Understanding human mobility’s role in malaria transmission is critical to successful control and elimination. However, common approaches to measuring mobility are ill-equipped for remote regions such as the Amazon. This study develops a network survey to quantify the effect of community connectivity and mobility on malaria transmission.

We measure community connectivity across the study area using a respondent driven sampling design among key informants who are at least 18 years of age. 45 initial communities will be selected: 10 in Brazil, 10 in Ecuador and 25 in Peru. Participants will be recruited in each initial node and administered a survey to obtain data on each community’s mobility patterns. Survey responses will be ranked and the 2–3 most connected communities will then be selected and surveyed. This process will be repeated for a third round of data collection. Community network matrices will be linked with each country’s malaria surveillance system to test the effects of mobility on disease risk.

This study protocol has been approved by the institutional review boards of Duke University (USA), Universidad San Francisco de Quito (Ecuador), Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia (Peru) and Universidade Federal Minas Gerais (Brazil). Results will be disseminated in communities by the end of the study.

Decision coaching is a non-directive approach to support patients to prepare for making health decisions. It is used to facilitate patients’ involvement in informed values-based decision-making and use of evidence-based health information. A recent systematic review revealed low certainty evidence for its effectiveness with and without evidence-based information. However, there may be opportunities to improve the study and use of decision coaching in clinical practice by systematically investigating its determinants of practice. We aim to conduct a systematic review to identify and synthesise the determinants of practice for providing decision coaching to facilitate patient involvement in decision-making from multiple perspectives that influence its use.

We will conduct a mixed-methods systematic review guided by the Cochrane’ Handbook of Systematic Reviews. We will include studies reporting determinants of practice influencing decision coaching with or without evidence-based patient information with adults making a health decision for themselves or a family member. Systematic literature searches will be conducted in Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and PsycINFO via Ovid and CINAHL via EBSCO including quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods study designs. Additionally, experts in the field will be contacted.

Two reviewers will independently screen and extract data. We will synthesise determinants using deductive and inductive qualitative content analysis and a coding frame developed specifically for this review based on a taxonomy of barriers and enablers of shared decision-making mapped onto the major domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We will assess the quality of included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

Ethical approval is not required as this systematic review involves only previously published literature. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at scientific conferences and disseminated to relevant consumer groups.

CRD42022338299.