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.

Healthcare workers (HCWs) report overwhelming demands and experience crisis levels of burnout and unique challenges that further impair their mental health. Promotion of mental health among HCWs using information and communication technology (ICT) has received little empirical research attention and interventions for improving mental health resilience in HCWs are not well established.

Scoping review to map existing evidence and identify gaps for future research regarding the main barriers and facilitators of the acceptance of ICT-based interventions for improving resilience and mental health among HCWs working in all healthcare settings.

This protocol was developed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. A comprehensive bibliographic search will be conducted between October 2024 and October 2025 in Pubmed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Scopus, Cochrane Library and CINAHL Ultimate (MedicLatina, Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection), with the assistance of a qualified research librarian, to retrieve studies describing data on the main barriers and facilitators to the acceptance of ICT-based interventions for improving resilience and mental health among HCWs working in healthcare settings. There will be no restrictions based on date of publication or language. Inclusion and exclusion criteria will be defined for each element of the PICO(D) framework, and both quantitative and qualitative data will be extracted. Quality will be assessed using the mixed methods assessment tool. Two independent investigators will perform the eligibility assessment and data extraction, and any disagreements will be resolved by a third reviewer. The main results will be narratively synthesised and analysed.

Since secondary data will be analysed, no ethical approval is required. The results will be disseminated through publications subject to peer review.

https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/5R36Q.