Community participatory modelling merges participatory research approaches with mathematical modelling. Participatory approaches are grounded in the engagement of people with lived experience (eg, who are affected by the health condition under study) throughout the research process. Mathematical modelling of infectious disease (ID) dynamic transmissions is increasingly used as a tool for public health decision-making, generating predictions, inferring mechanisms and estimating the impact of potential interventions—all of which guide policies, strategies and resource allocation as part of the preparation and response to ID epidemics. However, little is known about the engagement of people with lived experience and affected communities in the ID modelling process. We will map the literature to explore participatory approaches undertaken in ID modelling (practical aspects of formalising participatory modelling), levels of participation and the potential influence from the perspective of communities engaged.

The scoping review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis. The search strategy includes three electronic bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Scopus and Embase), no language restrictions and sources published from 2000 to present. We will implement the search with and without the participatory keyword, as we recognise that some studies do not explicitly term community engagement as participatory modelling. After deduplication, two authors will independently screen the titles, abstracts and full texts, with discrepancies resolved with a third team member. We will extract the relevant information from the main text, parameter tables, supplemental files, bibliography, acknowledgment and author affiliation sections. The data extraction will follow a deductive content analysis where we draw from community-based participatory research approaches and established mathematical modelling steps. We will also extract data to assess whether there was equitable engagement of knowledge users by checking for indicators of three equitable engagement domains as outlined by the Ward framework (equity within partnership (eg, whether knowledge user influenced modelling decisions or remuneration), capacity to engage in future partnerships and shift in power/influence (eg, coauthorship). We will supplement our narrative analyses with summaries in tabular format and using appropriate data visualisations.

No ethics approval will be required for this scoping review because we will map evidence from publicly available literature sources. We will develop multilingual abstracts or one-page lay summaries of the findings (English, French and Swahili), a policy brief and will coauthor an open-access journal article. A summary of the findings will be shared via knowledge user-led presentations at the Maisha HIV and AIDS Conference and with other community-based organisations at the quarterly peer-to-peer support meetings.

The protocol has been registered in Open Science Framework, DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/XQ2WP (December 2024).

Despite extensive efforts in HIV prevention, significant barriers to accessing interventions such as HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) persist in Canada. Although PrEP has demonstrated efficacy in preventing HIV transmission, various structural, social and systemic factors continue to impede its widespread adoption and use. These factors influence the uptake (acceptance and access) and use (adherence and retention) of PrEP. The purpose of this scoping review is to examine the existing body of evidence regarding the barriers and facilitators to uptake and use of PrEP in Canada. By identifying these factors, the review aims to inform future research, policy development and interventions to improve PrEP access and its integration into HIV prevention strategies in Canada.

This scoping review will focus on studies involving HIV-seronegative individuals in Canada who are either eligible for or currently using PrEP as an HIV prevention option. The review will consider barriers and facilitators within services, programmes, policies or practices related to HIV prevention in Canada. Eligible studies will include experimental, quasi-experimental, observational or qualitative designs. Studies that do not address PrEP or HIV prevention, or that involve populations not aligned with the inclusion criteria, will be excluded. The review will involve searching a range of key databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science and TRIP, with no language restrictions, and focusing on publications from 2016 onward. Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts, followed by full-text assessment and data extraction, using Covidence. Data will be analysed narratively, with a specific focus on subgroup analyses of key populations. The findings will be synthesised to provide an overview of the key themes, trends, and evidence gaps identified within the existing literature.

This piece of research will not involve human participants and will solely use already published data. Consequently, ethics approval is not necessary. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal articles and conference presentations and may be of relevance to governmental health agencies and local HIV/AIDS service organisations.

The protocol has been registered on Open Science Framework registries at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/69WJA.

The COVID-19 pandemic amplified the need for robust multisectoral coordination; yet the specific mechanisms, benefits and challenges of such collaboration particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) remain poorly synthesised. This review aims to delineate the key elements, benefits, challenges and improvement strategies of multisectoral coordination during COVID-19 and to compare patterns between LMICs and high-income countries (HICs).

Eligible studies will include empirical qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods research published in English between 1 January 2020 and 15 August 2024 that examines formal coordination mechanisms (eg, task forces, public-private partnerships, inter-agency committees) within the context of COVID-19. Searches will be conducted across PubMed, EBSCOhost, Emerald Insight, Google Scholar and selected grey-literature repositories. Citation chaining will be employed to identify additional sources.

Two reviewers will independently screen all records using Covidence, applying pre-piloted eligibility criteria to 5% of citations and proceeding only if inter-rater reliability achieves ≥0.70. Data will be extracted into a Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)-informed template. Qualitative data will be analysed through framework synthesis, structured by the five CFIR domains. Quantitative data will be narratively summarised and, where outcomes are sufficiently similar across at least two studies, synthesised using a fixed-effect model.

Risk of bias will be assessed using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme for qualitative and Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions for non-randomised studies. Studies with serious or critical risk will be excluded from pooling. Subgroup analyses (LMIC vs HIC), sensitivity analyses (model and risk) and confidence grading using Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations will be conducted.

No primary data will be collected; thus additional Research Ethics Committee approval is unnecessary. The results will be disseminated via open-access publication, conference presentations and policy briefs for Nairobi County health stakeholders.

CRD42023466849.