The interfaces between the fields of communication, education and health have been indicated by international institutions such as the WHO and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. However, hegemonic scientific practices supersede dialogue between the three fields, isolating their practices. This fragmenting tendency is observed in scientific literature, which has created gaps in the dialogue and articulation between communication, education and health. Although health promotion requires both communicative and educational practices, the epistemological, historical, political, cultural and socioeconomic aspects have also engendered tensions between the fields. Communication is often seen as a mere instrument for other practices, rather than a phenomenon that (re)produces meanings and power dynamics. In opposing the reductionist and instrumentalising perspectives of knowledge fields, the primary objective of the scoping review is to map the scientific evidence on the interfaces between communication and education in health to indicate a conceptual framework that articulates communication and education practices within the context of health.

A transdisciplinary team developed this protocol based on the 2024 Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis. The procedures required to conduct the review were guided by the frameworks proposed by Arksey and O'Malley, Levac et al and Peters et al. The study eligibility criteria were established based on the Problem, Concept and Context outlined in the research questions. Primary and secondary studies will be retrieved from nine sources, covering both conventional and grey literature. These sources include Embase, ERIC, LILACS, PubMed/MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, the Brazilian Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations, and the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations. A categorised form will be used for data collection and subsequent analysis. The reporting of the review findings will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews.

The nature of the research and the use of secondary data sources do not require informed consent forms or approval from ethics committees in Brazil. The scientific findings from the review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, academic conferences and other scientific communication channels.

The protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF) and is available at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/Z3CX7.

Telerehabilitation (TR) programmes are increasingly recognised for their feasibility and potential benefits, such as eliminating travel time, reducing costs and providing a more comfortable rehabilitation experience at home. However, the comparative efficacy of remote physiotherapy compared with traditional in-person sessions for individuals with Parkinson’s disease (PD) remains uncertain. This study aims to evaluate the effects of TR compared with in-person physiotherapy in individuals with PD, focusing on both motor and non-motor outcomes.

This is a randomised, single-blind clinical trial with a mixed-methods approach. A total of 22 individuals diagnosed with PD will be randomly assigned to one of two groups. The experimental group will receive TR, consisting of remote physiotherapy sessions conducted once a week for 1 hour over a 4-month period. The control group will receive the same interventions in person. Interventions will include global muscle strengthening exercises, balance training, gait and motor coordination exercises, and cognitive training. The primary outcome will be motor function, measured using part III of the Movement Disorder Society–Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale. Secondary outcomes will include cognition (Montreal Cognitive Assessment), gait (Functional Gait Assessment), mobility (Timed Up and Go Test) and quality of life (Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire). Data will be analysed using repeated measures analysis of variance to compare outcomes between groups across four assessment points (baseline, midpoint, postintervention and 2 months follow-up). Additionally, a qualitative phase will explore participants’ perceptions and experiences regarding TR and in-person interventions, with assessments carried out 2 months after the completion of the 24-week interventions, through semistructured interviews that will be analysed using Bardin’s Content Analysis technique.

This protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (approval number: 5.553.701). All participants will provide written informed consent before inclusion. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, scientific conferences and communication with participants and healthcare professionals.

RBR-6h5knrj.