Socioeconomic inequalities in neonatal mortality are observed globally but gaps remain in the evidence from current reviews, specifically: a wider range of socioeconomic indicators at the individual, household and area level than previous reviews, and alternative time frames to define neonatal mortality. Thus, a comprehensive updated review of the literature is required, focusing on multiple measures of socioeconomic status and alternative time frames, to assess the relationship between maternal socioeconomic status and neonatal mortality in high-income countries.

Three different search approaches will be used: electronic searching of three databases, grey literature searching and reference list checking. First, the three databases Medline, Scopus and Web of Science will be searched using relevant synonyms and adapted terms from medical subject heading terms (MeSH) in Medline for maternal socioeconomic status and neonatal mortality identified from previous systematic reviews on inequalities in adverse pregnancy outcomes. Second, grey literature will be searched by entering the relevant terms into Google. Title, abstract and full text screening will be conducted by the review team against the inclusion and exclusion criteria, with at least 10% checked by a second reviewer to assess for any bias and errors. We will also conduct the kappa statistic for inter-rater reliability. Third, the reference lists of included studies will be reviewed for any additional studies that meet the criteria. Data will be extracted using a data extraction form and extracted studies will be assessed using the Liverpool Quality Assessment Tool. A narrative synthesis will be conducted and, where appropriate, meta-analysis will be performed. If the data allow, subgroup analysis by neonatal care population and specific gestational ages will be performed.

Ethical approval is not required as all studies in this systematic review will be publicly available. The findings of this review will be presented at conferences and disseminated in peer-reviewed publications.

CRD42022315407.

Target trial emulation (TTE) has emerged as a methodological framework to strengthen causal inference from observational health data when randomised controlled trials are infeasible. The credibility of TTE studies depends not only on rigorous design and transparent reporting, but also on their relevance and acceptability to patients and the public. Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) has been shown to enhance the relevance, transparency and impact of health research by shaping research priorities, informing study design and ensuring outcomes reflect patient perspectives. However, the extent to which PPIE has been incorporated into TTE studies remains unclear. This scoping review aims to systematically map the use and reporting of PPIE in published TTE studies.

This review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews and will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. We will search MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid) from January 2011 to present, limited to English-language publications. Eligible studies will be studies that self-identify as using the TTE framework and report empirical analyses of health outcomes using observational or trial data. We will exclude protocols, methodological or simulation-only studies, preprints, conference abstracts and grey literature. Three reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts, and then full texts, with disagreements resolved by discussion or adjudication. Data extraction will include study characteristics and PPIE information guided by the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public 2-Short Form checklist. Findings will be summarised using descriptive statistics, tables, figures and narrative synthesis.

Ethics approval is not required, as this review will use publicly available data. Results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and presented at conferences.

Cancer and its treatment can negatively impact physical function, general well-being and quality of life. An evidence-based strategy to manage this is to prescribe exercise. One approach is to prescribe exercise prehabilitation to improve pretreatment health and function. However, current exercise prehabilitation programmes are under-researched, and the quality of their reporting has not been systematically assessed.

This review aimed to identify the following: the characteristics of prehabilitation exercise programmes; how intensity, physical function, patient-reported outcomes and treatment-related outcomes were measured; the quality of reporting and programme implementation.

Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported a cancer prehabilitation exercise intervention, reported outcomes relating to physical function and patient-reported outcomes, and full-text copies were available in English.

PubMed, Mednar and Scopus were screened for studies from inception until 4 of April 2024.

Exercise characteristics were extracted and manually charted in Microsoft Excel using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication. The tool for the assessment of study quality and reporting in exercise (TESTEX) framework was used to assess study quality and intervention reporting.

1495 results were retrieved, 28 of which were included. Exercise sessions lasted a mean of 42.5±21.9 min and were completed 3.7±1.3 times per week. 22 studies implemented concurrent exercise, five prescribed aerobic, and one prescribed resistance. High-intensity exercise was prescribed in four studies, moderate-high in 12, seven prescribed moderate, three prescribed low-moderate, and one was low intensity. 10 studies prescribed exercise intensity using the Borg Rating of Perceived Exertion Scale, five prescribed heart rate (HR) zones, six used a set workload, and seven did not monitor intensity. A mean TESTEX score of 9.3±2.3 out of 15 was achieved. The lowest scoring criterion (n=3) related to the reporting of the exercise dose.

There was heterogeneity among studies regarding exercise intervention characteristics and measures of effectiveness. The overall quality of reporting was satisfactory, yet inconsistencies were apparent regarding quantifying and monitoring exercise dose, which limits the ability of researchers and clinicians to replicate, evaluate or scale cancer prehabilitation exercise interventions, impeding evidence-based practice. As such, to be able to optimise cancer prehabilitation exercise programmes, research must first focus on improving the quality of reporting and standardising outcome measures and methods of monitoring and prescribing exercise.