewed.
The PRISMA-S as given by Rethlefsen et al. (2021) may not be applicable to the study because it is meant for reporting systematic review. PRISMA-ScR as stated in the protocol is appropriate PRISMA reporting guidelines for scoping review.
The charting refers to data extraction, one of the six stages of the scoping review methodology.
“pilot and test” template prior to the commencement of data extraction process is to ensure the validity of the process. This will be carried out on a sample of included studies in order to ensure consistency in the use of the framework for data extraction and if need be, the data extraction framework can be modified
Thank you for your comments. The background of this study has been strengthened as suggested. RQ2 has been reviewed.
The PRISMA-S as given by Rethlefsen et al. (2021) may not be applicable to the study because it is meant for reporting systematic review. PRISMA-ScR as stated in the protocol is appropriate PRISMA reporting guidelines for scoping review.
The charting refers to data extraction, one of the six stages of the scoping review methodology.
“pilot and test” template prior to the commencement of data extraction process is to ensure the validity of the process. This will be carried out on a sample of included studies in order to ensure consistency in the use of the framework for data extraction and if need be, the data extraction framework can be modified
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 28 Nov 2023

Oladunni Okunade, Department of Industrial and Production Engineering, Faculty of Technology, University of Ibadan, Oduduwa Road, Ibadan, 200132, Nigeria

28 Nov 2023

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. The background of this study has been strengthened as suggested. RQ2 has been reviewed.
The PRISMA-S as given by Rethlefsen et al. (2021) may not be ... Continue reading Thank you for your comments. The background of this study has been strengthened as suggested. RQ2 has been reviewed.
The PRISMA-S as given by Rethlefsen et al. (2021) may not be applicable to the study because it is meant for reporting systematic review. PRISMA-ScR as stated in the protocol is appropriate PRISMA reporting guidelines for scoping review.
The charting refers to data extraction, one of the six stages of the scoping review methodology.
“pilot and test” template prior to the commencement of data extraction process is to ensure the validity of the process. This will be carried out on a sample of included studies in order to ensure consistency in the use of the framework for data extraction and if need be, the data extraction framework can be modified
Thank you for your comments. The background of this study has been strengthened as suggested. RQ2 has been reviewed.
The PRISMA-S as given by Rethlefsen et al. (2021) may not be applicable to the study because it is meant for reporting systematic review. PRISMA-ScR as stated in the protocol is appropriate PRISMA reporting guidelines for scoping review.
The charting refers to data extraction, one of the six stages of the scoping review methodology.
“pilot and test” template prior to the commencement of data extraction process is to ensure the validity of the process. This will be carried out on a sample of included studies in order to ensure consistency in the use of the framework for data extraction and if need be, the data extraction framework can be modified
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 04 Jul 2023

Cecilia Berlin, Div. of Design & Human Factors, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.141552.r179129

This protocol for a scoping review aims to broadly map out the scope of available work (system) design literature that is applicable to healthcare settings. Its intention, aim, proposed methodology and intended further steps are detailed and described in a sensible and mostly satisfactory way. I think the forthcoming paper sounds promising and I would be interested to read it.

The protocol (and its subsequent paper) will benefit from a thorough language check. The way this is written, I have a feeling that the authors are competent writers, but there are some incorrect singular/plural noun choices, and sentence structure errors here and there that could be edited for clarity, mostly by reducing length and complexity. One example is the first sentence of the 3rd paragraph ("Addressing these...").

Research question 2 should grammatically be written, "Which areas have work system designs been applied _to_ in healthcare?". I would however suggest that "areas" is rather vague in this sense, so I would like to suggest "How have work system design interventions been applied in healthcare?". In this way, the focus can be placed on reporting intervention studies and empirical findings in RQ2. However, this is just a suggestion to increase clarity.

In your search terms, remember that there may be some variation in whether it is called "system engineering" or "systems engineering". I might also recommend searching "sociotechnical systems" and "socio-technical systems".

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

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Production ergonomics, social sustainability, work system design, human factors in manufacturing, macroergonomics, cognitive ergonomics

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 28 Nov 2023

Oladunni Okunade, Department of Industrial and Production Engineering, Faculty of Technology, University of Ibadan, Oduduwa Road, Ibadan, 200132, Nigeria

28 Nov 2023

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. The article has been copyedited. RQ2 has been reviewed as suggested to increase clarity.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Thank you for your comments. The article has been copyedited. RQ2 has been reviewed as suggested to increase clarity.
Thank you for your comments. The article has been copyedited. RQ2 has been reviewed as suggested to increase clarity.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 28 Nov 2023

Oladunni Okunade, Department of Industrial and Production Engineering, Faculty of Technology, University of Ibadan, Oduduwa Road, Ibadan, 200132, Nigeria

28 Nov 2023

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. The article has been copyedited. RQ2 has been reviewed as suggested to increase clarity.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Thank you for your comments. The article has been copyedited. RQ2 has been reviewed as suggested to increase clarity.
Thank you for your comments. The article has been copyedited. RQ2 has been reviewed as suggested to increase clarity.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 09 Jan 2023

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2	3
Version 2 (revision) 30 Oct 23			read
Version 1 09 Jan 23	read	read

Cecilia Berlin, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden
Carlo Fabricatore, E.H.E. Europa Hochschule EurAka CH, Therwil, Switzerland
Irwan Budiman, Universitas Prima Indonesia, Medan, Indonesia

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

4 Views

26 Mar 2024 | for Version 2

Irwan Budiman, Universitas Prima Indonesia, Medan, North Sumatra, Indonesia

4 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

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

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

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

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

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Macroergonomics and Ergonomics Work System Design

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

9 Views

01 Aug 2023 | for Version 1

Carlo Fabricatore, E.H.E. Europa Hochschule EurAka CH, Therwil, Switzerland

9 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

The introduction proposes a valid emphasis on “work system design”. However, I would recommend strengthening the background, by introducing an overview of the work system theory, in order to better contextualize the reader by explaining what a work system is, what the involved elements and relationships are, and why their perspective is important in healthcare practice.
By focussing on “application areas” RQ2 seems to me overly vague, and it can lead to difficulties in analyzing data from the review. It seems to me that this scoping review warrants a systematic examinations of applications of work system design (WSD) in healthcare, and that “application areas” can be one of the multiple analyses to be done based on the “application data” extracted from the reviewed studies. Other analyses should then ensue, such as, for example, how many studies have empirically corroborated the effects of WSD, types of effects ascertained, etc. A deeper and better structured analysis along these lines would then facilitate the identification of trends and gaps in current research, and the subsequent proposal of orientation for future research.
I would recommend reporting (and further detailing) the systematic literature search protocol based on the PRISMA-S statement (Rethlefsen et al., 2021¹), in order to improve the replicability of the search.
The authors indicate that data extraction will be based on a pre-developed template, and that “The validity of the template will be piloted and tested prior to the commencement of data charting”. This is somewhat confusing to me:

(a) Firstly, what do the authors mean by “charting”? If this is about identifying and classifying excerpts in the original texts based on predefined categories, then this would sound to me like a data coding procedure appropriate to extract data prior to analysis (e.g., identifying all the excerpts describing which elements of a work system have been re-designed, to later on propose a synthesis highlighting which elements have been more frequently addressed, by how many studies, etc.) If “charting” means something else to the authors, then it should be clarified and justified.

(b) Secondly, the authors should clarify how they intend to “pilot and test” the template prior to the commencement of the data extraction process. I would also consider that data extraction templates do not need to be “fixed” a-priori. They may be modified through iterative processes of data extraction and coding, e.g., as suggested by the template analysis technique (King, 2012²).
Consider discussing the broader relevance of the protocol: does it represent a contribution in and of itself? Can it be useful to guide other reviews?

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

Partly
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

References

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Human factors engineering in healthcare and education.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

28 Nov 2023

Oladunni Okunade, Department of Industrial and Production Engineering, Faculty of Technology, University of Ibadan, Oduduwa Road, Ibadan, 200132, Nigeria

Thank you for your comments. The background of this study has been strengthened as suggested. RQ2 has been reviewed.
The PRISMA-S as given by Rethlefsen et al. (2021) may not be applicable to the study because it is meant for reporting systematic review. PRISMA-ScR as stated in the protocol is appropriate PRISMA reporting guidelines for scoping review.
The charting refers to data extraction, one of the six stages of the scoping review methodology.
“pilot and test” template prior to the commencement of data extraction process is to ensure the validity of the process. This will be carried out on a sample of included studies in order to ensure consistency in the use of the framework for data extraction and if need be, the data extraction framework can be modified

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

11 Views

04 Jul 2023 | for Version 1

Cecilia Berlin, Div. of Design & Human Factors, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden

11 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

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Production ergonomics, social sustainability, work system design, human factors in manufacturing, macroergonomics, cognitive ergonomics

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)

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. World Health Organization: World health assembly resolution on human resources for health. Seventy-Fifth World Health Assemby. 2022. Publisher Full Text

[2] 2. Buchan J, Aiken L: Solving nursing shortages: A common priority. J. Clin. Nurs. 2008; 17: 3262–3268. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[3] 3. Aiken LH, Sloane DM, Bruyneel L, et al.: Nurses’ reports of working conditions and hospital quality of care in 12 countries in Europe. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2013; 50: 143–153. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[4] 4. Carayon P, Alvarado CJ, Hundt A: Work System Design in Health Care. Handbook of human factors and ergonomics in health care and patient safety. Carayon P, editor. CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group; 2012; 65–79.

[5] 5. Manyisa ZM: The Current Status of Working Conditions in Public Hospitals at a Selected Province, South Africa: Part 1. J. Hum. Ecol. 2016; 56: 210–219. Publisher Full Text

[6] 6. Asadzadeh SM, Azadeh A, Negahban A, et al.: Assessment and improvement of integrated HSE and macroergonomics factors by fuzzy cognitive maps: The case of a large gas refinery. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2013; 26: 1015–1026. Publisher Full Text

[7] 7. Perez J, de Looze MP , Bosch T, et al.: Discrete event simulation as an ergonomic tool to predict workload exposures during systems design. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2014; 44: 298–306. Publisher Full Text

[8] 8. Realyvásquez-Vargas A, Maldonado-Macías AA, García-Alcaraz JL, et al.: A macroergonomic compatibility index for manufacturing systems. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2018; 68: 149–164. Publisher Full Text

[9] 9. Murphy LA, Huang YH, Robertson MM, et al.: A sociotechnical systems approach to enhance safety climate in the trucking industry: Results of an in-depth investigation. Appl. Ergon. 2018; 66: 70–81. Publisher Full Text

[10] 10. Saurin TA, Patriarca R: A taxonomy of interactions in socio-technical systems: A functional perspective. Appl. Ergon. 2020; 82: 102980. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[11] 11. El Mouayni I, Etienne A, Lux A, et al.: A simulation-based approach for time allowances assessment during production system design with consideration of worker’s fatigue, learning and reliability. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2020; 139: 105650. Publisher Full Text

[12] 12. Wahyuni D, Budiman I, Nasution H, et al.: Improving Work System Design using Macro- Ergonomics Approach in Rubber Processing Plant ant. IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 288 012077. 2018. Publisher Full Text

[13] 13. Sainfort F, Karsh B, Booske BC, et al.: Applying quality improvement principles to achieve healthy work organizations. J. Qual. Improv. 2001; 27: 469–483. Publisher Full Text

[14] 14. Carayon P, et al.: Work system and patient safety. In Human Factors in Organizational Design and Management-VII. Luczak H, Zink KJ, editors. IEA Press; 2003.

[15] 15. Carayon P, Alvarado C, Hsieh Y, et al.: A macroergonomic approach to patient process analysis: application in outpatient surgery. Proceedings of the XVth Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association. 2003.

[16] 16. Pickup L, Nugent B, Bowie P: A preliminary ergonomic analysis of the MRI work system environment: Implications and recommendations for safety and design. Radiography. 2019; 25: 339–345. Publisher Full Text

[17] 17. Leatherman S, Ferris TG, Berwick D, et al.: The role of quality improvement in strengthening health systems in developing countries. Int. J. Qual. Health Care. 2010; 22: 237–243. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. Elayan H, Aloqaily M, Guizani M: Digital Twin for Intelligent Context-Aware IoT Healthcare Systems. IEEE Internet Things J. 2021; 8: 16749–16757. Publisher Full Text

[19] 19. Arah OA, Klazinga NS, Delnoij DMJ, et al.: Conceptual frameworks for health systems performance: A quest for effectiveness, quality, and improvement. Int. J. Qual. Health Care. 2003; 15: 377–398. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[20] 20. MacNeill AJ, McGain F, Sherman JD: Planetary health care: a framework for sustainable health systems. Lancet Planet. Heal. 2021; 5: e66–e68. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[21] 21. Badiru AB: Handbook of industrial and systems engineering :CRC Press; 2014.

[22] 22. Kleiner BM: Macroergonomics: Analysis and design of work systems. Appl. Ergon. 2006; 37: 81–89. Publisher Full Text

[23] 23. Edwards K, Jensen PL: Design of systems for productivity and well being. Appl. Ergon. 2014; 45: 26–32. Publisher Full Text

[24] 24. Smith MJ, Sainfort PC: A balance theory of job design for stress reduction. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 1989; 4: 67–79. Publisher Full Text

[25] 25. Wilson JR: Fundamentals of ergonomics in theory and practice. Appl. Ergon. 2000; 31: 557–567. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[26] 26. Charles-Owaba OE: Organisational Design: a quantitative approach. Oputoru Books; 2002.

[27] 27. Khunlertkit A(N), et al.: Human Factors in the Wild. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 2016; 60: 652–656.

[28] 28. Xie A, Carayon P: A systematic review of human factors and ergonomics (HFE)-based healthcare system redesign for quality of care and patient safety. Ergonomics. 2015; 58: 33–49. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[29] 29. Carayon P, et al.: A systematic review of mixed methods research on human factors and ergonomics in health care. Appl. Ergon. 2015; 51: 291–321. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[30] 30. Werner NE, Ponnala S, Doutcheva N, et al.: Human factors/ergonomics work system analysis of patient work: State of the science and future directions. Int. J. Qual. Health Care. 2021; 33: 60–71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[31] 31. Hanneke R, Asada Y, Lieberman L, et al.: The Scoping Review Method: Mapping the Literature in “Structural Change” Public Health Interventions. Department of Public Health Scholarship and Creative Works.2017. Publisher Full Text

[32] 32. Peters MDJ, et al.: Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid. Synth. 2020; 18: 2119–2126. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[33] 33. Arksey H, O’Malley L: Scoping studies: towards a methodological Framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2005; 8: 19–32. Publisher Full Text

[34] 34. Okunade O, Oladokun V, Jaja C-JI, et al.: PRISMA-ScR-Fillable-Checklist-Protocol Submission.docx. figshare. Dataset. 2022. Publisher Full Text

Protocol for a scoping review of work system design in health care

Abstract

Keywords

Revised Amendments from Version 1

Introduction

Methods

Protocol design

Identifying the research questions

Identification of relevant studies

Table 1. Search strategy for PubMed.

Table 2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Selection of eligible studies

Data extraction

Table 3. Data charting framework.

Data synthesis strategy

Study status

Dissemination

Data availability

Reporting guidelines

Acknowledgements

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

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated