The use of implementation strategies to promote the uptake of psychological therapies among people with multiple sclerosis: A scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to standardize a scoping review protocol for completion of a scoping review. The proposed scoping review aims to: 1) determine the extent of the literature on which implementation strategies have been used to develop, deliver, and sustain psychological interventions for people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) and 2) investigate how equity, diversity, inclusion and accessibility considerations are embedded within these implementation strategies and psychological interventions more broadly. INTRODUCTION: People with multiple sclerosis experience high levels of stress, anxiety and depression. Psychological interventions, such as mindfulness-based interventions have been shown to be effective in managing these symptoms, yet their implementation in clinical practice is underexplored. Investigating the implementation of psychological interventions can help contextualize the efficacy and impact of these programs for PwMS. This proposed review aims to fill this knowledge gap by determining which implementation strategies have been used to develop and deliver psychological interventions for PwMS. METHODS: This scoping review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology and reporting will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping review (PRISMA-ScR). The search will be conducted across MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and PsychInfo (Scopus). Two reviewers will independently conduct screening and data extraction in duplicate, with any disagreements resolved through discussion and involvement of a third reviewer. Data extraction will be guided by the JBI template. Quantitative data will be reported descriptively, and a conventional content analysis will be undertaken for qualitative data. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This scoping review will include studies globally published in peer-reviewed academic journals in English involving PwMS that report on implementation strategies for live, professional-led psychological interventions. Pharmacological studies or studies focusing only on effectiveness of psychological interventions will be excluded.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.313 | 0.214 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.016 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".