Abstract
Solid organ transplantation treats end-stage organ failure, improving longevity and quality of life. Return to work post-transplant is a positive indicator of treatment success. However, labor is influenced by multiple biopsychosocial factors, leading to complex barriers that affect recipients’ opportunities. Mapping return-to-work literature may reveal gaps in conceptualization, instruments, analyses, and key determinants. Following Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, this protocol aims to identify knowledge gaps and map the processes and outcomes in the literature on return to work after liver, kidney, heart, and lung transplantation. Following the Population, Concept, and Context strategy, this review is guided by the research question: “What has the literature shown about return to work after solid organ transplantation?”. This protocol was created and recorded on the Open Science Framework under DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/Q6HVT. Database selection and search strategy were determined by a librarian specializing in health sciences. The literature search will be conducted in PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, LILACS, and Web of Science databases. Eligible studies include primary and secondary research, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, clinical trials, case studies, and observational studies on return-to-work post-transplant, in English or Portuguese, with no time restrictions. Two reviewers will independently perform the selection and data extraction. Discrepancies will be resolved through consensus, with a third researcher addressing conflicts. The data will be extracted using a standardized form developed for this review to collect key details about the studies’ origin, context, purpose, content, population, and variables related to the return-to-work process. These data will be synthesized following Synthesis Without Meta Analysis guidelines and summarized narratively using tables, graphs, thematic analysis, and, if feasible, a meta-analysis will be conducted. This scoping review protocol relies solely on publicly available data and does not involve human participants, so institutional review board approval was unnecessary. Ethical aspects of included studies will be assessed in our analysis.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Yes
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
We would like to emphasize that our manuscript describes a scoping review protocol. As such, our study does not involve direct research with human participants. Instead, our research will be conducted using publicly available sources accessible on the web. Given the nature of our study, IRB approval was not sought for the following reasons: 1. Nature of the Study: Our scoping review protocol outlines a methodology for synthesizing and analyzing existing published literature and publicly available data. It does not involve primary data collection from human subjects. 2. No Human Participants: Our study does not involve direct interaction with human participants, collection of personal data, or access to private information. We will be working exclusively with previously published, publicly available information. 3. Ethical Considerations: While we did not seek IRB approval for our scoping review protocol, we are committed to conducting our research with the highest ethical standards. We will critically assess and report on the ethical considerations of the studies we review as part of our analysis. 4. Compliance with PLOS ONE Guidelines: We have carefully reviewed the PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research at the provided link. Our understanding is that these requirements primarily apply to studies involving direct human participation, which is not applicable to our scoping review protocol.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵& JCA are senior authors on this work.
Data Availability
No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.
