Patient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly embedded in stroke and aphasia participatory research, enhancing relevance and inclusivity. While the benefits of PPI are well-documented, the costs, both direct (eg, honoraria, travel, accessibility materials) and indirect (eg, time, administrative burden, emotional labour), remain poorly reported. This scoping review aims to (1) identify and categorise direct and indirect costs of PPI in stroke research, (2) examine how these costs are defined, reported or implied, (3) map cost-related barriers and facilitators and (4) expose evidence gaps to inform the Mapping the Economic and Social Tangible and Emotional Resources of Patient and Public Involvement (MASTER-PPI) framework.

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines, we will search Medline, PUBMED, Embase, CINAHL, APA PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science, as well as grey literature (NIHR INVOLVE, Horizon Europe, non-governmental organisation (NGO) reports). Eligible studies include those reporting or implying direct or indirect costs of PPI in stroke research. Two reviewers will independently screen and extract data, which will be synthesised descriptively and thematically. Findings will be aligned with the MASTER-PPI framework.

Ethical approval is not required. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal publications, conference presentations, social media posts in lay language and policy briefs tailored for NGOs and funders.

This protocol is registered with the Open Science Framework (OSF) (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/VM9ZU).

Peripheral artery disease (PAD) affected approximately 800 000 Canadians aged 25 years or older in 2015 and it poses a substantial risk of lower extremity amputation (LEA). While clinical risk factors for amputation are well-established, the impact of social determinants of health (SDoH) on amputation risk remains unclear, particularly in a Canadian context.

This systematic review aims to: (1) synthesise evidence on the associations between multilevel SDoH domains and LEA (both major and/or minor) risk in Canadian PAD patients including intersectional effects of race and ethnicity with another SDoH domain, and (2) evaluate the statistical methodologies used in the researched literature to inform future study design and analysis approaches.

We will systematically search MEDLINE, Embase, EmCare, Global Health, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Web of Science for studies examining SDoH and LEA in Canadian patients with PAD (including chronic limb-threatening ischaemia which is a severe form of PAD). Date limits for each database will be from inception through December 2025. SDoH will be categorised using a modified Healthy People 2030 SDoH framework under six domains: economic stability, education, food, neighbourhood and physical environment, healthcare system and community and social context. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts and full texts, with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer. Data will be extracted on study characteristics, SDoH measures, outcomes and statistical methods. Risk of bias will be assessed using RoB 2 for randomised trials, ROBINS-I for non-randomised studies of interventions and ROBINS-E for studies investigating exposures. A narrative synthesis, and where data permit, a Bayesian hierarchical meta-analysis using both effect size and contingency table approaches will be conducted. Statistical heterogeneity will be explored through subgroup analyses and meta-regression, examining study design, SDoH measurement approaches and population characteristics.

As a systematic review and meta-analysis, ethics approval is not required. For institutional oversight, we provide the contact of Dr Sonia Anand (Associate Vice-President, Global Health, McMaster University; anands@mcmaster.ca). Results will be reported following PRISMA guidelines and disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication.

CRD420251115759.

The development of effective vaccines targeting human papillomavirus (HPV) has significantly contributed to disease prevention, highly relevant in immunosuppressed patients who have higher incidence of HPV-related cancers than their non-immunosuppressed counterparts. However, the acceptance and uptake of the HPV vaccine among immunosuppressed individuals pose unique challenges. Immunocompromised patients’ acceptance of the HPV vaccine is influenced by multifaceted factors, including concerns about safety and effectiveness, interactions with immunosuppressive medications and uncertainties due to their compromised immunity. This systematic review aims to identify the main factors influencing HPV vaccine acceptance among immunosuppressed patients.

A comprehensive search strategy will be executed across databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Latin American and Caribbean Literature in Health Sciences, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Cochrane Database. The review will encompass the three WHO-endorsed HPV vaccines (quadrivalent, bivalent and nonavalent) and will consider studies related to HPV vaccines and their administration. The scope includes study focusing on immunosuppressed patients who received organ transplants, cancer treatments or are HIV-positive. No temporal restrictions will be applied, and searches will be conducted until December 2025. Observational studies, including retrospective/prospective cohorts, case–control and cross-sectional studies, reporting factors influencing HPV vaccination in immunosuppressed populations will be included. Studies with overlapping patient populations will be excluded. Data extraction will include study details, demographics, vaccine type, risk/protective factors, outcomes and medical history. Validation and cross-verification will ensure data accuracy. Risk of bias will be assessed using ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions), and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) will rate evidence certainty. Meta-analysis, guided by Cochrane and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, will employ fixed/random-effects models, assessing heterogeneity using I² statistics.

This research will analyse previously published data, so ethical approval is not required. The results of the systematic review will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

CRD42023452537.

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a degenerative and progressive joint condition causing pain and disability. Physical exercise is recognised as the most effective intervention since individuals with this condition often experience muscle weakness, balance deficits and chronic pain. Additionally, knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is associated with central sensitisation, contributing to chronic pain conditions. Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS), a non-invasive neuromodulation technique, has been employed to induce changes in pain perception by altering cortical excitability, potentially reducing chronic pain.

This is a protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Participants will be allocated to two groups: G1 (active tDCS combined with exercise) and G2 (sham tDCS combined with exercise). The intervention protocol will last for 5 weeks, with two sessions per week on non-consecutive days. Pain intensity will be assessed as the primary outcome using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). The sample size was calculated based on a minimum clinically important difference of 3 points on the NRS between groups, with a statistical power of 80% and a significance level of 5%. Secondary outcomes will include physical function and global perceived change.

This protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Trairi School of Health Sciences, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (Approval Number: 6.801.827), and it is in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki for human research. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific events. This trial is registered in the Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry.

Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (RBR-5pb2g33).