Mapping Methodology to Identify Research Gaps and Priorities in Existing Scoping Reviews - A Scoping Review

Background Identifying research gaps and priorities guides evidence-informed decision-making in health and social sciences. Although scoping reviews are widely used to map evidence and highlight gaps, but definitions, conceptualizations, and methods for identifying gaps and priorities vary considerably, resulting in inconsistent methodological approaches. Aim This study synthesized methodological frameworks in published scoping reviews and mapped how research gaps and priorities were reported across health disciplines (2000–2025). It also aimed to develop an integrated framework to enhance future scoping review methodology. Methods A scoping review was conducted following Arksey and O’Malley’s framework, enhanced by the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Comprehensive searches of electronic databases and grey literature were performed for English-language publications from January 2000 and May 2025. Eligible studies explicitly reported methodological approaches for identifying research gaps or research priorities. Study selection followed a three-stage screening process, and data were charted and synthesized using descriptive statistics and inductive content analysis. Results Among the twenty included studies, (45%) employed general scoping review approaches. Key themes were methodology and research (65%), education & training (15%), stakeholder engagement (10%), and Practice & Care (10%). Across the reviews, eleven categories of research gaps spotlights population underrepresentation, methodological inconsistency, and specialty-specific limitations. Additionally, seven research priorities centered on methodological rigor, innovation, stakeholder engagement, as the most emphasized areas. Conclusion This study provides the first comprehensive synthesis of how research gaps and priorities are identified within scoping reviews. Findings highlight under representation of human-centered, equity-focused, and practice-oriented domains, emphasizing the need for stakeholders to ensure research is inclusive, relevant, and impactful. The Integrated Framework provides guidance for future scoping reviews to enhance methodological rigor and impact.