This study aims to map existing literature describing how people with lived experience of self-harm have engaged in codesigning self-harm interventions, understand barriers and facilitators to this engagement, and how the meaningfulness of codesign has been evaluated.

Scoping review by Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. A protocol was published online (http://dx.doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/P52UD).

PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PROSPERO, ClinicalTrials.gov and relevant websites were searched on 24 December 2022 (repeated 4 November 2023).

We included studies where individuals with lived experience of self-harm (first-hand or caregiver) have codesigned self-harm interventions.

Results were screened at title and abstract level, then full-text level by two researchers independently. Prespecified data were extracted, charted and sorted into themes.

We included 22 codesigned interventions across mobile health, educational settings, prisons and emergency departments. Involvement varied from designing content to multistage involvement in planning, delivery and dissemination. Included papers described the contribution of 159 female, 39 male and 21 transgender or gender diverse codesigners. Few studies included contributors from a minoritised ethnic or LGBTQIA+ group. Six studies evaluated how meaningfully people with lived experience were engaged in codesign: by documenting the impact of contributions on intervention design or through postdesign reflections. Barriers included difficulties recruiting inclusively, making time for meaningful engagement in stretched services and safeguarding concerns for codesigners. Explicit processes for ensuring safety and well-being, flexible schedules, and adequate funding facilitated codesign.

To realise the potential of codesign to improve self-harm interventions, people with lived experience must be representative of those who use services. This requires processes that reassure potential contributors and referrers that codesigners will be safeguarded, remunerated, and their contributions used and valued.

Spinal orthosis is a common conservative treatment for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), and a large body of compelling evidence from systemic review studies strongly supports the use of spinal orthosis treatment in patients with this condition. To further improve our understanding of the available data, the aim of this study is to develop and propose a protocol for a scoping review of systematic reviews of studies that investigated the effectiveness of orthotic treatment in patients with AIS. Systematic synthesis and understanding of the data will improve the efficacy of spinal orthosis treatment in this patient population.

Using the scoping review methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O’Malley in 2005, we developed and herewith propose a scoping review protocol to evaluate systematic reviews of studies that investigated the effectiveness of orthotic treatment in AIS. Our proposed scoping review proposal is briefly described, as follows. A search of seven online databases will be conducted to identify systematic reviews published in English language from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2023, and grey literature and reference lists of included articles will also be searched. A two-stage screening process consisting of a title and abstract screening and a full-text review will be used to determine articles’ eligibility. All eligible articles will be extracted, charted and evaluated using Assessing the MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews Version 2 (AMSTAR-2) critical appraisal tool. The charted data will be quantitatively analysed and summarised, and qualitatively analysed using narrative synthesis.

No primary data will be collected; therefore, ethics approval is not required. Findings will be disseminated through national and international conferences and publication in a peer-reviewed journal.