Add Title Here

Authors
First author name1 Second author name2 Third author name3 Fourth author name4 Fifth author
name5 Sixth author name6

1. Affiliation
2. Affiliation
3. Affiliation
4. Affiliation
5. Affiliation
6. Affiliation

Abstract
(Maximum - 250 words for Protocols/500 words for Reviews)

Objective: State an overarching review objective structured using the key components of the
inclusion criteria (approximately one or two sentences). e.g. The objective of this scoping review is to
understand the extent and type of evidence in relation to (insert field).

Introduction: Briefly describe the rationale for the review in light of what is already known on the
topic (approximately two to three sentences).

Inclusion criteria: Summarize the inclusion criteria using the participants, concept, and context (PCC
framework) and highlight any relevant exclusions in paragraph format. Present the information in
one to three sentences – NOT under individual subheadings.

Methods: List the key information sources searched/to be searched (those from which the majority
of evidence sources were/will be located), the date (month/year) the search was conducted (for
reviews only) and any search limits (e.g. language). Briefly describe the approach to study selection,
data extraction, analysis of the evidence and presentation of the results. Briefly describe any notable
deviations to the methodological approach taken (for reviews only).

Results (For Reviews ONLY): The bulk of the abstract should be reserved to convey the main results
of the review in relation to the objective/question. Report the number and type of included evidence
as well as any pertinent study characteristics.

Conclusions (For Reviews ONLY): Provide a conclusion based on a general interpretation of the
review findings in line with the review’s objective/s and any limitations of the review. Briefly convey
key implications of the findings for practice and research (if any).

Keywords: List a maximum of five keywords in alphabetical order, separated by a semi-colon and a
space. Ideally these words should be different to those that appear in the title and abstract. These

Page 1
are for the purposes of meta-data and indexing, and not related to the search strategy.

Introduction
Describe the rationale for the review considering what is already known on the topic, including
information that supports and justifies the selection of inclusion criteria. Key terms should be
defined, and operational definitions narratively explained. Furthermore, provide some indication
that there is evidence available that will meet your inclusion criteria. A rationale as to why a scoping
review was the most appropriate method should also be provided. (Approximately 1000 words). For
Reviews ONLY: The introduction must NOT be a verbatim reproduction of the introduction in the
corresponding protocol.

Subheading (if required)

Edit set text as appropriate:

A preliminary search of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and JBI Evidence
Synthesis was conducted and no current or underway systematic reviews or scoping reviews on the
topic were identified.

If there are any existing systematic reviews/scoping reviews, it should be specified how the
proposed review will differ.

Conclude with an overarching review objective, that captures and aligns with the core elements/PCC
framework of the inclusion criteria (e.g. The objective of this scoping review is to assess the extent of
the literature insert area/field.

Review question
Guidance for authors: Clearly state the review question or questions using the PCC framework (i.e.
additional or sub-questions) that the review seeks to answer. The review question/s should clearly
relate to the objective/s.

Inclusion criteria
Participants

Guidance for authors: Describe/define participants that will be included. Specific exclusion criteria
based on any participant characteristics should also be stated.

Concept

Guidance for authors: Describe and/or define the concept. Specific exclusion criteria based on any
concept should also be stated.

Page 2
Context

Guidance for authors: Describe the context. Consider cultural/sub-cultural factors, geographic
location, specific racial or gender-based interests or details about the specific setting. Specific
exclusion criteria based on any context should also be stated.

Types of sources

Edit set text as appropriate:

This scoping review will consider both experimental and quasi-experimental study designs including
randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, before and after studies and
interrupted time-series studies. In addition, analytical observational studies including prospective
and retrospective cohort studies, case-control studies and analytical cross-sectional studies will be
considered for inclusion. This review will also consider descriptive observational study designs
including case series, individual case reports and descriptive cross-sectional studies for inclusion.

Qualitative studies will also be considered that focus on qualitative data including, but not limited to,
designs such as phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, qualitative description, action
research and feminist research.

In addition, systematic reviews that meet the inclusion criteria will also be considered, depending on
the research question.

Text and opinion papers will also be considered for inclusion in this scoping review.

Methods
The proposed scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping
reviews. insert a superscript citation to the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis or the relevant
chapter and add this to the reference lis Note: if the review title has been registered, report the
name of the registry (e.g. OSF).

FOR REVIEWS: This review was conducted in accordance with an a priori protocol insert superscript
citation to the published or in press protocol and add it to the reference list. Any deviations from the
protocol should be reported and justified in the appropriate section of the methods.

Search strategy

Edit set text as appropriate:

The search strategy will aim to locate both published and unpublished studies. A three-step search
strategy will be utilized in this review. First an initial limited search of MEDLINE (PubMed) and
CINAHL (EBSCO) change as appropriate was undertaken to identify articles on the topic. The text
words contained in the titles and abstracts of relevant articles, and the index terms used to describe
the articles were used to develop a full search strategy for report the name of the relevant

Page 3
databases/information sources (see Appendix #). The search strategy, including all identified
keywords and index terms, will be adapted for each included database and/or information source.
The reference list of all included sources of evidence will be screened for additional studies. Specify
the types of references examined (eg, references of studies included in the systematic review, or
references of systematic reviews on the same or similar topic. Modify if other processes are to be
used, eg, Report details of any tools to identify keywords or index terms, any filters, any validation
processes, whether search strategy will be peer reviewed.]

Studies published in any language change as appropriate will be included. Studies published
since insert date will be included as

justify date range and any language limitations

List all information sources (eg, electronic databases, conference proceedings, websites, search
engines or other online sources, contact with study authors etc. The databases to be searched
include insert databases with platforms as appropriate. Sources of unpublished studies and gray
literature to be searched include insert text.

Study/Source of evidence selection

Edit set text as appropriate:

Following the search, all identified citations will be collated and uploaded into (insert the name of
the bibliographic software or citation management system e.g. EndNote insert version /year
(Clarivate Analytics, PA, USA) and duplicates removed. Following a pilot test, titles and abstracts will
then be screened by two or more independent reviewers for assessment against the inclusion
criteria for the review. Potentially relevant sources will be retrieved in full and their citation details
imported into the JBI System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information
(JBI SUMARI) (JBI, Adelaide, Australia). insert citation to JBI SUMARI paper and add it to the
reference list, eg, <Munn Z, Aromataris E, Tufanaru C, Stern C, Porritt K, Farrow J. The development
of software to support multiple systematic review types: the Joanna Briggs Institute System for the
Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information (JBI SUMARI). Int J Evid Based Healthc.
2019;17(1):36-43.>The full text of selected citations will be assessed in detail against the inclusion
criteria by two or more independent reviewers. Reasons for exclusion of sources of evidence at full
text that do not meet the inclusion criteria will be recorded and reported in the scoping review. Any
disagreements that arise between the reviewers at each stage of the selection process will be
resolved through discussion, or with an additional reviewer/s. The results of the search and the
study inclusion process will be reported in full in the final scoping review and presented in a PRISMA
flow diagram

(insert citation to PRISMA and include in the reference list) .

Data extraction

Edit set text as appropriate:

Page 4
Data will be extracted from papers included in the scoping review by two or more independent
reviewers using a data extraction tool developed by the reviewers. cite the tool to be used or
append the data extraction tool if an existing tool has been modified or a new tool developed any
modifications to existing tools should be described in the text The data extracted will include
specific details about the participants, concept, context, study methods and key findings relevant to
the review question/s.

Guidance for authors: Discuss the planned piloting of the draft extraction form in the protocol, and
how this was conducted in the review.

Edit set text as appropriate:

A draft extraction form is provided (see Appendix XX). The draft data extraction tool will be modified
and revised as necessary during the process of extracting data from each included evidence source.
Modifications will be detailed in the scoping review. Any disagreements that arise between the
reviewers will be resolved through discussion, or with an additional reviewer/s. If appropriate,
authors of papers will be contacted to request missing or additional data, where required.

Guidance for authors: Critical appraisal of individual sources of evidence: This is generally not
required for scoping reviews. If it will be done, provide a rationale as to why and describe the
methods, including tools which will be used.

Data analysis and presentation

Guidance for authors: The evidence presented should directly respond to the review objective and
question(s). The data is commonly presented graphically or in diagrammatic or tabular form.
Preparation of the review protocol is the opportunity for authors to pilot and determine how to best
present their data or map and provide detailed description for the reader. Insert information on data
presentation/mapping techniques, if any. A narrative summary will accompany the tabulated
and/or charted results and will describe how the results relate to the reviews objective and
question/s.

Acknowledgements
Insert the full names and precise contributions of individuals, or institutions, who have not already
been listed as co-authors. Specify if this review is to contribute towards a degree award and for
which author (initials). For further guidance, please refer to the JBI Evidence Synthesis manuscript
style and preparation guidelines.

Funding
Guidance for authors: Provide details on sources of funding for the review and explicitly describe the
role of funders in the review process. For further guidance, please refer to the JBI Evidence Synthesis
manuscript style and preparation guidelines.

Page 5
Declarations
Authors are invited to consider equity, diversity, and inclusion to acknowledge authors who work to
improve diversity and inclusion in research and to encourage them going forward. Authors may also
choose to highlight their experience related to their topic to further position them within the field
(eg, an Indigenous author writing about issues directly related to Indigenous populations).

Author contributions
Detail each author’s specific involvement in a manuscript, such as designing the analysis,
contributing or collecting the data, performing the analysis or writing the manuscript, to increase the
transparency of contributions.

Conflicts of interest
Guidance for authors: Include a statement that describes a potential conflict of interest or any
personal, financial, professional, or intellectual bias for any of the authors listed on the manuscript.
If no conflict exists, include the following statement: There is no conflict of interest in this
project. For further guidance, please refer to the JBI Evidence Synthesis manuscript style and
preparation guidelines.

References

Appendices
Appendix I: Search strategy

For protocols - present a full search strategy for at least one electronic database including planned
limits, such that it can be reviewed and repeated. For systematic reviews all search strategies should
be presented.

The search strategy should detail the following information: the name of the information source and
the platform/service provider used to search the particular database, eg, CINAHL (via Ovid); all the
search terms to be used (both keywords/text words and index terms should be included) and how
they are to be combined using Boolean logic; the use of truncation and wildcards; all planned limits
(date, language, etc.); and the number of records retrieved by the search.

Insert name of database (insert name of the platform/service provider), e.g. MEDLINE (Ovid)

Search conducted on

Page 6
month/year

Appendix II: Data extraction instrument

#Only append the JBI or non-JBI data extraction instrument if the standardized tool has been
modified in any way, otherwise simply cite the tool used in the text. Any modifications made to the
instrument should also be described in the text.#

Page 7