IntroductionCodesign is an emerging research method to enhance intervention development by actively engaging non-researchers (eg, people who have had a stroke, caregivers and clinicians) in research. The involvement of non-researchers in research is becoming increasingly popular within health studies as it may produce more relevant and effective findings. The stroke population commonly exhibits challenges such as aphasia and cognitive changes that may limit their participation in codesign. However, the use of codesign within the stroke literature has not been comprehensively reviewed. This scoping review will determine: (1) what is the extent, range and nature of stroke research that has used codesign methods? (2) What codesign methods have been used to develop stroke interventions? (3) What considerations for codesigning interventions with people who have stroke are not captured in the findings?Methods and analysisThis is a protocol for a scoping review to identify the literature relating to stroke, and codesign will be conducted on OVID Medline, OVID Embase, OVID PsychINFO, EBSCO CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, PEDro-Physiotherapy Evidence Database and Global Index Medicus. Studies of any design and publication date will be included. Title and abstract and full-text review will be conducted independently by two reviewers. Data will be extracted, collated and then summarised descriptively using quantitative (eg, numerical descriptions) and qualitative (eg, textual descriptions) methods. Numerical summaries will map the extent (eg, number of studies), range (eg, types of studies) and nature (eg, types of interventions developed) of the literature on this topic. A thematic analysis will provide insights into the codesign methods (eg, activities, non-researchers), including heterogeneity across and within studies.Ethics and disseminationThis review protocol does not require ethics approval as data has not been collected/analysed. The findings will highlight opportunities and recommendations to inform future codesign research in stroke and other populations who exhibit similar challenges/disabilities, and they will be disseminated via publications, presentations and stakeholder meetings.Trial registration numberregistrationOpen Science Framework: 10.17605/OSF.IO/NSD2W.

IntroductionChronic conditions and stroke disproportionately affect black adults in communities all around the world partly due to patterns of systemic racism, disparities in care, and lack of resources. Culturally tailored programmes can potentially meet the needs of the communities they serve, including black adults who may experience reduced access to postacute services. To address unequal care received by black communities, a shift to community-based programmes that deliver culturally tailored programmes may give an alternative to a healthcare model which reinforces health inequities. The objectives of this review are to: (1) synthesise key programme characteristics and outcomes of culturally tailored community-based (CBCT) programmes that are designed to improve health outcomes in black adults with cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, or stroke and (2) identify which of the five categories of culturally appropriate programmes from Kreuter and colleagues have been used to implement CBCT programmes.Methods and analysisThis is a protocol for a systematic review that will search Medline, Embase and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases to identify studies of CBCT programmes for black adults with cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, or stroke between 2000 and 2021. Two reviewers will assess each study based on the inclusion criteria and any disagreements will be resolved by a third reviewer. Data will be extracted using a customised data extraction form to identify programme characteristics and the strategies used to develop culturally appropriate programmes. AMSTAR will be used to evaluate the articles included in the study. The aggregated data will be presented through textual descriptions of programme characteristics and outcomes.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review protocol does not require ethics approval without the inclusion of human participants and will use studies that have previously obtained informed consent. The systematic review findings will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and used to inform future research led by JF and HS.Trial registration numberPROSPERO CRD42021245772.

No abstract