F1000Research F1000Research 2046-1402 F1000 Research Limited London, UK 10.12688/f1000research.179526.1 Study Protocol Articles Walking Alongside Indigenous Communities and Organizations to Enhance Health Programs: A Global Scoping Review Protocol on Indigenous-Led and Partnered Implementation Science

[version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations]

 Dunn Kate Conceptualization Funding Acquisition Investigation Methodology Project Administration Resources Supervision Writing – Original Draft Preparation Writing – Review & Editing https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2355-9272 a 1 2 3 Crump Laura Conceptualization Methodology Writing – Original Draft Preparation Writing – Review & Editing 4 5 Weight Charlene Conceptualization Methodology Writing – Original Draft Preparation Writing – Review & Editing 4 Lockwood Emmett Conceptualization Writing – Review & Editing https://orcid.org/0009-0008-0530-734X 6 Masching Renee Conceptualization Methodology Writing – Review & Editing 7 Scott Nina Conceptualization Methodology Writing – Review & Editing 8 Simpson Chae Conceptualization Methodology Writing – Review & Editing 9 Froelich-Chow Amanda Conceptualization Methodology Writing – Review & Editing 10 Martin Carrie Conceptualization Methodology Writing – Review & Editing https://orcid.org/0009-0000-1067-7267 11 Lavallée Josée Conceptualization Methodology Writing – Review & Editing 12 Laritz Rachael Conceptualization Methodology Writing – Review & Editing 5 Fontaine Guillaume Conceptualization Investigation Methodology Project Administration Resources Supervision Writing – Original Draft Preparation Writing – Review & Editing https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7806-814X 4 5 13 14 15 School of Nursing, York University Faculty of Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Toronto Centre for Liver Disease, Viral Hepatitis Care Network, Toronto, Canada Mississaugi First Nation, Blind River, Canada McGill University Ingram School of Nursing, Montreal, Québec, Canada Centre for Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Montreal, Québec, Canada Pimicikamak Cree, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Six Nations of the Grand River First Nation member, Seven Directions Consulting and Dalhousie University, Lawrencetown, Canada Ngāphui, Ngāti Whātua, and Waikato iwi/tribes, Waikato Hospital, Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand Te Kōhao Health,, Taakiri Tuu Wellness & Diagnostic Centre, Hamilton, New Zealand University of Saskatchewan School of Public Health, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada Indigenous Health Centre of Tiohtià:ke, Montreal, Canada McGill University Ingram School of Nursing, Montreal, Québec, Canada Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Kensington, New South Wales, Australia Centre for Implementation Research, Methodological and Implementation Research Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada Department of Global and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, Canada katedunn@yorku.ca

No competing interests were disclosed.

 27 4 2026 2026 15 623 10 4 2026 Copyright: © 2026 Dunn K et al. 2026 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Background

Indigenous communities worldwide continue to lead and partner in health initiatives, yet no global synthesis has mapped how implementation science is being applied with Indigenous peoples, communities, and organizations across health and health-related settings. Existing literature is fragmented across disciplines, regions, and publication types, and uses diverse terminology. This limits understanding of where Indigenous-led and partnered implementation science is occurring, how it is conceptualized and operationalized, and how Indigenous leadership, governance, and data sovereignty are reported.

 Methods

This protocol outlines a global scoping review guided by Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and reported according to PRISMA-ScR. We will include peer-reviewed and grey empirical literature from any country and any year involving Indigenous peoples or communities and an explicit implementation focus, such as implementation determinants, strategies, processes, outcomes, use of implementation science theories, models, or frameworks, or implementation-focused designs. Searches will be conducted in bibliographic databases and structured grey literature sources. Two reviewers will independently screen records and extract data. Charted items will include study characteristics, region, setting, population, health area, program type, implementation approaches, theories/models/frameworks, Indigenous leadership and partnership, governance and advisory structures, data-sovereignty practices, authorship or reflexivity, and key implementation findings. Quantitative data will be summarized descriptively and qualitative information will be synthesized using iterative thematic and content-analytic approaches. Indigenous partners will help interpret emerging findings and shape dissemination products for communities and policy audiences.

 Discussion

This review will provide the first global map of Indigenous-led and partnered implementation science in health and health-related contexts. It will support future Indigenous-led research, capacity building, funding priorities, and policy by identifying geographical, topical, methodological, and reporting gaps, and by documenting promising practices in co-design, governance, and ethical implementation. The review is also intended to strengthen awareness and application of implementation science approaches aligned with Indigenous priorities, self-determination, cultural safety, and equity.

Registration: Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/SX2T6

indigenous health; global health; public health; implementation research; implementation practice; health equity; community engagement Canadian Institutes of Health Research Grant HR1-166222 CIHR Centres for HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis C and other STBBIs Population Health and Health Services Research – Indigenous Populations. The Feast Centre for Indigenous STBBI Research. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. 1. Background

Indigenous communities around the world continue to lead and partner in health initiatives where the design, governance, and evaluation of implementation efforts strongly influence cultural safety, equity, and sustainability. Although prior scholarship has identified Indigenous-specific implementation theories, models, and frameworks, 1– 3 there is currently no global synthesis that maps projects explicitly applying implementation science with Indigenous communities. Existing work includes, for example, a 2019 review of implementation and evaluation studies focused on non-communicable disease interventions for Indigenous communities in Australia, Canada, Aotearoa New Zealand and the United States. 4 However, this review did not encompass the full breadth of implementation science applications across different health conditions, sectors and regions, nor did it systematically examine how implementation science concepts and methods 5 are being operationalized in collaboration with Indigenous communities.

The available evidence is also highly fragmented. Studies are dispersed across multiple disciplines and regions, published in both indexed journals and grey literature, and described using varied terminology such as implementation science, knowledge translation, quality improvement, program implementation, hybrid trials and process evaluation. 6 This dispersion makes it difficult to see where Indigenous implementation science is being used and how it is actually being applied in practice. It also obscures how Indigenous and Western theories and frameworks are being combined or adapted, 7 how governance and partnership arrangements are structured and how ethical practices, including Indigenous data sovereignty and self-determination, are being enacted. 8

A scoping review is therefore warranted to map this heterogeneous body of work and to produce a structured description of the ways implementation science is used rather than to estimate intervention effects. A unique area of the review will identify the Indigenous community role, such as consulting, directing, self-governed, Indigenous-led, partner, collaborator, etc., noting if and how there is a shift from research ON Indigenous People, to research WITH, and reflecting on long-term success. 9– 12 This review, through the identification and description of projects across regions, settings, populations, health areas and program types, will clarify the current landscape and reveal geographical, topical and methodological gaps. In addition, it will document how implementation science is defined and applied, including the study designs in use, the theories, models and frameworks employed. Finally, by documenting the nature of partnerships and governance, and the ethical and data practices consistent with Indigenous self-determination, the review will highlight promising practices and important reporting gaps.

Ultimately, these outputs are intended to provide a practical foundation for future co-designed studies, capacity-building initiatives, funding priorities and policy, and to help align implementation methods and measures with Indigenous priorities across diverse contexts. We also aim to increase awareness of Indigenous implementation science approaches in academic, clinical, as well as community settings.

1.1 Review objective and questions

The objective of this scoping review is to identify and describe implementation science projects conducted with Indigenous communities worldwide, specifying the regions, settings, populations, health areas, and program types involved.

The primary review question is: What is known from peer-reviewed and grey empirical literature about Indigenous-led and partnered implementation science in health and health-related settings globally?

Subquestions will examine:

Where this work has been conducted and in which health areas, settings and populations;

How implementation science has been conceptualized and operationalized, including the study designs, theories, models and frameworks used;

How Indigenous leadership, partnership, governance, and data-sovereignty practices have been described; and

Which gaps remain in geography, methods, reporting and areas of application.

2. Methods 2.1 Review design

Scoping reviews are particularly useful to explore, identify, map and discuss characteristics of concepts across a wide range of evidence sources. 13 The proposed scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology 14 for scoping reviews (which expands on the work of Arksey and O’Malley 15 and Levac et al. 16 ). It emphasizes appropriateness, feasibility, and meaningfulness of the literature and includes nine sequential steps. First, defining the scoping review objective(s) and question(s). Second, developing and aligning the inclusion criteria with the objective(s) and question(s). Third, specifying the approach to evidence searching, selection, data extraction, and presentation. The next four steps involve searching for, selecting, extracting and analyzing the evidence. The eighth is the presentation of the results, while the ninth and last step is summarizing the evidence, making conclusions and noting implications of the findings. 13 The review will be reported according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. 17

2.2 Eligibility criteria

2.2.1 Population

We will include studies conducted in Indigenous communities or with people who identify as Indigenous, from any country and without date restrictions. Recognizing that there is considerable global diversity in the terms used to describe Indigenous Peoples, this study could include a wide range of terminology including but not limited to Indigenous, First Nations, Inuit, Métis, Aboriginal, Alaska Natives, Indian, and Maōri. For the purposes of this review, we will use the terms “Indigenous communities” and “Indigenous peoples” broadly, to encompass any community or individuals who self-identify as Indigenous or who are recognized as such within their local, national or regional context. 18 Studies that do not involve Indigenous peoples or communities will be excluded.

2.2.2 Concept

The concept of interest is empirical implementation research, or closely related empirical work, concerning the uptake, integration, adaptation, scale-up, sustainment, or de-implementation of health programs, services, practices, or policies with Indigenous peoples, communities, or organizations. Studies will be eligible if they explicitly address at least one implementation-related element, such as:

Implementation determinants, including barriers and facilitators;

Implementation strategies or processes;

Implementation outcomes, such as adoption, acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, cost, or sustainability;

Use of an implementation science theory, model, or framework; or

Use of a study design with a clear implementation focus, such as a hybrid effectiveness-implementation design or process evaluation. 19, 20

Studies will not be excluded solely because they are labelled as knowledge translation, quality improvement, service improvement, program implementation, or systems change. Instead, eligibility will depend on whether the study includes an explicit empirical implementation focus according to the criteria above. Studies that assess only clinical or public health effectiveness, with no implementation aim, data, or analytic component, will be excluded.

2.2.3 Context

We will include studies conducted in any health or health-related setting involving Indigenous peoples, communities, organizations, or services. Eligible settings may include Indigenous-led or mainstream primary care services, hospitals, community-based services, public health programs, social and outreach services, and cross-sector settings such as schools or justice settings when the intervention or program has an explicit health objective.

To align with the focus on Indigenous-led and partnered implementation science, eligible studies must report at least one explicit form of Indigenous involvement in the implementation effort or the study itself, such as Indigenous leadership, Indigenous governance, formal partnership with an Indigenous community or organization, co-design, co-creation, or Indigenous advisory structures. Studies involving Indigenous participants but reporting no Indigenous community, organizational, governance, or partnership component will be excluded.

2.2.4 Study design and types of sources

Any empirical study design will be eligible, including quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods, and case study designs, provided that the implementation focus criterion is met. Eligible sources will be full-text empirical studies published in peer-reviewed journals or as grey literature (such as government or organizational reports) with identifiable methods and results. Conference abstracts, blogs and other non-methodological sources will be excluded. Opinion pieces, commentaries and narrative discussions will also be excluded from data charting, although relevant reviews may be retrieved to identify additional primary studies through reference-list screening.

2.2.5 Other restrictions

There will be no restrictions on language and year of publication; all eligible studies published to date will be considered.

 2.3 Search strategy and information sources

The search strategy will be developed in collaboration with an experienced health sciences information specialist following the PRISMA extension for literature searches (PRISMA-S). 21 The electronic search strategy will be peer reviewed by a second information specialist using the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) 2015 guideline. 22

Following JBI guidance, we will use an iterative, multi-step approach to searching. First, an initial limited search will be undertaken in MEDLINE and CINAHL to identify relevant articles and to analyze text words in titles and abstracts, as well as controlled vocabulary terms used to describe the topic. These terms will then be used to develop a comprehensive search strategy tailored to each information source. The final search strategy will combine terms related to 1 : Indigenous Peoples and communities globally 2 ; implementation science and related concepts; and 3 health or health-related programs, services, or systems. Because implementation science terminology is heterogeneous, the search will intentionally include a broad range of related terms, such as implementation, dissemination, uptake, adoption, scale-up, sustainability, knowledge translation, hybrid designs, process evaluation, fidelity, adaptation, and barriers and facilitators. Terms related to quality improvement or knowledge translation may be included at the search stage to maximize sensitivity, but eligibility will ultimately depend on whether the study has an explicit implementation science focus according to the review criteria.

Electronic searches will be conducted from database inception to the date of the final search in the following bibliographic databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), PsycINFO (Ovid or EBSCOhost), Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, and Global Health. Additional databases may be added during strategy development if they are judged likely to improve coverage of Indigenous health or implementation science literature. No limits will be applied for year of publication or language. Where potentially eligible reports are published in languages not spoken by the review team, translation support will be sought where feasible.

To capture evidence not indexed in bibliographic databases, we will also undertake a structured grey literature search. This will be informed by CADTH’s Grey Matters tool. 23 Grey literature sources will include targeted searches of government and health system websites, Indigenous organizations and networks, research institutes, funding agencies, and other relevant organizational websites from countries and regions where Indigenous health research is prominent. We will also use Google Advanced Search and screen a predefined number of results for each targeted search string, documenting the search date, search terms, website, and number of records screened to enhance transparency and reproducibility. Indigenous co-authors and collaborators will also be invited to suggest additional organizational reports, project documents, or other non-indexed sources that may be relevant to the review.

To ensure comprehensiveness, we will hand-search the reference lists of all included studies and of relevant reviews, and we will conduct forward citation searching of key included papers where feasible. If needed, we will contact study authors to clarify publication details or identify related reports. A draft full search strategy for at least one database is available upon request, and all searches will be documented in sufficient detail to permit replication. If there is a substantial delay between the original search and submission of the completed review, the searches will be updated prior to final manuscript submission.

 2.4 Study selection

All records identified through database and grey literature searches will first be imported into a citation management program, where duplicate entries will be removed. The study selection process will occur in two stages: title and abstract screening, followed by full-text screening. In the first stage, two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts against the pre-specified eligibility criteria for population, concept, context, study design and other restrictions. Studies that clearly do not meet the inclusion criteria will be excluded at this stage, while any record that appears potentially relevant, or for which eligibility is unclear, will be retained for full-text review.

In the second stage, the same two reviewers will independently assess the full text of all retained articles to determine final inclusion. Reasons for exclusion at the full-text stage (for example, not involving Indigenous populations, no explicit implementation focus, non-health context, or non-empirical design) will be documented. For all review stages, discrepancies between reviewers will be resolved through discussion; if consensus cannot be reached, a third reviewer from the research team will adjudicate. Where necessary, we will contact authors to clarify aspects of the study relevant to eligibility (such as whether the work is framed as implementation science or the nature of the population involved). The overall study selection process and numbers of records at each stage will be summarized in a flow diagram consistent with PRISMA-ScR guidance.

 2.5 Data extraction

Data from included records will be extracted by two independent reviewers using a data extraction tool developed specifically for this review. The tool will be designed to capture details related to the descriptive characteristics of each study, the methodological and conceptual features, the contextual and Indigenous governance aspects and the main implementation-related findings.

For each included record, we will extract information such as the year of publication, the country or countries where the study took place, the Indigenous population(s) involved, the stated aims or research questions, the health area or topic addressed and, where available, the cultural background of the first author. Methodological information will include the study design, any theories, models or frameworks (TMFs) used, whether these TMFs are Indigenous, Western or combined, the methods of data collection and analysis and, where applicable, a brief description of the intervention or implementation strategy under study.

We will also collect contextual information on the settings in which the study was conducted, including whether the setting is community-based, primary care, hospital-based, public health or another health service context; which Indigenous communities, nations or groups were involved; and the number and characteristics of participants where this is reported. We will classify the type of program or intervention (for example, prevention, screening, treatment, health promotion or systems-level change) based on the descriptions provided.

Because this review focuses on Indigenous implementation science, particular attention will be paid to Indigenous leadership, governance, and relational aspects of the work. We will therefore extract information on whether Indigenous leadership or partnership is reported, including whether the project is described as Indigenous-led, co-led or co-governed, guided by Indigenous advisory structures, community-engaged, consultative, or unclear/not reported. We will also extract information on data-governance and data-sovereignty practices, including any reference to OCAP ®, CARE, FAIR, Inuit research principles, Métis data-governance principles, or local data agreements. 24– 29

In addition, we will extract whether the publication explicitly reports Indigenous authorship, author positionality, or researcher reflexivity. Where relevant, we will record whether any authors explicitly self-identify as Indigenous in the publication or linked report; however, we will not infer author identity where this is not self-reported.

Finally, we will extract key findings related to implementation processes and outcomes, including reported strategies, determinants, barriers and enablers, as well as any information on implementation outcomes such as reach, adoption, fidelity, adaptation, sustainability or equity, where these are described. 30, 31 We will also record any explicit recommendations for practice, policy or future research that relate to implementation with Indigenous communities.

The extraction form will be piloted independently by two reviewers on an initial sample of five studies. Based on this piloting, the tool will be refined to improve clarity and consistency, and any changes will be documented.

 2.6 Planned analysis and synthesis

We will employ a descriptive and interpretive approach to analysis that is consistent with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Once data extraction is complete, we will collate the charted data in a master dataset and examine it for patterns across studies.

Quantitative and categorical variables (such as year of publication, country or region, health area, study design, type of setting, type of TMF and program focus) will be summarized using simple descriptive statistics, including counts and proportions. These summaries will allow us to map the distribution of Indigenous implementation science projects across regions, health topics, settings and methodological approaches, and to identify under-represented areas. Where appropriate, we will present these findings in summary tables and figures that visually depict the landscape (for example, by region, health area or type of implementation design).

For more qualitative and conceptual variables, such as how implementation science is defined, how Indigenous and Western TMFs are applied, the nature of partnership and governance arrangements, data-sovereignty practices, and reported barriers and enablers, we will use a reflective, iterative, thematic and content-analytic approach. The research team will review the extracted textual data to identify recurrent patterns and themes related to the operationalization of implementation science with Indigenous communities. These themes will be refined through discussion and will be interpreted with respectful consideration of Indigenous self-determination, equity, colonial impacts, and cultural awareness.

In synthesizing the findings, we will first provide a descriptive overview of the included studies and then organize the results around the key elements specified in our objectives: populations and settings, health areas and program types, implementation designs and TMFs, partnership and governance models, and ethical and data-sovereignty practices. We will highlight promising practices, common challenges and gaps in reporting, and we will interpret these in relation to current Indigenous and global implementation science agendas. The final narrative synthesis will emphasize implications for future research, capacity-building and policy, and will outline specific areas where further Indigenous-led, co-designed and strengths-based implementation studies are most needed.

 3. Indigenous partners and public involvement

Indigenous partners are central to this review. 32 Ideation and initial collaboration conversations were Indigenous-led, and each step is guided through Indigenous perspectives. Indigenous co-authors and collaborators will shape how we understand and explain what we find. They will comment on our search strategy and inclusion criteria; engage in the review process as possible; guide interpretation of the emerging patterns in the data; and co-develop the main messages and recommendations.

When the review is finished, we will look for ways to share the results in formats that are useful to Indigenous communities and organisations. This may include short, plain-language summaries, visual illustrations, online or in-person presentations, and practical tools building capacity in Indigenous-led implementation innovations, and action inspired decision-making shaping funding and policy.

 4. Timeline

We anticipate a total timeline of approximately twelve months from protocol finalisation to submission of the manuscript. However, we recognize that availability can change rapidly and wish to respect the schedules of local community members; therefore, the project timeline may shift slightly. Our current plan will be that in the first two months, we will finalise the protocol and eligibility criteria, develop and pilot the search strategy with an information specialist, run the database and grey literature searches, and remove duplicates. Months two and three will focus on title and abstract screening and full-text retrieval. Data extraction will be conducted between months three and six, in parallel with iterative refinement of the extraction tool and preliminary mapping of the evidence. During months seven to ten, we will complete the descriptive and thematic synthesis, draft the results and discussion, and circulate these drafts to Indigenous co-authors and the broader team for feedback and refinement. In the final two months, we will finalise the manuscript, select and format a target journal, and submit the article, while concurrently preparing tailored summaries and presentations for Indigenous partners, policy audiences, and implementation science networks.

 5. Dissemination

Because this review involves analysis of published and publicly available documents and does not involve primary data collection from individuals, research ethics board review is not required under local institutional policy. Nevertheless, the conduct and reporting of the review will be guided by principles consistent with Indigenous self-determination, respectful community representation, and Indigenous data sovereignty. This includes careful attention to how communities, knowledges, partnerships, and governance arrangements are described, and co-interpretation of findings with Indigenous collaborators wherever feasible. 33

Key messages will be shared with Indigenous health organisations, Indigenous community partners, and policy networks linked to members of the author team, and we will explore ways to integrate the results into ongoing and planned research programs, funding applications, and methodological guidance on Indigenous implementation science. Findings will also be disseminated through presentations at relevant conferences and meetings focused on implementation science and Indigenous health and submission to a peer-reviewed journal. Where appropriate, we will develop plain-language summaries, visual infographics, and other accessible materials to support knowledge sharing with those who may wish to apply or adapt the insights from this review in their own contexts. 34

Ethics and consent

Ethical approval and consent were not required.

 Data availability statement

This is a review protocol and is not linked to or requires any data.

 References Oetzel J Scott N Hudson M : Implementation framework for chronic disease intervention effectiveness in Maori and other indigenous communities. Glob Health. 2017;13:69. 10.1186/s12992-017-0295-8 Redman-MacLaren M Turner (Anmatyerre/Jaru) NN Taylor J : Respect Is Central: A Critical Review of Implementation Frameworks for Continuous Quality Improvement in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Primary Health Care Services. Front Public Health. 2021;9:630611. 34336752 10.3389/fpubh.2021.630611 PMC8322579 D'Aprano A Carmody S Manahan E : A rapid review of implementation frameworks underpinning Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children's health and social care programs. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2023;47:100063. 10.1016/j.anzjph.2023.100063 Harding T Oetzel J : Implementation effectiveness of health interventions for indigenous communities: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2019;14:76. 31382994 10.1186/s13012-019-0920-4 PMC6683565 Fontaine G Taylor N Bruneau J : The urgent need for implementation science to achieve hepatitis C elimination. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025;10:498–502. 40054488 10.1016/S2468-1253(25)00050-0 Morton Ninomiya ME Maddox R Brascoupé S : Knowledge translation approaches and practices in Indigenous health research: A systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2022;301:114898. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114898 Fontaine G Mooney M Porat-Dahlerbruch J : Advancing the selection of implementation science theories, models, and frameworks: a scoping review and the development of the SELECT-IT meta-framework. Implement Sci. 2025;20:24. 40437531 10.1186/s13012-025-01436-5 PMC12117738 Kemp CG White L Haroz EE : Towards a decolonising implementation science: principles from Indigenous leadership. Lancet Glob Health. 2026;14:e296–e301. 10.1016/S2214-109X(25)00469-3 Lin CY Loyola-Sanchez A Boyling E : Community engagement approaches for Indigenous health research: recommendations based on an integrative review. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e039736. 33247010 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039736 PMC7703446 Gerrard J Godwin S Whiteley K : Co-design in healthcare with and for First Nations Peoples of the land now known as Australia: a narrative review. Int J Equity Health. 2025;24:2. 10.1186/s12939-024-02358-2 Bryant J Bolt R Botfield JR : Beyond deficit: 'strengths-based approaches' in Indigenous health research. Sociol Health Illn. 2021;43:1405–1421. 34145599 10.1111/1467-9566.13311 O'Keefe VM O'Keefe VM Maudrie TL : Conceptualizing Indigenous strengths-based health and wellness research using group concept mapping. Arch Public Health. 2023;81:71. 10.1186/s13690-023-01066-7 Peters MDJ : Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) manual for evidence synthesis. Aromataris E Munn Z , editors. JBI;2020. Peters MDJ Marnie C Tricco AC : Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18:2119–2126. 10.11124/JBIES-20-00167 Arksey H O'Malley L : Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005;8:19–32. 10.1080/1364557032000119616 Levac D Colquhoun H O'Brien KK : Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science. 2010;5:69. 20854677 10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 PMC2954944 Tricco AC Lillie E Zarin W : PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467–473. 10.7326/M18-0850 United Nations: United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. 2007. Curran GM Bauer M Mittman B : Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact. Med Care. 2012;50:217–226. 22310560 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182408812 PMC3731143 Moore GF Audrey S Barker M : Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2015;350:h1258. 25791983 10.1136/bmj.h1258 PMC4366184 Rethlefsen ML Kirtley S Waffenschmidt S : PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. J Med Libr Assoc. 2021;109:174–200. 34285662 10.5195/jmla.2021.962 PMC8270366 McGowan J Sampson M Salzwedel DM : PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40–46. 27005575 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021 CADTH: Grey Matters: a practical tool for searching health-related grey literature. 2018. Carroll S Garba I Figueroa-Rodríguez O : The CARE principles for indigenous data governance. Data Sci J. 2020;19. Reference Source Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami: National Inuit strategy on research. Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami;2018. Burt J Street C Naveed J : Public Trust, Literacy and Health Data Foundations in Canada. 2025. Wilkinson MD Dumontier M Aalbersberg IJJ : The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data. 2016;3:160018. 10.1038/sdata.2016.18 The First Nations Information Governance Centre: Ownership, Control, Access and Possession (OCAP™): The Path to First Nations Information Governance. Ottawa, Canada: The First Nations Information Governance Centre;2014. Henry R Gabel C Tait C : Promoting self-determined Indigenous data governance in Canada: the Metis Health Research and Data Governance Principles. Health Promot Int. 2026;41. 10.1093/heapro/daaf229 Proctor E Silmere H Raghavan R : Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38:65–76. 20957426 10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7 PMC3068522 Glasgow RE Harden SM Gaglio B : RE-AIM Planning and Evaluation Framework: Adapting to New Science and Practice With a 20-Year Review. Front Public Health. 2019;7:64. 30984733 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00064 PMC6450067 Pollock D Alexander L Munn Z : Moving from consultation to co-creation with knowledge users in scoping reviews: guidance from the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group. JBI Evid Synth. 2022;20:969–979. 10.11124/JBIES-21-00416 Kennedy Wiradjuri M Kennedy (Wiradjuri) M Ninomiya MM : Knowledge translation in Indigenous health research: voices from the field. Med J Aust. 2024;221:61–67. 10.5694/mja2.52357 Cooper EJ Driedger SM : Creative, strengths-based approaches to knowledge translation within indigenous health research. Public Health. 2018;163:61–66. 30098469 10.1016/j.puhe.2018.06.020 10.5256/f1000research.198051.r485215 Reviewer response for version 1 White Lauren 1 Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2752-9743 University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 2 6 2026 Copyright: © 2026 White L 2026 This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. recommendation approve-with-reservations

This paper represents a protocol for a global scoping review mapping how implementation science is being applied with, by, and in partnership with Indigenous peoples, communities, and organizations across health settings. The protocol is guided by the JBI methodology, will be reported per PRISMA-ScR guidelines, and is registered with the Open Science Frameworks. It is an iterative multi-database search complemented by a structured grey literature search, dual independent screening and extraction, and a descriptive plus thematic synthesis. A distinctive and welcome feature is the explicit centering of Indigenous leadership, governance, data sovereignty, and Indigenous co-authorship throughout the design, conduct, and dissemination of the review. This is a timely, well-scoped, and methodologically sound protocol that addresses a clear and important gap: although implementation science has matured rapidly, its theoretical frameworks, models, and strategies have largely been developed in non-Indigenous contexts and are seldom adapted, evaluated, or co-produced with Indigenous communities. This is a highly important study and I am glad to see it planned!

Major revisions

Please add a brief reflexivity and positionality statement describing the review team’s relationships to Indigenous communities, implementation science, and the topic of the review. This would strengthen transparency and align well with the protocol’s emphasis on Indigenous governance and leadership.

Assessing cultural background of first author--How will the unknown or not stated be reported? What about for communities which prefer not to be named, how will you assess that?

The range of Indigenous communities globally is very broad, yet Indigenous health scholarship often centers a small number of settler-colonial countries, including New Zealand, the United States, Canada, Australia, and Norway/Sweden. Are there frameworks, guidelines, or other approaches for assessing Indigenous community involvement that come from less frequently represented contexts, particularly more extractive-colonial states?

Please provide a brief decision rule or worked examples that distinguish (i) Indigenous-led, (ii) Indigenous-partnered, and (iii) Indigenous-consulted studies, and state how borderline cases (e.g., advisory groups convened only for ethics approval) will be handled at screening.

The protocol states that thematic and content analysis will be conducted and that Indigenous partners will shape interpretation and dissemination. Please add operational detail: at what stages will Indigenous partners review preliminary themes? Will their their input is treated as confirmatory, generative, or holding interpretive primacy in particular domains?

Translation of non-English records is described as occurring ‘where feasible’. Please specify the threshold (e.g., translation via Google Translate for screening, professional translation for included studies) .

 Minor revisions

Consider stating explicitly that risk-of-bias / methodological quality appraisal is not planned, with a one-sentence justification consistent with JBI guidance — this is implied but not stated.

Section 2.6 — the planned descriptive statistics are appropriate; please confirm whether mapping against an implementation science TMF (e.g., CFIR, ERIC, RE-AIM) will be a deductive layer of the analysis or whether categorization will be inductive only.

Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes

Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Reviewer Expertise:

Indigenous Implementation Science, Community Based Participatory Research, Mental Health, Prevention Science, Strength-Based Approaches, Social Determinants of Health

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.