Background: Recruiting the target number of participants within the pre-specified time frame agreed with funders remains a common challenge in the completion of a successful clinical trial and addressing this is an important methodological priority. While there is growing research around recruitment, navigating this literature to support an evidence-based approach remains difficult. The Online resource for Recruitment Research in Clinical triAls project aims to create an online searchable database of recruitment research to improve access to existing evidence and to identify gaps for future research. Methods: MEDLINE (Ovid), Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Methodology Register, Science Citation Index Expanded and Social Sciences Citation Index within the ISI Web of Science and Education Resources Information Center were searched in January 2015. Search strategy results were screened by title and abstract, and full text obtained for potentially eligible articles. Studies reporting or evaluating strategies, interventions or methods used to recruit patients were included along with case reports and studies exploring reasons for patient participation or non-participation. Eligible articles were categorised as systematic reviews, nested randomised controlled trials and other designs evaluating the effects of recruitment strategies (Level 1); studies that report the use of recruitment strategies without an evaluation of impact (Level 2); or articles reporting factors affecting recruitment without presenting a particular recruitment strategy (Level 3). Articles were also assigned to 1, or more, of 42 predefined recruitment domains grouped under 6 categories. Results: More than 60,000 records were retrieved by the search, resulting in 56,030 unique titles and abstracts for screening, with a further 23 found through hand searches. A total of 4570 full text articles were checked; 2804 were eligible. Six percent of the included articles evaluated the effectiveness of a recruitment strategy (Level 1), with most of these assessing aspects of participant information, either its method of delivery (33%) or its content and format (28%). Discussion: Recruitment to clinical trials remains a common challenge and an important area for future research. The online resource for Recruitment Research in Clinical triAls project provides a searchable, online database of research relevant to recruitment. The project has identified the need for researchers to evaluate their recruitment strategies to improve the evidence base and broaden the narrow focus of existing research to help meet the complex challenges faced by those recruiting to clinical trials.

Recognition of the measurement of women's experiences of their maternity care as a critical component of care quality evaluation has led to a proliferation of instruments to measure this concept. However, the suboptimal methodological and psychometric quality of these instruments, or the lack of reporting of same, hinders the credibility and efficient use of the arising results, which often serve as an indicator for the direction of limited resources within maternity services. To review systematically and critically appraise self-report survey instruments measuring women's experiences of their maternity care. A systematic review was conducted using comprehensive searches of the CINAHL, OVID MEDLINE and EMBASE citation databases. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, and a stepped approach employed to facilitate evaluation of the methodological and psychometric quality of included instruments. 4905 records were obtained from database searches. Additional records were obtained via reference checking and by expert suggestion. Following stepped screening, 40 papers related to 20 instruments are included in this review. Findings indicate that evidence of the methodological and psychometric quality have not been reported for many included instruments. Published evidence of the methodological and psychometric quality of self-report survey instruments to evaluate women's experiences of their maternity care is lacking. The conduct and reporting of future development processes of such instruments can be improved. Systematic review PROSPERO registration: CRD42018105325.

Despite many countries employing the use of national and large scale regional surveys to explore women's experiences of their maternity care, with the results informing national maternity policy and practice, the concept itself is ambiguous and ill-defined having not been subject of a structured concept development endeavour. The aim of this review is to report on an in-depth analysis conducted on the concept of 'women's experiences of their maternity care'. Using the principle-based method of concept analysis by Penrod and Hupcey (2005), the concept of 'women's experiences of their maternity care' was analysed under the epistemological, pragmatic, linguistic and logical principles. The final dataset included 87 items of literature published between 1990 and 2017 retrieved from a systematic search of the MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and PSYCinfo databases. The epistemological principle identified that a theoretical definition of the concept is elusive with a variety of implicit meanings. The pragmatic principle supports the utility of the concept in scientific literature, however the lack of a theoretical definition has led to inconsistent use of the concept, as highlighted by the linguistic principle. Furthermore, the logical principle highlighted that as the concept lacks definition blurring is identifiable when theoretically positioned with related concepts. The outcome of this concept analysis is a theoretical definition of a previously undefined concept. This definition highlights the subjective nature of the concept, its dependency upon a woman's individual needs, expectations and circumstances and the influence of the organisation and delivery of maternity care.

Background: Over the past four decades, there has been a growing focus on the resolution of conceptual problems through the process of concept development. As the focus on this area has grown, so too has the number of debates in the literature on methodological aspects of concept development. Aim: To provide an overview of the essential methodological considerations of concept development. Design: Discussion paper. An overview is presented of the methodological considerations of commonly used concept development strategies and methods within nursing and midwifery. Data Sources: Literature dating from the inception of concept development in nursing and midwifery. Implications for Nursing and Midwifery: The robust development of concepts is a vital component in advancing the knowledge base of nursing and midwifery theory and practice. However, the complexity of the concept development literature may serve to exacerbate the challenges of developing a given concept, in particular for the novice researcher. Conclusion: The methodological considerations discussed provides guidance in determining the most appropriate strategy and method of concept development.

A rapid review is a form of evidence synthesis considered a resource-efficient alternative to the conventional systematic review. Despite a dramatic rise in the number of rapid reviews commissioned and conducted in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, published evidence on the optimal methods of planning, doing, and sharing the results of these reviews is lacking. The Priority III study aimed to identify the top 10 unanswered questions on rapid review methodology to be addressed by future research. A modified James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership approach was adopted. This approach used two online surveys and a virtual prioritization workshop with patients and the public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers, and funders to identify and prioritize unanswered questions. Patients and the public, researchers, reviewers, clinicians, policymakers, and funders identified and prioritized the top 10 unanswered research questions about rapid review methodology. Priorities were identified throughout the entire review process, from stakeholder involvement and formulating the question, to the methods of a systematic review that are appropriate to use, through to the dissemination of results. The results of the Priority III study will inform the future research agenda on rapid review methodology. We hope this will enhance the quality of evidence produced by rapid reviews, which will ultimately inform decision-making in the context of healthcare.