Search and selection audit for the targeted narrative review
| Review element | Reporting in the revised review |
|---|---|
| Review type | Targeted narrative review with integrative conceptual synthesis; not a systematic review or scoping review |
| Search period and scope | Searches conducted in December 2025; main publication range 2003–2025; foundational LIS works retained when theoretically necessary |
| Main sources | LISTA; Library and Information Science Source; Scopus; Web of Science Core Collection; PubMed/MEDLINE; CINAHL; PsycINFO; Google Scholar; citation chaining from key theoretical and empirical works |
| Core search concepts | Cancer survivorship; CAM, integrative oncology, and TCM; Chinese immigrant, Asian immigrant, minority, migrant, and underserved populations; information seeking, information behavior, information practices, trust, credibility, cognitive authority, disclosure, information encountering, fractured information landscapes, and information horizons |
| Inclusion criteria | Works addressing CAM information practices, survivorship information needs, immigrant or minority health communication, disclosure, multilingual information movement, trust or credibility, platformed health information, or LIS concepts needed to explain authority and discontinuity |
| Exclusion criteria | Works focused only on clinical CAM efficacy, pharmacology, biomedical mechanisms, or treatment outcomes without information, communication, credibility, disclosure, decision-making, or sociocultural relevance |
| Appraisal logic | Empirical works were assessed for population relevance, design clarity, information or communication relevance, and transferability. Conceptual works were assessed for explanatory value, influence in LIS or health information research, and relevance to the phenomenon |
| Final cited corpus | 57 works. Counts by analytic category are non-exclusive because a single work could inform more than one part of the synthesis |
| Purpose of audit trail | To show how conceptually relevant literature was identified, to document boundary testing, and to reduce the risk that the review simply confirmed a pre-selected framework |
| Review element | Reporting in the revised review |
|---|---|
| Review type | Targeted narrative review with integrative conceptual synthesis; not a systematic review or scoping review |
| Search period and scope | Searches conducted in December 2025; main publication range 2003–2025; foundational LIS works retained when theoretically necessary |
| Main sources | LISTA; Library and Information Science Source; Scopus; Web of Science Core Collection; PubMed/MEDLINE; CINAHL; PsycINFO; Google Scholar; citation chaining from key theoretical and empirical works |
| Core search concepts | Cancer survivorship; CAM, integrative oncology, and TCM; Chinese immigrant, Asian immigrant, minority, migrant, and underserved populations; information seeking, information behavior, information practices, trust, credibility, cognitive authority, disclosure, information encountering, fractured information landscapes, and information horizons |
| Inclusion criteria | Works addressing CAM information practices, survivorship information needs, immigrant or minority health communication, disclosure, multilingual information movement, trust or credibility, platformed health information, or LIS concepts needed to explain authority and discontinuity |
| Exclusion criteria | Works focused only on clinical CAM efficacy, pharmacology, biomedical mechanisms, or treatment outcomes without information, communication, credibility, disclosure, decision-making, or sociocultural relevance |
| Appraisal logic | Empirical works were assessed for population relevance, design clarity, information or communication relevance, and transferability. Conceptual works were assessed for explanatory value, influence in LIS or health information research, and relevance to the phenomenon |
| Final cited corpus | 57 works. Counts by analytic category are non-exclusive because a single work could inform more than one part of the synthesis |
| Purpose of audit trail | To show how conceptually relevant literature was identified, to document boundary testing, and to reduce the risk that the review simply confirmed a pre-selected framework |
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.