Global migration has steadily risen, with 16% of the UK population born abroad. Migrants (defined here as foreign-born individuals) face unique health risks, including potential higher rates and delays in diagnosis of infectious and non-communicable diseases, compounded by significant barriers to healthcare. UK Public Health guidelines recommend screening at-risk migrants, but primary care often faces significant challenges in achieving this, exacerbating health disparities. The Health Catch-UP! tool was developed as a novel digital, multidisease screening and catch-up vaccination solution to support primary care to identify at-risk adult migrants and offer individualised care. The tool has been shown to be acceptable and feasible and to increase migrant health screening in previous studies, but to facilitate use in routine care requires the development of an implementation package. This protocol describes the development and optimisation of an implementation package for Health Catch-UP! following the person-based approach (PBA), a participatory intervention development methodology, and evaluates our use of this methodological approach for migrant participants.

Through engagement with both migrants and primary healthcare professionals (approximately 80–100 participants) via participatory workshops, focus groups and think-aloud interviews, the study aims to cocreate a comprehensive Health Catch-UP! implementation package. This package will encompass healthcare professional support materials, patient resources and potential Health Catch-UP! care pathways (delivery models), developed through iterative refinement based on user feedback and behavioural theory. The study will involve three linked phases (1) planning: formation of an academic–community coalition and cocreation of guiding principles, logic model and intervention planning table, (2) intervention development: focus groups and participatory workshops to coproduce prototype implementation materials and (3) intervention optimisation: think-aloud interviews to iteratively refine the final implementation package. An embedded mixed-methods evaluation of how we used the PBA will allow shared learning from the use of this methodology within the migrant health context.

Ethics approval granted by the St George’s University Research Ethics Committee (REC reference: 2024.0191). A community celebration event will be held to recognise contributions and to demonstrate impact.

Despite increasing proportions of underrepresented minority (URM) medical school graduates, their progression into surgical training and leadership remains disproportionately low. Barriers such as financial constraints, limited mentorship and implicit bias contribute to this disparity, creating a disconnect between the diversity of patient populations and those providing care. While interventions such as mentorship programmes and pipeline initiatives have been implemented, their overall effectiveness has not been systematically evaluated. The primary aim of this scoping review is to map the current landscape of interventions, programmes and policies designed to enhance access to surgical careers for URM learners.

Searches will be conducted on EMBASE, Web of Science and OVID MEDLINE. Three independent reviewers will screen references, extract data and perform analyses with disagreements adjudicated by a fourth reviewer. This review will include studies conducted across all levels of training: secondary (high school or secondary school), postsecondary (undergraduate, medical school) and postgraduate (residency, fellowship), with no geographical restrictions. The definition of URM will be accepted as reported within each individual study, allowing for variability in racial, ethnic, gender, socioeconomic or other criteria. The review will include any structured interventions, programmes or policies aimed at increasing URM representation in surgical education. Data on the nature, duration and target population of each intervention will be extracted. The primary outcome will be the reported impact of interventions on URM representation or participation in surgical education. Secondary outcomes will include characteristics of the study participants, definitions of URM status and any qualitative or quantitative evaluations of intervention effectiveness.

Research ethics approval is not required under University of Toronto policy. Study results will be reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Results will be disseminated to relevant stakeholders at conference presentation(s) and submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Ineffective surgery scheduling fails to align demand with need, resulting in financial waste, resource inefficiencies and delays in care, which ultimately lead to poorer patient outcomes. Digital systems present a promising approach to optimising scheduling. However, research examining their impact remains limited. This planned systematic review aims to evaluate the effects of digital surgery scheduling systems on the quality of preoperative care.

A systematic review will be undertaken using Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, HMIC and PsycINFO (from inception to the present). The outcomes under investigation include the domains of quality of care (eg, patient-centredness, safety, effectiveness, efficiency, timeliness of care and equity). Two independent reviewers will screen and extract data, resolving any disagreements through discussion. Once eligible studies are identified, the extracted data will be summarised in a table. The risk of bias in the articles will be evaluated using the appropriate National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute quality qssessment tool, depending on the study design. A subgroup analysis will be carried out using demographic variables supported by the data. A narrative synthesis and a meta-analysis will be performed, to quantify the impact of digital surgery scheduling tools on reported outcomes.

This proposed review aims to collate and summarise peer-reviewed, published evidence, and therefore, does not require ethical approval. This protocol and the subsequent review will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, at conferences and through patient-led lay summaries. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024625469.