# Scoping Review Protocol and Report: [Review title]

> Protocol and report template for a scoping review: a review that maps
> the extent, range and nature of the evidence on a topic, identifies key
> concepts and gaps, and does not usually pool effect estimates. The
> report sections follow the 22 items of the PRISMA Extension for Scoping
> Reviews (PRISMA-ScR, Tricco et al., Ann Intern Med 2018;169(7):467-473;
> 20 essential and 2 optional items); item numbers appear in square
> brackets, for example [9]. The protocol sections follow the topics of
> JBI scoping review methodology (JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis, 2024
> edition, chapter 10) and the JBI protocol reporting items (Peters et
> al., JBI Evid Synth 2022;20(4):953-968), paraphrased in original words.
> As of October 2026, an update of PRISMA-ScR is listed as in development
> at https://www.prisma-statement.org/extensions. Replace every
> `[bracketed]` value and every row marked *Example*. This is a document
> format, not medical, methodological or legal advice; ask your
> librarian, methodologist and ethics committee where the review needs
> their input.

<!--
Guidance: How to use this template
- Decide first that a scoping review is the right design. Choose it when
  the question is "what evidence exists, how is it studied, where are the
  gaps", not "does this intervention work". If you need an effect
  estimate, write a systematic review protocol instead
  (`science/systematic-review`).
- Part A (sections 1 to 10) is the protocol. Write and register it before
  you screen. Part B (sections 11 to 14) is the report. Keep both in one
  file so that every deviation from the protocol is visible.
- Settle section 4 (Population, Concept, Context and eligibility) first.
  It drives the search, the screening form and the charting form.
- Keep the bracketed PRISMA-ScR item numbers. They make the official
  checklist (section 14) quick to fill.
- Rows marked *Example* describe a fictional review by the fictional
  Northbridge Evidence Synthesis Unit on digital peer support for unpaid
  carers of people living with dementia. Every number in the examples is
  invented. Delete the examples when you fill your own.
-->

## Document control

<!-- Guidance: The protocol is a controlled document. The version here must match the registered record and any published protocol. Add the report version when Part B is drafted. -->

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Document ID | [SCR-ACRONYM-001] |
| Review title | [Concept] in [population] in [context]: a scoping review protocol |
| Version | [1.0] |
| Status | [Draft / In review / Registered / Amended / Report drafted / Superseded] |
| Owner | [@review-lead] |
| Approvers / reviewers | [@guarantor], [@information-specialist], [@methodologist] |
| Registration | [OSF Registries DOI / other registry ID / "submitted YYYY-MM-DD"] |
| Published protocol | [Journal reference or "not published"] |
| Review stage at registration | [Not started / Search run / Screening started] |
| Reporting guideline | PRISMA-ScR 2018 (report); JBI protocol items 2022 (protocol) |
| Last updated | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Classification | [Public once registered] |

### Approvals

| Role | Name | Decision | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Guarantor of the review | [@name] | [Approved] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Information specialist | [@name] | [Search strategy approved] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Methodologist | [@name] | [Approved] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Stakeholder adviser (if consulted) | [@name] | [Comments addressed] | YYYY-MM-DD |

### Revision history

| Version | Date | Author | Change summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.1 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@name] | First draft for team review |
| 0.2 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@name] | *Example:* Concept definition narrowed after pilot search; grey literature sources added |
| 1.0 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@name] | Approved and registered |
| 1.1 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@name] | *Example:* Amendment AMD-01 (see section 2.2) |
| 2.0 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@name] | Report (Part B) drafted |

## Contents

<!-- Guidance: Keep this list in sync with the headings below. -->

Part A: Protocol

1. [Administrative information](#1-administrative-information)
2. [Registration and amendments](#2-registration-and-amendments)
3. [Introduction](#3-introduction)
4. [Review question and eligibility](#4-review-question-and-eligibility)
5. [Information sources and search](#5-information-sources-and-search)
6. [Selection of sources of evidence](#6-selection-of-sources-of-evidence)
7. [Data charting](#7-data-charting)
8. [Critical appraisal (optional)](#8-critical-appraisal-optional)
9. [Analysis and presentation](#9-analysis-and-presentation)
10. [Consultation, ethics and timeline](#10-consultation-ethics-and-timeline)

Part B: Report

11. [Report front matter](#11-report-front-matter)
12. [Results](#12-results)
13. [Discussion and other information](#13-discussion-and-other-information)
14. [PRISMA-ScR traceability](#14-prisma-scr-traceability)
15. [Glossary and references](#15-glossary-and-references)

## 1. Administrative information

<!-- Guidance: Identify the review, the team and who pays for it. Readers and registries need this before anything else. Common pitfall: listing authors without saying who guarantees the review. -->

This section identifies the review, the people who conduct it and how it
is funded.

### 1.1 Identification

| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| Title | [Concept] in [population] in [context]: a scoping review protocol |
| Short title or acronym | [ACRONYM] |
| Review type | Scoping review |
| Language of the review | [English] |
| Planned start and end | YYYY-MM-DD to YYYY-MM-DD |

### 1.2 Review team and contributions

| ID | Name | Affiliation | Role in the review |
|---|---|---|---|
| TM-01 | [@name] | [Organisation] | Guarantor, concept, screening, charting |
| TM-02 | [@name] | [Organisation] | Information specialist, search design and execution |
| TM-03 | [@name] | [Organisation] | Second screener and charter |
| TM-04 | [@name] | [Organisation] | Methodologist, synthesis |
| TM-05 *(Example)* | Carer adviser | Fictional carers' network | Reviews the question, the charting form and the summary |

### 1.3 Funding and conflicts of interest

| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Funder | [Funder name and grant number, or "unfunded"] |
| Role of funder | [None in design, conduct, analysis or reporting / describe] |
| Declared interests | [Each team member's interests, or "none declared"] |
| Management of conflicts | *Example:* TM-03 co-developed one included app and does not screen or chart sources about it |

## 2. Registration and amendments

<!-- Guidance: Register the protocol before screening. Many health registries do not accept scoping reviews, so check the current rules of the registry you choose. OSF Registries and journal publication of the protocol are common routes. -->

Registering the protocol makes later changes visible and reduces
duplicated effort across teams.

### 2.1 Registration [5]

| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| Registry | [OSF Registries / other open registry] |
| Registration ID or DOI | [ID] |
| Date registered | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Protocol publication | [Journal, year, reference, or "not planned"] |
| Where the full protocol can be read | [URL] |

### 2.2 Amendments

Record every change made after registration, with the reason and the
date. Report each one again in the review (section 13.4).

| ID | Date | Section changed | Change | Reason | Made before or after seeing data |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AMD-01 *(Example)* | YYYY-MM-DD | 4.2 | Added "online forums moderated by peers" to the concept | Pilot screening found the term used for the same activity | Before full screening |
| AMD-02 | YYYY-MM-DD | [Section] | [Change] | [Reason] | [Before / after] |

## 3. Introduction

<!-- Guidance: Explain why a map of the evidence is needed now and why a scoping review (not a systematic review) is the right design. Search for existing scoping and systematic reviews on the topic first and say how this one differs. -->

The introduction sets out what is known, what is unclear and what this
review will map.

### 3.1 Rationale [3]

[Summarise what is known about the topic, how the concept is defined
in the literature, and why the evidence base is broad, diverse or poorly
mapped. Describe the preliminary search for existing reviews: which
sources were searched, on which date, and what was found.]

*Example:* Digital peer support for unpaid carers of people living with
dementia is described with many terms (online support groups, peer
mentoring apps, moderated forums). A preliminary search of two databases
and one review registry on YYYY-MM-DD found two systematic reviews of
effectiveness, both limited to randomised trials, and no review mapping
how these services are designed, delivered and evaluated.

| Reason for choosing a scoping review | Applies? |
|---|---|
| Identify the types of available evidence in a field | [Yes / No] |
| Clarify key concepts or definitions in the literature | [Yes / No] |
| Examine how research is conducted on a topic | [Yes / No] |
| Identify key characteristics or factors related to a concept | [Yes / No] |
| Act as a precursor to a systematic review | [Yes / No] |
| Identify and analyse knowledge gaps | [Yes / No] |

### 3.2 Objectives and review questions [4]

State the objective and the review questions. Each question should map
to fields on the charting form (section 7) and to a table or figure in
the report (section 12).

| ID | Review question | Charting fields | Planned output |
|---|---|---|---|
| RQ-01 *(Example)* | How is digital peer support for unpaid dementia carers defined and delivered? | CH-07, CH-08, CH-09 | Table of delivery models |
| RQ-02 *(Example)* | Which outcomes have been measured, and with which instruments? | CH-11, CH-12 | Outcome map |
| RQ-03 *(Example)* | Where are the gaps in populations, settings and study designs? | CH-03, CH-04, CH-05 | Evidence gap map |
| RQ-04 | [Question] | [Fields] | [Output] |

## 4. Review question and eligibility

<!-- Guidance: Use Population, Concept and Context (PCC) rather than PICO. Define each element precisely enough that two screeners make the same decision. Common pitfall: a concept so broad that screening never ends, or so narrow that the review becomes a systematic review in disguise. -->

The eligibility criteria decide which sources of evidence enter the
map.

### 4.1 Population, Concept and Context

| Element | Definition | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Population | [Who] | *Example:* Unpaid carers (family, friends) of a person living with any type of dementia, any age |
| Concept | [What is mapped] | *Example:* Peer support delivered or mediated by digital technology, where peers share lived experience of caring |
| Context | [Where, when, which setting] | *Example:* Any country, any care setting, community and residential |

### 4.2 Eligibility criteria [6]

| Criterion | Include | Exclude | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Population | [Criteria] | *Example:* Paid care workers only | Different support needs and employment context |
| Concept | [Criteria] | *Example:* Support delivered only by professionals | Not peer support |
| Context | [Criteria] | [Criteria] | [Rationale] |
| Types of sources | *Example:* Primary studies of any design, reviews, programme evaluations, policy documents, theses | Opinion pieces without data | Map both research and practice |
| Language | [Languages screened] | [Other languages] | [Resources for translation] |
| Date range | [From YYYY to search date] | [Earlier] | *Example:* From 2008, the year app stores opened |

Explain how you will handle borderline cases, for example by recording
them in a decision log that the guarantor reviews weekly.

## 5. Information sources and search

<!-- Guidance: A scoping review usually searches more widely than a systematic review, including grey literature. Use the JBI three-step approach: an initial limited search to find terms, a full search across all sources, then reference list checking. Report searches with PRISMA-S where possible. -->

The search aims to find the full range of evidence, including sources
that are not indexed in bibliographic databases.

### 5.1 Information sources [7]

| ID | Source | Type | Date range | Date last searched |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SRC-01 | [Bibliographic database 1] | Database | [Range] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| SRC-02 | [Bibliographic database 2] | Database | [Range] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| SRC-03 | [Trial or study register] | Register | [Range] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| SRC-04 *(Example)* | Websites of national dementia charities in five countries | Grey literature | All | YYYY-MM-DD |
| SRC-05 | [Thesis repository] | Grey literature | [Range] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| SRC-06 | Reference lists and forward citations of included sources | Citation searching | Not applicable | YYYY-MM-DD |
| SRC-07 | [Contact with authors or organisations] | Other | Not applicable | YYYY-MM-DD |

### 5.2 Search strategy [8]

Step 1, initial limited search: [two databases searched on YYYY-MM-DD;
text words and index terms collected from titles and abstracts of
relevant records].

Step 2, full search: [strategy adapted for each source; peer reviewed by
a second information specialist using the PRESS checklist].

Step 3, citation searching: [reference lists of included sources and
forward citations checked].

Give the full strategy for at least one database. Use a `text` block so
the line numbers and syntax stay exact.

```text
Example (fictional strategy, generic syntax):
1  dementia OR alzheimer* OR "cognitive impairment"
2  carer* OR caregiver* OR "family member*" OR spouse*
3  "peer support" OR "peer mentor*" OR "support group*" OR "lived experience"
4  online OR digital OR internet OR app OR "mobile health" OR forum* OR web*
5  1 AND 2 AND 3 AND 4
6  limit 5 to yr="2008-current"
```

| Search element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Search peer review | [PRESS review by @name on YYYY-MM-DD] |
| Limits and filters | [Date, language, none for design] |
| Grey literature method | [Site searches, search engine with first [n] results screened per query] |
| Records management | [Reference manager and screening tool, with versions] |
| Search update before report | [Planned date; rerun if more than 12 months old at submission] |

## 6. Selection of sources of evidence

<!-- Guidance: Describe a two-stage screening process with at least two independent reviewers, a pilot round and a rule for disagreements. State the target agreement and what happens if the pilot misses it. -->

Selection is done in two stages: titles and abstracts, then full texts.

### 6.1 Selection process [9]

| Step | Method |
|---|---|
| Pilot | *Example:* Two reviewers screen a random sample of 50 records, compare decisions and revise the guidance until agreement reaches 80% or more |
| Title and abstract screening | [Two reviewers independently / one reviewer with second checking a sample of [n]%] |
| Full-text screening | Two reviewers independently, reasons for exclusion recorded |
| Disagreements | Discussion, then a third reviewer (TM-04) decides |
| Automation tools | [Name, version and role, for example prioritised screening; human decision on every record] |
| Retrieval failures | [Inter-library loan, contact authors, record as "not retrieved"] |

### 6.2 Reasons for exclusion at full text

Fix the list before screening so that the flow diagram uses the same
reasons in the same order.

| Code | Reason |
|---|---|
| EX-1 | Wrong concept |
| EX-2 | Wrong population |
| EX-3 | Wrong type of source |
| EX-4 | Wrong context |
| EX-5 | Duplicate report of an included source |

## 7. Data charting

<!-- Guidance: "Charting" is the scoping review term for data extraction. Pilot the form on three to five sources with two charters, then refine it. The form may change during the review, but every change goes into the amendment log. -->

The charting form records the information needed to answer each review
question.

### 7.1 Charting process [10]

| Item | Method |
|---|---|
| Form | [Spreadsheet / review software, version] |
| Pilot | *Example:* Two charters chart the same five sources independently and compare results before the form is finalised |
| Charting | [One charter with full verification by a second / two independent charters] |
| Contacting authors | [When and how missing information is requested; deadline] |
| Iteration | Changes to the form after the pilot are recorded as amendments |

### 7.2 Data items [11]

| ID | Field | Definition or categories | Answers |
|---|---|---|---|
| CH-01 | Source ID and citation | Author, year, title | All |
| CH-02 | Type of source | Primary study, review, evaluation report, policy document, thesis | All |
| CH-03 | Country and region | [Coding scheme, for example World Bank income group] | RQ-03 |
| CH-04 | Setting | Community, residential, hospital, mixed | RQ-03 |
| CH-05 | Study design | [Categories] | RQ-03 |
| CH-06 | Population characteristics | Carer relationship, age, dementia stage | RQ-01 |
| CH-07 | Concept definition used | Verbatim term and the authors' definition | RQ-01 |
| CH-08 | Delivery model | *Example:* Synchronous video group, asynchronous forum, one-to-one app messaging, hybrid | RQ-01 |
| CH-09 | Peer role and training | [Categories] | RQ-01 |
| CH-10 | Duration and intensity | [Units] | RQ-01 |
| CH-11 | Outcomes measured | [Domain list] | RQ-02 |
| CH-12 | Instruments | Name of each scale or measure | RQ-02 |
| CH-13 | Key findings relevant to the question | Short summary in the charter's words | RQ-01 to RQ-03 |
| CH-14 | Gaps stated by authors | Free text | RQ-03 |

## 8. Critical appraisal (optional)

<!-- Guidance: Critical appraisal is optional in a scoping review and not usually done, because the aim is to map, not to judge the strength of findings. If you do it, say why, which tool, and how the results will be used. Never use appraisal to exclude sources unless the protocol says so. -->

State whether sources will be appraised and why.

| Item | Decision |
|---|---|
| Appraisal planned? [12] | [Yes / No] |
| Reason | *Example:* No. The review maps how digital peer support is described and studied; results will not be used to inform practice decisions |
| Tool, if yes | [Tool name and version, per design] |
| Use of results | [Described only / used in sensitivity of the map / not used to exclude] |

## 9. Analysis and presentation

<!-- Guidance: Scoping reviews summarise and map; they do not usually pool effects. Plan the tables, charts and narrative for each review question before charting. Basic content analysis and frequency counts are common. Common pitfall: writing conclusions about effectiveness from a scoping review. -->

This section explains how charted data will be summarised and
presented.

### 9.1 Synthesis of results [13]

| Review question | Analysis | Presentation |
|---|---|---|
| RQ-01 | *Example:* Deductive coding of delivery models against a framework, then frequency counts | Table of delivery models with counts and example sources |
| RQ-02 | Grouping of outcomes into domains; counts of instruments | Outcome domain map (bubble chart or heat table) |
| RQ-03 | Cross-tabulation of population, setting and design | Evidence gap map |
| [RQ] | [Method] | [Format] |

### 9.2 Process overview

The diagram shows the order of the review stages planned in Part A.

```mermaid
flowchart TD
    A["Protocol registered"] --> B["Search all sources"]
    B --> C["Deduplicate"]
    C --> D["Screen titles and abstracts (2 reviewers)"]
    D --> E["Screen full texts (2 reviewers)"]
    E --> F["Chart data (pilot, then full)"]
    F --> G["Map and summarise by review question"]
    G --> H["Consult stakeholders on the draft map"]
    H --> I["Report against PRISMA-ScR"]
```

## 10. Consultation, ethics and timeline

<!-- Guidance: Consultation with stakeholders was proposed as an optional stage by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) and strengthened by Levac et al. (2010). If you consult, plan who, when and how input is used, and check whether your institution treats consultation as research that needs ethics review. -->

Planning for consultation, ethics and timing completes the protocol.

### 10.1 Stakeholder consultation

| Item | Plan |
|---|---|
| Who | *Example:* Four unpaid carers and two peer support coordinators recruited through a fictional carers' network |
| When | [At question setting / on the draft charting form / on the draft map] |
| How input is used | [Recorded in a consultation log; changes appear as amendments] |
| Payment or recognition | [Policy] |

### 10.2 Ethics

[State whether ethics approval is needed. A review of published sources
usually does not need it; consultation that collects data from people
may. Give the committee name and reference or the exemption decision.]

### 10.3 Timeline

| Milestone | Planned date | Owner |
|---|---|---|
| Protocol registered | YYYY-MM-DD | [@review-lead] |
| Searches complete | YYYY-MM-DD | [@information-specialist] |
| Screening complete | YYYY-MM-DD | [@review-lead] |
| Charting complete | YYYY-MM-DD | [@review-lead] |
| Draft map to stakeholders | YYYY-MM-DD | [@methodologist] |
| Report submitted | YYYY-MM-DD | [@guarantor] |

## 11. Report front matter

<!-- Guidance: Part B starts here. Identify the report as a scoping review in the title and give a structured summary. Reuse the protocol text where nothing changed, and cite the registration. -->

The report opens with a title and a structured summary.

### 11.1 Title [1]

[Concept] in [population] in [context]: a scoping review

### 11.2 Structured summary [2]

| Heading | Content |
|---|---|
| Background | [One or two sentences] |
| Objectives | [Objective and review questions] |
| Eligibility criteria | [PCC and types of sources] |
| Sources of evidence | [Databases, grey literature and dates] |
| Charting methods | [Process] |
| Results | *Example:* 73 sources were included (41 primary studies, 9 reviews, 23 grey literature documents). Asynchronous forums were the most frequently described delivery model. Carers of people with young-onset dementia and carers in low- and middle-income countries were rarely studied. |
| Conclusions | [What the map shows and the main gaps, without effectiveness claims] |
| Registration | [Registry and ID] |

### 11.3 Introduction and methods

Summarise the rationale [3] and objectives [4] from section 3 and the
methods [5 to 13] from sections 2 and 4 to 9. Report every amendment
from section 2.2 and say how it could have affected the map.

## 12. Results

<!-- Guidance: Give the numbers at each stage, then describe the sources, then present the map for each review question. The flow diagram numbers must add up: check them before submission. -->

This section reports what was found.

### 12.1 Selection of sources of evidence [14]

The flow diagram follows the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram layout, which
scoping reviews commonly adopt. All counts below are *Example* values
and add up: 2,846 + 112 - 731 = 2,227 records screened; 2,227 - 1,989 =
238 sought; 238 - 9 = 229 assessed; 229 - 171 = 58 included from
databases and registers; 64 - 3 - 46 = 15 included from other methods;
58 + 15 = 73 sources included.

```mermaid
flowchart TD
    A["Records from databases (n = 2,846) and registers (n = 112)"] --> B["Duplicates removed (n = 731)"]
    A --> C["Records screened (n = 2,227)"]
    C --> D["Excluded on title and abstract (n = 1,989)"]
    C --> E["Full texts sought (n = 238)"]
    E --> F["Not retrieved (n = 9)"]
    E --> G["Full texts assessed (n = 229)"]
    G --> H["Excluded (n = 171): EX-1 84, EX-2 52, EX-3 35"]
    G --> I["Included from databases and registers (n = 58)"]
    J["Records from websites and citation searching (n = 64)"] --> K["Not retrieved (n = 3)"]
    J --> L["Excluded after assessment (n = 46)"]
    J --> M["Included from other methods (n = 15)"]
    I --> N["Sources included in the review (n = 73)"]
    M --> N
```

| Stage | Databases and registers | Other methods |
|---|---|---|
| Identified | *Example:* 2,958 (2,846 + 112) | 64 |
| Duplicates removed | 731 | Not applicable |
| Screened (databases) or sought (other methods) | 2,227 | 64 |
| Excluded at title and abstract | 1,989 | Not applicable |
| Not retrieved | 9 | 3 |
| Assessed in full | 229 | 61 |
| Excluded in full text | 171 | 46 |
| Included | 58 | 15 |

### 12.2 Characteristics of sources of evidence [15]

| Characteristic | Category | n | % of 73 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type of source | *Example:* Primary study | 41 | 56.2 |
| Type of source | *Example:* Review | 9 | 12.3 |
| Type of source | *Example:* Grey literature | 23 | 31.5 |
| [Region] | [Category] | [n] | [%] |
| [Setting] | [Category] | [n] | [%] |

Give the full characteristics table for every included source in an
appendix, one row per source with the fields CH-01 to CH-06.

### 12.3 Critical appraisal within sources [16]

[Report appraisal results only if section 8 planned appraisal; otherwise
state "Not done, as planned in the protocol".]

### 12.4 Results of individual sources [17]

[For each included source, present the charted data relevant to the
review questions, usually in an appendix table. Keep the charter's
summaries short and factual.]

### 12.5 Synthesis of results [18]

Present the map for each review question, in the format planned in
section 9.1.

| Delivery model (RQ-01) | Sources, n | Example source IDs |
|---|---|---|
| *Example:* Asynchronous forum | 29 | [S-04, S-11, S-27] |
| *Example:* Synchronous video group | 21 | [S-02, S-15] |
| *Example:* One-to-one app messaging | 14 | [S-08, S-33] |
| *Example:* Hybrid | 9 | [S-19] |
| Total | 73 | |

Evidence gap map for RQ-03 (counts of sources; empty cells are gaps):

| Population / design | Trials | Observational | Qualitative | Evaluations and grey literature |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spouses and partners | [n] | [n] | [n] | [n] |
| Adult children | [n] | [n] | [n] | [n] |
| Young-onset dementia carers | [n] | [n] | [n] | [n] |
| Carers in low- and middle-income countries | [n] | [n] | [n] | [n] |

## 13. Discussion and other information

<!-- Guidance: Summarise what the map shows in relation to each review question, state limitations of the evidence and of the review process, and draw conclusions about research gaps and next steps. A scoping review should not make practice recommendations based on effectiveness. -->

The discussion interprets the map and its limits.

### 13.1 Summary of evidence [19]

[Summarise the main results for each review question, link them to the
review objectives and say how they relate to existing reviews and the
needs of the intended audience.]

### 13.2 Limitations [20]

- [Limitations of the scoping review process, for example a language
  restriction or one screener at the title stage]
- [Limitations of the evidence, for example inconsistent terminology
  that made the concept hard to search]
- [Limitations from deviations listed in section 2.2]

### 13.3 Conclusions [21]

[State the general interpretation of the map with respect to the review
questions and objectives, the gaps found, and potential next steps such
as a systematic review on a well-covered question or primary research on
an unstudied population.]

### 13.4 Deviations from the protocol

| Amendment ID | Deviation | Possible effect on the map |
|---|---|---|
| AMD-01 *(Example)* | Concept broadened to include peer-moderated forums | More grey literature sources included; delivery model counts not comparable with earlier maps |

### 13.5 Funding [22]

[Describe sources of funding for the included sources, if charted, and
for this scoping review, and the role of the funders.]

## 14. PRISMA-ScR traceability

<!-- Guidance: Use this table to fill the official PRISMA-ScR checklist. Give the section here and the page in the submitted manuscript. Items 12 and 16 (critical appraisal) are the two optional items. -->

| Item | Topic (short) | Section in this file | Page in manuscript |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Title | 11.1 | [p] |
| 2 | Structured summary | 11.2 | [p] |
| 3 | Rationale | 3.1 | [p] |
| 4 | Objectives | 3.2 | [p] |
| 5 | Protocol and registration | 2.1 | [p] |
| 6 | Eligibility criteria | 4.2 | [p] |
| 7 | Information sources | 5.1 | [p] |
| 8 | Search | 5.2 | [p] |
| 9 | Selection of sources of evidence | 6.1 | [p] |
| 10 | Data charting process | 7.1 | [p] |
| 11 | Data items | 7.2 | [p] |
| 12 | Critical appraisal of individual sources (optional) | 8 | [p] |
| 13 | Synthesis of results (methods) | 9.1 | [p] |
| 14 | Selection of sources of evidence (results) | 12.1 | [p] |
| 15 | Characteristics of sources of evidence | 12.2 | [p] |
| 16 | Critical appraisal within sources (optional) | 12.3 | [p] |
| 17 | Results of individual sources | 12.4 | [p] |
| 18 | Synthesis of results (results) | 12.5 | [p] |
| 19 | Summary of evidence | 13.1 | [p] |
| 20 | Limitations | 13.2 | [p] |
| 21 | Conclusions | 13.3 | [p] |
| 22 | Funding | 1.3, 13.5 | [p] |

## 15. Glossary and references

<!-- Guidance: Define terms readers from other fields may not know, and list the methodological references you relied on. Add your topic references in the manuscript, not here. -->

### 15.1 Glossary

| Term | Meaning in this template |
|---|---|
| Charting | Extracting data from each source onto a structured form |
| Evidence gap map | A table or chart that shows how many sources cover each combination of categories, so that empty cells reveal gaps |
| Grey literature | Material produced outside commercial publishing, such as reports, theses and policy documents |
| PCC | Population, Concept, Context: the question framework for scoping reviews |
| PRESS | Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies, a checklist for reviewing searches |
| PRISMA-S | PRISMA extension for reporting literature searches |
| Source of evidence | Any document included in the review, whatever its type |

### 15.2 Methodological references

- Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, et al. PRISMA Extension for
  Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern
  Med. 2018;169(7):467-473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
- Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Khalil H, et al. Best practice
  guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review
  protocols. JBI Evid Synth. 2022;20(4):953-968.
  https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-21-00242
- Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Porritt K, Pilla B, Jordan Z, editors. JBI
  Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI; 2024. Chapter 10, Scoping reviews.
  https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-24-01
- Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological
  framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19-32.
  https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
- Levac D, Colquhoun H, O'Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the
  methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5:69.
  https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69

Related templates in this library: `science/systematic-review`
(PRISMA-P protocol for a systematic review), `science/systematic-review-report`
(PRISMA 2020 report), `academic/literature-review` (narrative review),
`academic/annotated-bibliography` (source notes) and
`science/data-management-plan` (managing review data).

## Standard and licence note

Structure aligned with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews
(PRISMA-ScR, Tricco et al., Ann Intern Med 2018;169(7):467-473; 22 items)
and with JBI scoping review methodology as described in the JBI Manual
for Evidence Synthesis (2024 edition, chapter 10) and the JBI protocol
reporting items (Peters et al., JBI Evid Synth 2022). This template
follows the PRISMA-ScR item numbering with short topic names and
original wording only; it reproduces no checklist or manual text. The
JBI Manual is named and cited only. Official checklist: PRISMA
Executive, https://www.prisma-statement.org/scoping. Official JBI
guidance: JBI, https://synthesismanual.jbi.global. Both were checked in
October 2026, when an update of PRISMA-ScR was listed as in
development; check the current versions and your registry's rules
before use. This is a document format, not medical, methodological or
legal advice. Template licence: MIT.