Early evidence on COVID-19 vaccine efficacy came from randomised trials. Many important questions subsequently about vaccine effectiveness (VE) have been addressed using real-world studies (RWS) and have informed most vaccination policies globally. As the questions about VE have evolved during the pandemic so have data, study design, and analytical choices. This scoping review aims to characterise this evolution and provide insights for future pandemic planning—specifically, what kinds of questions are asked at different stages of a pandemic, and what data infrastructure and methods are used?

We will identify relevant studies in the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health VIEW-hub database, which curates both published and preprint VE RWS identified from PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, the WHO COVID Database, MMWR, Eurosurveillance, medRxiv, bioRxiv, SSRN, Europe PMC, Research Square, Knowledge Hub, and Google. We will include RWS of COVID-19 VE that reported COVID-19-specific or all-cause mortality (coded as ‘death’ in the ‘effectiveness studies’ data set).

Information on study characteristics; study context; data sources; design and analytic methods that address confounding will be extracted by single reviewer and checked for accuracy and discussed in a small group setting by methodological and analytic experts. A timeline mapping approach will be used to capture the evolution of this body of literature.

By describing the evolution of RWS of VE through the COVID-19 pandemic, we will help identify options for VE studies and inform policy makers on the minimal data and analytic infrastructure needed to support rapid RWS of VE in future pandemics and of healthcare strategies more broadly.

As data is in the public domain, ethical approval is not required. Findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, and working-papers to policy makers.

https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ZHDKR

Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are integral to oncology management, involving specialised healthcare professionals who collaborate to develop individualised treatment plans for patients. However, as cancer care grows more complex, MDTs must continually adapt to better address patient needs. This scoping review will explore barriers and challenges MDTs have encountered in the past decade; and propose strategies for optimising their utilisation to overcome these obstacles and improve patient care.

The scoping review will follow Arksey and O’Malley’s framework and begin with a literature search using keywords in electronic databases such as PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus and PsychINFO, covering the period from January 2013 to December 2022 and limited to English language publications. Four independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts based on predefined inclusion criteria, followed by full-text review of selected titles. Relevant references cited in the publications will also be examined. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram will be utilised to illustrate the methodology. Data from selected publications will be extracted, analysed, and categorised for further analysis.

The results of the scoping review will provide a comprehensive overview of the barriers and challenges encountered by oncology MDTs over the past decade. These findings will contribute to the existing literature and provide insights into areas that require improvement in the functioning of MDTs in oncology management. The results will be disseminated through publication in a scientific journal, which will help to share the findings with the wider healthcare community and facilitate further research and discussion in this field.

The protocol for this scoping review is registered with Open Science Framework, available at DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/R3Y8U.