Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol

Student Carers in Higher Education... | HRB Open Research dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); const cookieDomain = window.location.hostname; const tld = buildTLD(); function buildTLD() { const domainParts = cookieDomain.split('.'); while (domainParts.length > 2) { domainParts.shift(); } return domainParts.join('.'); } function deleteCookie(cookieName) { if (!cookieName) { return; } const cookiePath = (cookieName.startsWith('retraction_warning_') || cookieName.startsWith('version_warning_')) ? '/articles/' + cookieName : '/'; // Yes, these three slightly different ways to try and remove cookies are necessary document.cookie = cookieName + '=; path=' + cookiePath + '; domain=' + cookieDomain + '; expires=Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:01 GMT;'; document.cookie = cookieName + '=; path=' + cookiePath + '; domain=.' + tld + '; expires=Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:01 GMT;'; document.cookie = cookieName + '=; path=' + cookiePath + '; expires=Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:01 GMT;'; } function deleteGroupCookies(group) { if (!group) { return; } const domainData = OneTrust.GetDomainData(), cookies = domainData.Groups.filter(cookieGroup => cookieGroup.OptanonGroupId === group)[0].Cookies; cookies.forEach(cookie => deleteCookie(cookie.Name)); } function OptanonWrapper() { const cookieConsentGroups = []; for (group of OneTrust.GetDomainData().Groups) { cookieConsentGroups.push(group.OptanonGroupId); } OneTrust.OnConsentChanged(function(e) { const cookieConsentActiveGroups = OnetrustActiveGroups.split(',').filter(activeGroup => activeGroup); cookieConsentGroups.forEach(group => { if (!cookieConsentActiveGroups.includes(group)) { deleteGroupCookies(group); }; }); }); } window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://hrbopenresearch.org/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'HRB'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); Skip to content HRB Open Research file_upload Submit your research search clear search menu close clear Search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Data Guidelines Prepublication Checks Production Process Article Processing Charges Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers National Steering Group Policies Glossary FAQs Contact Blog My Account Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-9" }, "headline": "Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol", "datePublished": "2025-01-23T16:32:39", "dateModified": "2025-01-23T16:32:39", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Maria Pierce" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Andrew Darley" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Attracta Lafferty" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "HRB Open Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://hrbopenresearch.org/img/AMP/HRB_image.png", "height": 566, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://hrbopenresearch.org/img/AMP/HRB_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 127 }, "description": "Student carers in higher education institutions (HEIs) is an emerging policy issue in many countries. Researchers have sought to synthesise the literature on student carers in HEIs. Runacres et al. (2024) conducted a scoping review, which included 14 studies, and Knopf et al. (2022) conducted a systematic review of university students who are caring for an older adult, which included six studies. These reviews identified some key themes discussed in the literature. However, there are further areas of discussion that have yet to be explored in the evidence to date. This observation is in the context of a growing body of international literature published on the topic and the greater visibility of family carers post-pandemic. One key area yet to be examined is the policy and practice responses to student carers in HEIs in different countries. The scope of this review will be broader than previous reviews with a specific focus on policy and practice responses regarding this population. This scoping review will: examine definitional issues concerning student carers in HEIs; summarise studies from different countries that provide estimates of the number of student carers in HEIs; identify theoretical perspectives and concepts underpinning research on this topic; and assess the available evidence on the value and outcomes of supports. The 5-stage methodological framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) will be used to guide this scoping review, as described in detail in this protocol. The findings of the scoping review will be used to inform the enhancement of supports for student carers in HEIs. A range of vehicles will be used to disseminate the findings, including conference presentations, publication in an international peer-reviewed journal, and preparation of a policy brief to disseminate the findings of this scoping review to policymakers and other relevant stakeholders." } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://hrbopenresearch.org/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://hrbopenresearch.org/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-9/v1", "name": "Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review..." } } ] } Home Browse Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Pierce M, Darley A and Lafferty A. Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :9 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14047.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Study Protocol Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] Maria Pierce https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9469-0038 1 , Andrew Darley https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4256-0044 2 , Attracta Lafferty https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4042-9592 2 Maria Pierce https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9469-0038 1 , Andrew Darley https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4256-0044 2 , Attracta Lafferty https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4042-9592 2 PUBLISHED 23 Jan 2025 Author details Author details 1 Applied Social Studies, Maynooth University, Maynooth, County Kildare, Ireland 2 University College Dublin School of Nursing Midwifery and Health Systems, Dublin, Leinster, Ireland Maria Pierce Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Andrew Darley Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Attracta Lafferty Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS Abstract Student carers in higher education institutions (HEIs) is an emerging policy issue in many countries. Researchers have sought to synthesise the literature on student carers in HEIs. Runacres et al. (2024) conducted a scoping review, which included 14 studies, and Knopf et al. (2022) conducted a systematic review of university students who are caring for an older adult, which included six studies. These reviews identified some key themes discussed in the literature. However, there are further areas of discussion that have yet to be explored in the evidence to date. This observation is in the context of a growing body of international literature published on the topic and the greater visibility of family carers post-pandemic. One key area yet to be examined is the policy and practice responses to student carers in HEIs in different countries. The scope of this review will be broader than previous reviews with a specific focus on policy and practice responses regarding this population. This scoping review will: examine definitional issues concerning student carers in HEIs; summarise studies from different countries that provide estimates of the number of student carers in HEIs; identify theoretical perspectives and concepts underpinning research on this topic; and assess the available evidence on the value and outcomes of supports. The 5-stage methodological framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) will be used to guide this scoping review, as described in detail in this protocol. The findings of the scoping review will be used to inform the enhancement of supports for student carers in HEIs. A range of vehicles will be used to disseminate the findings, including conference presentations, publication in an international peer-reviewed journal, and preparation of a policy brief to disseminate the findings of this scoping review to policymakers and other relevant stakeholders. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords family care, student carers, higher education institutions, policy Corresponding Author(s) Maria Pierce ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Maria Pierce Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2025 Pierce M et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Pierce M, Darley A and Lafferty A. Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :9 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14047.1 ) First published: 23 Jan 2025, 8 :9 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14047.1 ) Latest published: 23 Jan 2025, 8 :9 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14047.1 ) Introduction Background and rationale Student carers in higher education institutes (HEIs) can be defined as any student enrolled in a HEI ‘who cares, unpaid, for a friend or family member who due to illness, disability, a mental health problem or an addiction cannot cope without their support’ ( Carers Trust, 2015 : 7). There is a growing body of knowledge and evidence on student carers in HEIs. Researchers have sought to synthesise the literature. Runacres et al. (2024) undertook a scoping review to collate, synthesise and map key concepts across the literature. The review, which included 14 studies published up to early 2020, identified the following six themes: impact of caring on student health; impact on university performance, decisions and social life; finance and employment during higher education; impact on study and ability to care; formal supports; and informal supports. Knopf et al. (2022) conducted a systematic review of university students caring for an older adult, which included six studies published between 1998 and 2020. The review identified four core themes: student pathways into care; challenges entailed in reconciling the responsibilities of caregiving and studying; impacts of being a student carer and its implications for higher education; and support structures for caregiving students. There are some areas of discussion that have yet to be explored. As student carers in HEIs is an emerging policy issue in Ireland ( Pierce, 2024 ) and many other counties, the policy and practice responses to student carers in HEIs in different countries is one aspect that needs to be explored and synthesised. Since March 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic has contributed to making carers more visible, including those studying in HEIs. The situation and experience of student carers in HEIs post-pandemic is another aspect that needs to be explored. The body of international literature published on the topic has grown since May 2020 (e.g. Armstrong-Carter et al. , 2022 ; Chevrier et al. , 2023 ; Day, 2021 ; Haugland et al. , 2020 ; Munro et al. , 2024 ; Rawlinson, 2024 ; Taylor et al. , 2023 ; van der Werf et al. , 2023 ). As well as the need to examine policy and practice responses in different countries, there is a need to explore other aspects not covered by existing reviews. In this scoping review, the scope will be extended to examine definitional issues with respect to student carers in HEIs; summarise studies from different countries providing estimates of the prevalence of student carers in HEIs; identify theoretical perspectives and concepts underpinning research on this topic; examine policy responses to student carers in HEIs across different countries; and assess the available evidence on the value and outcomes of supports. The findings of the proposed scoping review will be used to inform the enhancement of supports for student carers in HEIs. A scoping review has been chosen for this evidence synthesis over other types of literature reviews. The reasons for this are that the review aims to address a broad question on this topic and examine the extent, range and nature of research studies on this topic. It seeks to include studies conducted on this topic using many different study designs, but it is not intended to assess the quality of included studies. Research aims and objectives The overall aim of the scoping review is to collate and synthesise what is known from the existing literature about student carers in HEIs. A key focus will be on the policy and practice responses to student carers in HEIs in different countries. The scoping review has several objectives, which are to identify: how student carers in HEIs are typically defined in policy, research and practice; what methodologies are used in research on student carers in HEIs; which theoretical perspectives and concepts underpin research students on student carers in HEIs; estimates of the prevalence of student carers in HEIs and methods used in producing these estimates; the main characteristics of student carers in HEIs; the main impacts of student caring in HEIs for students and staff; and the evidence that exists on approaches developed to identify and support student carers in HEIs. Larkin and Kubiak (2021: 142) propose adopting the term ‘caring-experienced students’ (not to be confused with care-experienced students) as it is inclusive of ‘students who are, become or have been a carer’ and recognises the several vulnerabilities that all these students are likely to experience. This scoping review adopts the term ‘caring-experienced students’ to mean students in HEIs who are, become or have been caring, unpaid, for a friend or family member who due to illness, disability, a mental health problem or an addiction cannot cope without support. In our use of the term, we include students who are caring for a sibling where a family member is experiencing a physical or mental health problem and students who are parents caring for a child with a chronic illness or mental health problem, but not caregiving for children more broadly. Methods The scoping review is informed by the methodological framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) , which proposes a five stage framework. Hence, the review process follows the following five stages: Stage 1: Identifying the research question Stage 2: Identifying relevant studies Stage 3: Study selection and screening Stage 4: Charting the data and data extraction Stage 5: Collating, summarising and reporting the results The approach that will be taken to each of these stages is outlined in greater detail below. A consultation exercise will not be conducted as part of the review, although consultation with a group of student carers or with access/support staff in HEIs will be considered for any future research projects on this topic. The authors used the guidance and template developed by Lely et al. (2023) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) ( Tricco et al. , 2018 ) for writing this scoping review protocol. The PRISMA ScR ( Tricco et al. , 2018 ) is the reporting guideline that will be used for writing the final scoping review manuscript. Stage 1: identifying the research question The first methodological stage when undertaking a scoping review is to determine the focus of the research questions ( Arksey & O’Malley, 2005 ). Following a preliminary review of the literature, the research team has identified an overall research question to guide the scoping review, as follows: What is known from the existing literature about student carers in higher education institutions, with a key focus on the policy and practice responses to student carers in different countries? The following research questions will also guide the scoping review: What definitions of student carers in HEIs are typically adopted? What estimates of the number/proportion of student carers in HEIs have been produced, and what methods are used for producing estimates? What are the main socio-demographic characteristics of student carers in HEIs? What theoretical perspectives and concepts underpin research studies on student carers in HEIs? What type of studies have been conducted and what methods have been used? What are the experiences and impacts of student caring in HEIs for students and staff? What evidence exists on approaches developed to identify and support student carers in HEIs? Stage 2: identifying relevant studies For the second stage of the scoping review, the authors will develop a search strategy for the purposes of identifying all relevant literature related to student carers in higher education. Relevant literature includes publications that have a principal focus on evidence regarding student carers attending higher level education. Sources of evidence will be peer-reviewed empirical studies (qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods), reviews, conference abstracts, book chapters as well as grey literature. The author team will use a three-step search strategy in this scoping review. This follows the recommendations by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Manual for Evidence Synthesis ( Peters et al. , 2020 ). First, the author team will conduct an initial search of two databases, i.e., Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA) and Education Resources Information Centre (ERIC). Second, they will conduct an analysis of the text words contained in the title and abstract of retrieved papers, and of the index terms used to describe the articles. The author team will use the ‘PCC’ mnemonic (i.e., population, concept and context) to frame the research question and the subsequent search. In the current review, this refers to: Population: Students who are attending higher level education while also providing unpaid care Concept: Caring for a family member while studying within higher level education Context: Higher Education Institutions The second step entailing a second search using all identified keywords and index terms will then be undertaken across all included databases. Search terms will focus on two core concepts: "students caring for a family member" and "higher education". Databases to be searched include MEDLINE, ERIC, PsycINFO, Cumulated Index in Nursing and Allied Health Literature. (CINAHL), ASSIA and the British Education Index. The search will also include synonyms and related terms to ensure comprehensive coverage. Boolean operators (AND, OR) and truncation (*) will be applied to refine the search. Based on this exploratory scoping phase, the search strings for each database will be finalised. Database searches are intended to commence in January 2025. The proposed search terms which will be used to develop the search strategy are listed in Table 1 . Table 1. Search terms. PCC Concept Search Terms Population Family “Famil*” OR "Family"[Mesh] OR “sibling*” OR "Siblings"[Mesh] OR “spous*” OR "Spouses"[Mesh] OR “relative*” OR “wife” OR “wives” OR “husband*” OR “partner*” OR “significant other” OR “next of kin” OR “kinship” OR “father” OR “mother” OR “daughter*” OR “son*” OR “child*” OR “brother*” OR “sister*” OR “informal” OR “unpaid” OR “non-professional*” OR “parent*” OR "Parents"[Mesh] AND Carer “Care*” OR “caregiver*” OR “care-giver*” OR “caregiving” OR “care-giving” OR “caring” OR “unpaid care*” OR “Family care” OR "Caregivers"[Mesh]) OR “eldercare” OR “elder-care” OR “elder care” Concept Student "student*" OR "Students"[Mesh] OR “young adult*” OR “Young Adult"[Mesh] OR “undergrad*” OR “postgrad*” OR “‘graduate” OR “graduand*” OR freshman* OR “sophomore*” OR “scholar*” OR “registrant*” OR “doctora*” OR “phd*” OR “master*” OR “College Senior*” OR “Two Year College Student*” Context Higher Education "higher education" OR "HEI" OR "university" OR "college" OR "tertiary education" OR "postsecondary education" OR “institut*” OR “education” OR “post-18 education” OR “third level” OR “higher level education” OR “academic institution*” OR "Education, Graduate"[Mesh] OR "Universities"[Mesh] The third step will involve hand searching of the reference lists of identified reports and articles to identify any additional sources. Where it is deemed necessary, the reviewers will contact authors of primary articles or reviews for further information. The reviewers will also undertake a search for grey material, such as unpublished work, conferences, reports, and website information. Each database search will combine terms related to both the student carer role and higher education institutions. Grey literature search will be also performed using the term ‘student carer’ in a range of education-related evidence sources and data-hubs linked to relevant family carer organisations such as The Carer’s Trust and Eurocarers. Additionally, the following key journals will be hand-searched to identify articles that have been missed through the electronic database search: International Journal of Inclusive Education; Journal of Further and Higher Education; Higher Education, Research & Development; International Journal of Care and Caring. The full search strategy for at least one of the major databases used will be included as an appendix to the scoping review manuscript ( Tricco et al. , 2018 ). Stage 3: study selection and screening Before commencing screening of the evidence found from the search strategy, the author team will discuss and decide on the inclusion criteria to ensure that all team members have a shared interpretation of the criteria. In line with the methodological guidance from Arksey and O’Malley (2005) , the final inclusion and exclusion criteria will be refined based on increasing familiarity with the body of literature and type of data available. The authors seek to restrict the synthesise to the last 25 years of evidence on this topic, because of the dearth of evidence prior to the year 2000, as highlighted by Runacres et al. (2024) . Table 2 presents the initial inclusion criteria for the scoping review. The full list of eligibility criteria (e.g., the search period, language, and publication status) and rationale will be provided in the scoping review manuscript ( Tricco et al. , 2018 ). Table 2. Inclusion criteria. Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria 1. Studies focusing on students in higher education with caregiving responsibilities. 2. Research on the impact of caregiving on students’ academic performance, well-being, institutional experiences or policy/practices. 3. Studies addressing interventions, support mechanisms, or policies aimed at student carers. 4. Research articles, reviews, conference abstracts, working papers, reports, books and book chapters. 5. Written in English (the language understood by the authors). 6. Published between 2000 and 2024. 1. Studies focusing solely on carers outside higher education (e.g., adult carers not in higher educational settings). 2. Research focusing on student carers in secondary or primary school. 3. Studies that do not include a clear focus on student caregiving or higher education institutions. 4. Not written in English. Once the searches have been completed within all relevant databases, retrieved articles will be imported into the reference management software, Endnote 21. To ensure that each study retrieved is not repeated, duplicate records will be identified and removed within Endnote. This will provide a more reliable final set of studies. For the purposes of screening of the retrieved literature, this set of articles will be imported into the systematic review software tool, Covidence ( www.covidence.org ). Using this software, the reviewers will conduct a final check to ensure that remaining duplicate studies have been identified and removed. Pilot-testing of the screening process will then be conducted using Covidence. This will involve selecting a random sample (e.g., n=25) of the articles retrieved. This will be followed by screening of each article, based on title and abstract, which will be conducted independently by two team members. The independent review is aimed at reducing screening bias. The purpose of the screening is to determine if an article is to be included or excluded and will use the pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Following the title and abstract screening, the included articles will be subjected to full-text screening, conducted independently by two reviewers. If a consensus regarding inclusion and exclusion is not reached between the two reviewers, this will be resolved by the decision of a third team member. The process of study selection will be reported using the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Once the review is completed, the reporting of this process will be updated and provided in the scoping review manuscript ( Tricco et al. , 2018 ). Stage 4: data charting/collection/extraction The author team will develop and agree on an Excel data extraction template and the extraction variations, and the studies retrieved through the search and screening process that meet the inclusion criteria will be inputted in the spreadsheet. The type of data that will be extracted will help to answer the scoping review’s overall research question and objectives. These include author(s), year of publication, country of publication, disciplinary background, definition of ‘student carer’, theoretical frameworks, study aims, study design, methods adopted, type of data collected, study population, and main findings. The rules for data extraction will be agreed by the author team and stored in a shared folder. The methods of charting, collecting and extracting data will be fully described in the scoping review manuscript ( Tricco et al. , 2018 ). Stage 5: collating, summarising and reporting the results The data extracted will be collated, synthesised and presented numerically and thematically in a meaningful way (e.g., using tables, figures, diagrams). A PRISMA flow diagram will be used to provide a visual overview, depicting the screening process and showing the number of sources of evidence reviewed, assessed for eligibility and included in the review, and the number excluded at each stage. The characteristics regarding the sources of evidence and results of individual sources of data will be presented ( Tricco et al. , 2018 ). Using reflexive thematic analysis, the paper will be summarised in a way that answers the scoping review’s research questions ( Braun & Clarke, 2019 ). For the purposes of validation, a second author team member will review and check the results. The limitations of the scoping review process will be reported ( Tricco et al. , 2018 ). Dissemination By summarising in detail the findings and range of research on the topic of student carers in HEIs, this scoping review will provide a mechanism for disseminating key research findings to a range of relevant stakeholders including policy makers, HEIs, student unions, community and voluntary sector organisations with an interest in family carers, and student carers, who might otherwise lack time or resources to undertake such work themselves. It is intended to present the findings at relevant conferences and to publish the findings of this scoping review in an international peer-reviewed journal, e.g. International Journal of Inclusive Education or Journal of Further and Higher Education. It is intended to prepare a policy brief to disseminate the findings of this scoping review to policymakers and other stakeholders. Conclusion The primary objective of this scoping review is to build on existing reviews of student carers in HEIs and address areas of discussion not yet covered. It will collate, summarise and map what is known from the existing literature about student carers in higher education institutions, with a particular focus on the policy and practice responses. Other areas to be addressed include: examining definitional issues with respect to student carers in HEIs; summarising studies from different countries providing available estimates of the number of students carers in HEIs; identifying theoretical perspectives and concepts underpinning research on this topic; and providing evidence that exists on approaches developed to identify and support student carers in HEIs. This scoping review will thus provide updated and valuable information for dissemination to a wide range of relevant stakeholders including policy makers and HEIs. Ethics Ethical approval is not required for this evidence synthesis study. Data availability No data are associated with this study. Extended data No extended data are associated with this study. Acknowledgements We would like to thank the University College Dublin Research Engagement Librarian, Diarmuid Stokes, for their support in refining the scoping review search terms. Faculty Opinions recommended References Arksey H, O'Malley L: Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005; 8 (1): 19–32. Publisher Full Text Armstrong-Carter E, Panter AT, Hutson B, et al. : A university-wide survey of caregiving students in the US: individual differences and associations with emotional and academic adjustment. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2022; 9 (1): 300. Publisher Full Text Braun V, Clarke V: Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Res Sport Exercise Health. 2019; 11 (4): 589–597. Publisher Full Text Carers Trust: Supporting students with caring responsibilities: ideas and practice for universities to help student carers access and succeed in Higher Education. London: Carers Trust, 2015. Reference Source Chevrier B, Untas A, Dorard G: Young adult caregivers in Higher Education: a study of prevalence in France. J Further High Educ. 2023; 47 (5): 699–710. Publisher Full Text Day C: An empirical case study of young adult carers' engagement and success in Higher Education. Int J Inclus Educ. 2021; 25 (14): 1597–1615. Publisher Full Text Haugland BSM, Hysing M, Sivertsen B: The burden of care: a national survey on the prevalence, demographic characteristics and health problems among Young Adult Carers attending Higher Education in Norway. Front Psychol. 2020; 10 : 2859. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Knopf L, Wazinski K, Wanka A, et al. : Caregiving students: a systematic literature review of an under-researched group. J Further High Educ. 2022; 46 (6): 822–835. Publisher Full Text Larkin M, Kubiak C: Carers and Higher Education: where next? Widen Participat Lifelong Learn. 2021; 23 (2): 130–151. Publisher Full Text Lely J, Morris HC, Sasson N, et al. : How to write a scoping review protocol: guidance and template. OSF , 2023. Publisher Full Text Munro D, Willis J, Gibson A, et al. : From inside the head to putting it on the table: supporting reflexive decision-making for unpaid female carers considering Higher Education. Reflect Pract. 2024; 25 (3): 426–440. Publisher Full Text Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, et al. : Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020; 18 (10): 2119–2126. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Pierce M: Student carers in Higher Education institutions in Ireland: an emerging policy issue. Dublin: UCD Geary Institute for Public Policy, 2024. Reference Source Rawlinson S: 'Little Islands': challenges and opportunities for student carers in Higher Education. Int J Inclus Educ. 2024; 1–16. Publisher Full Text Runacres J, Herron D, Buckless K, et al. : Student carer experiences of Higher Education and support: a scoping review. Int J Inclus Educ. 2024; 28 (7): 1275–1292. Publisher Full Text Taylor J, Gleeson P, Teague T, et al. : Practices of inclusion for carers who are Higher Education students. Int J Inclus Educ. 2023; 27 (13): 1469–1486. Publisher Full Text Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. : PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018; 169 (7): 467–473. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text van der Werf HM, Paans W, Francke AL, et al. : Identifying and supporting students with a chronically Ill family member: a mixed-methods study on the perceived competences and role views of lecturers. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023; 20 (6): 4978. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 23 Jan 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Applied Social Studies, Maynooth University, Maynooth, County Kildare, Ireland 2 University College Dublin School of Nursing Midwifery and Health Systems, Dublin, Leinster, Ireland Maria Pierce Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Andrew Darley Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Attracta Lafferty Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Article Versions (1) version 1 Published: 23 Jan 2025, 8:9 https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14047.1 Copyright © 2025 Pierce M et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics VIEWS $counts.viewCount downloads Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Pierce M, Darley A and Lafferty A. Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :9 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14047.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 23 Jan 2025 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Unwin P. Reviewer Report For: Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :9 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15424.r45954 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-9/v1#referee-response-45954 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 04 Mar 2025 Peter Unwin , University of Worcester, Worcester, UK Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15424.r45954 This is a well-written proposal on an important issue that has not been fully addressed by previous research. The structure flows well and it would appear that key extant literature is already known to the authors, who set out ... Continue reading READ ALL This is a well-written proposal on an important issue that has not been fully addressed by previous research. The structure flows well and it would appear that key extant literature is already known to the authors, who set out an ambitious project. It will be challenging to compare different countries' experiences, and to make reliable comparators. Contextual factors such as levels of fees / complexities in any 'carers' allowances' and percentages of 'study at home' / flexi studies in different disciplines will be very different across countries. Depending on how manageable the logistics appear, it might be worth narrowing the scope to specific disciplines which might allow for more validity comparisons to be drawn. For example, some disciplines ( history/ languages, literature) lend themselves more to flexi - hours whereas certain science subjects demand on-campus lab time and vocational courses such as nursing and social work have considerable placement demands, with very little in-built flexibility. It may , of course, be that the team find that the study foci of caring-experienced students reflect a tendency toward certain subjects. Another factor of interest, which might be a challenge too far, is to consider cohorts which became carers after their studies had commenced as compared to those who applied to HEIs when they were already carers. On a point of detail, I note the team's preference for the term 'caring-experienced students' but that the proposed research questions use the term 'student carers'. Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described? Yes Is the study design appropriate for the research question? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others? Yes Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Not applicable Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Voices of service users and carers in education -Marginalised groups - Social Inclusion- Disability I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Unwin P. Reviewer Report For: Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :9 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15424.r45954 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-9/v1#referee-response-45954 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 10 Sep 2025 Maria Pierce , Applied Social Studies, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Ireland 10 Sep 2025 Author Response We wish to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our submissions and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled ‘ Student Carers ... Continue reading We wish to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our submissions and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled ‘ Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol’ . We have carefully considered each comment. Below, we provide a detailed response to each point raised, as well as supporting references, which we believe will strengthen the manuscript considerably. Comment: This is a well-written proposal on an important issue that has not been fully addressed by previous research. The structure flows well and it would appear that key extant literature is already known to the authors, who set out an ambitious project. Response: Thank-you for these comments. Please find below our response to each point your provided. We would be happy to provide further clarification if necessary. Comment: It will be challenging to compare different countries' experiences, and to make reliable comparators. Contextual factors such as levels of fees / complexities in any 'carers' allowances' and percentages of 'study at home' / flexi studies in different disciplines will be very different across countries. Depending on how manageable the logistics appear, it might be worth narrowing the scope to specific disciplines which might allow for more validity comparisons to be drawn. For example, some disciplines (history/ languages, literature) lend themselves more to flexi - hours whereas certain science subjects demand on-campus lab time and vocational courses such as nursing and social work have considerable placement demands, with very little in-built flexibility. It may, of course, be that the team find that the study foci of caring-experienced students reflect a tendency toward certain subjects. Response: We agree that making comparisons between countries is challenging and will make these challenges known and acknowledge the important contextual differences between countries when reporting on the findings. However, rather than making a detailed comparison of different aspects of the higher education systems and carer supports in different countries, our intention in comparing countries is to have better awareness and understanding of the range of broad policy options available for responding to the needs of student carers in HEIs, which a key goal of comparative social policy (Lawrence, 1986). We will be examining the literature to see what it says about programme flexibility and student choice in specific disciplines. Comment: Another factor of interest, which might be a challenge too far, is to consider cohorts which became carers after their studies had commenced as compared to those who applied to HEIs when they were already carers. Response: We agree that this would be interesting comparison. It will be interesting to see if any of the literature included in our scoping review makes this comparison. Comment: On a point of detail, I note the team's preference for the term 'caring-experienced students' but that the proposed research questions use the term 'student carers'. Response: To clarify, we are using the term ‘student carers in higher education institutes’ for the purposes of the scoping review, as this is a commonly used and well-known term. However, we wanted to embrace the proposal by Larkin and colleagues to use an inclusive definition of student carers. Therefore, we amended the definition provided by the Carer’s Trust (2015: 7) to be inclusive of what Larkin et al (2021) refer to as ‘caring-experienced students.’ Consequently, for the scoping review, we adopt the term student carers in HEIs and use it to mean ‘any student in HEIs who is, becomes or has been caring, unpaid, for a friend or family member who due to illness, disability, a mental health problem or an addiction cannot cope without their support.’ References Carers Trust: Supporting students with caring responsibilities: ideas and practice for universities to help student carers access and succeed in Higher Education. London: Carers Trust, 2015. Larkin M, Kubiak C: Carers and Higher Education: where next? Widen Participat Lifelong Learn. 2021; 23(2): 130–151. Lawrence, J. (1986) Comparative study of social policy: Conceptual and Methodological Issues’ International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 6(3), 1-12. We wish to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our submissions and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled ‘ Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol’ . We have carefully considered each comment. Below, we provide a detailed response to each point raised, as well as supporting references, which we believe will strengthen the manuscript considerably. Comment: This is a well-written proposal on an important issue that has not been fully addressed by previous research. The structure flows well and it would appear that key extant literature is already known to the authors, who set out an ambitious project. Response: Thank-you for these comments. Please find below our response to each point your provided. We would be happy to provide further clarification if necessary. Comment: It will be challenging to compare different countries' experiences, and to make reliable comparators. Contextual factors such as levels of fees / complexities in any 'carers' allowances' and percentages of 'study at home' / flexi studies in different disciplines will be very different across countries. Depending on how manageable the logistics appear, it might be worth narrowing the scope to specific disciplines which might allow for more validity comparisons to be drawn. For example, some disciplines (history/ languages, literature) lend themselves more to flexi - hours whereas certain science subjects demand on-campus lab time and vocational courses such as nursing and social work have considerable placement demands, with very little in-built flexibility. It may, of course, be that the team find that the study foci of caring-experienced students reflect a tendency toward certain subjects. Response: We agree that making comparisons between countries is challenging and will make these challenges known and acknowledge the important contextual differences between countries when reporting on the findings. However, rather than making a detailed comparison of different aspects of the higher education systems and carer supports in different countries, our intention in comparing countries is to have better awareness and understanding of the range of broad policy options available for responding to the needs of student carers in HEIs, which a key goal of comparative social policy (Lawrence, 1986). We will be examining the literature to see what it says about programme flexibility and student choice in specific disciplines. Comment: Another factor of interest, which might be a challenge too far, is to consider cohorts which became carers after their studies had commenced as compared to those who applied to HEIs when they were already carers. Response: We agree that this would be interesting comparison. It will be interesting to see if any of the literature included in our scoping review makes this comparison. Comment: On a point of detail, I note the team's preference for the term 'caring-experienced students' but that the proposed research questions use the term 'student carers'. Response: To clarify, we are using the term ‘student carers in higher education institutes’ for the purposes of the scoping review, as this is a commonly used and well-known term. However, we wanted to embrace the proposal by Larkin and colleagues to use an inclusive definition of student carers. Therefore, we amended the definition provided by the Carer’s Trust (2015: 7) to be inclusive of what Larkin et al (2021) refer to as ‘caring-experienced students.’ Consequently, for the scoping review, we adopt the term student carers in HEIs and use it to mean ‘any student in HEIs who is, becomes or has been caring, unpaid, for a friend or family member who due to illness, disability, a mental health problem or an addiction cannot cope without their support.’ References Carers Trust: Supporting students with caring responsibilities: ideas and practice for universities to help student carers access and succeed in Higher Education. London: Carers Trust, 2015. Larkin M, Kubiak C: Carers and Higher Education: where next? Widen Participat Lifelong Learn. 2021; 23(2): 130–151. Lawrence, J. (1986) Comparative study of social policy: Conceptual and Methodological Issues’ International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 6(3), 1-12. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 10 Sep 2025 Maria Pierce , Applied Social Studies, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Ireland 10 Sep 2025 Author Response We wish to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our submissions and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled ‘ Student Carers ... Continue reading We wish to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our submissions and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled ‘ Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol’ . We have carefully considered each comment. Below, we provide a detailed response to each point raised, as well as supporting references, which we believe will strengthen the manuscript considerably. Comment: This is a well-written proposal on an important issue that has not been fully addressed by previous research. The structure flows well and it would appear that key extant literature is already known to the authors, who set out an ambitious project. Response: Thank-you for these comments. Please find below our response to each point your provided. We would be happy to provide further clarification if necessary. Comment: It will be challenging to compare different countries' experiences, and to make reliable comparators. Contextual factors such as levels of fees / complexities in any 'carers' allowances' and percentages of 'study at home' / flexi studies in different disciplines will be very different across countries. Depending on how manageable the logistics appear, it might be worth narrowing the scope to specific disciplines which might allow for more validity comparisons to be drawn. For example, some disciplines (history/ languages, literature) lend themselves more to flexi - hours whereas certain science subjects demand on-campus lab time and vocational courses such as nursing and social work have considerable placement demands, with very little in-built flexibility. It may, of course, be that the team find that the study foci of caring-experienced students reflect a tendency toward certain subjects. Response: We agree that making comparisons between countries is challenging and will make these challenges known and acknowledge the important contextual differences between countries when reporting on the findings. However, rather than making a detailed comparison of different aspects of the higher education systems and carer supports in different countries, our intention in comparing countries is to have better awareness and understanding of the range of broad policy options available for responding to the needs of student carers in HEIs, which a key goal of comparative social policy (Lawrence, 1986). We will be examining the literature to see what it says about programme flexibility and student choice in specific disciplines. Comment: Another factor of interest, which might be a challenge too far, is to consider cohorts which became carers after their studies had commenced as compared to those who applied to HEIs when they were already carers. Response: We agree that this would be interesting comparison. It will be interesting to see if any of the literature included in our scoping review makes this comparison. Comment: On a point of detail, I note the team's preference for the term 'caring-experienced students' but that the proposed research questions use the term 'student carers'. Response: To clarify, we are using the term ‘student carers in higher education institutes’ for the purposes of the scoping review, as this is a commonly used and well-known term. However, we wanted to embrace the proposal by Larkin and colleagues to use an inclusive definition of student carers. Therefore, we amended the definition provided by the Carer’s Trust (2015: 7) to be inclusive of what Larkin et al (2021) refer to as ‘caring-experienced students.’ Consequently, for the scoping review, we adopt the term student carers in HEIs and use it to mean ‘any student in HEIs who is, becomes or has been caring, unpaid, for a friend or family member who due to illness, disability, a mental health problem or an addiction cannot cope without their support.’ References Carers Trust: Supporting students with caring responsibilities: ideas and practice for universities to help student carers access and succeed in Higher Education. London: Carers Trust, 2015. Larkin M, Kubiak C: Carers and Higher Education: where next? Widen Participat Lifelong Learn. 2021; 23(2): 130–151. Lawrence, J. (1986) Comparative study of social policy: Conceptual and Methodological Issues’ International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 6(3), 1-12. We wish to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our submissions and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled ‘ Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol’ . We have carefully considered each comment. Below, we provide a detailed response to each point raised, as well as supporting references, which we believe will strengthen the manuscript considerably. Comment: This is a well-written proposal on an important issue that has not been fully addressed by previous research. The structure flows well and it would appear that key extant literature is already known to the authors, who set out an ambitious project. Response: Thank-you for these comments. Please find below our response to each point your provided. We would be happy to provide further clarification if necessary. Comment: It will be challenging to compare different countries' experiences, and to make reliable comparators. Contextual factors such as levels of fees / complexities in any 'carers' allowances' and percentages of 'study at home' / flexi studies in different disciplines will be very different across countries. Depending on how manageable the logistics appear, it might be worth narrowing the scope to specific disciplines which might allow for more validity comparisons to be drawn. For example, some disciplines (history/ languages, literature) lend themselves more to flexi - hours whereas certain science subjects demand on-campus lab time and vocational courses such as nursing and social work have considerable placement demands, with very little in-built flexibility. It may, of course, be that the team find that the study foci of caring-experienced students reflect a tendency toward certain subjects. Response: We agree that making comparisons between countries is challenging and will make these challenges known and acknowledge the important contextual differences between countries when reporting on the findings. However, rather than making a detailed comparison of different aspects of the higher education systems and carer supports in different countries, our intention in comparing countries is to have better awareness and understanding of the range of broad policy options available for responding to the needs of student carers in HEIs, which a key goal of comparative social policy (Lawrence, 1986). We will be examining the literature to see what it says about programme flexibility and student choice in specific disciplines. Comment: Another factor of interest, which might be a challenge too far, is to consider cohorts which became carers after their studies had commenced as compared to those who applied to HEIs when they were already carers. Response: We agree that this would be interesting comparison. It will be interesting to see if any of the literature included in our scoping review makes this comparison. Comment: On a point of detail, I note the team's preference for the term 'caring-experienced students' but that the proposed research questions use the term 'student carers'. Response: To clarify, we are using the term ‘student carers in higher education institutes’ for the purposes of the scoping review, as this is a commonly used and well-known term. However, we wanted to embrace the proposal by Larkin and colleagues to use an inclusive definition of student carers. Therefore, we amended the definition provided by the Carer’s Trust (2015: 7) to be inclusive of what Larkin et al (2021) refer to as ‘caring-experienced students.’ Consequently, for the scoping review, we adopt the term student carers in HEIs and use it to mean ‘any student in HEIs who is, becomes or has been caring, unpaid, for a friend or family member who due to illness, disability, a mental health problem or an addiction cannot cope without their support.’ References Carers Trust: Supporting students with caring responsibilities: ideas and practice for universities to help student carers access and succeed in Higher Education. London: Carers Trust, 2015. Larkin M, Kubiak C: Carers and Higher Education: where next? Widen Participat Lifelong Learn. 2021; 23(2): 130–151. Lawrence, J. (1986) Comparative study of social policy: Conceptual and Methodological Issues’ International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 6(3), 1-12. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Larkin M. Reviewer Report For: Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :9 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15424.r45189 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-9/v1#referee-response-45189 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 03 Mar 2025 Mary Larkin , The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15424.r45189 The authors are to be congratulated on their use of such an Inclusive definition of Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions, Rigorous use of Arksey and O’Malley’s five stage framework. They also present some excellent ideas about ways of accessing ... Continue reading READ ALL The authors are to be congratulated on their use of such an Inclusive definition of Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions, Rigorous use of Arksey and O’Malley’s five stage framework. They also present some excellent ideas about ways of accessing and including grey literature. If the aims of the scoping review can achieved it will certainly address key outstanding issues which underpin future student carer research and policy making There are a couple of weaknesses:: - It is not clear how they will be using their inclusive definition of a student carer throughout the scoping - review It will be worth working with carers organisations on the dissemination and eliciting their support in working with policy makers Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described? Yes Is the study design appropriate for the research question? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others? Yes Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: care, carers and caring I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Larkin M. Reviewer Report For: Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :9 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15424.r45189 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-9/v1#referee-response-45189 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 10 Sep 2025 Maria Pierce , Applied Social Studies, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Ireland 10 Sep 2025 Author Response We wish to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our submission and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled ‘ Student Carers ... Continue reading We wish to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our submission and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled ‘ Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol’ . We have carefully considered each comment. Below, we provide a detailed response to each point raised, which we believe will strengthen the manuscript considerably. Comment: The authors are to be congratulated on their use of such an Inclusive definition of Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions, Rigorous use of Arksey and O’Malley’s five stage framework. They also present some excellent ideas about ways of accessing and including grey literature. If the aims of the scoping review can achieved it will certainly address key outstanding issues which underpin future student carer research and policy making. Response: Thank-you for your encouraging comments and for identifying weaknesses. Comment: There are a couple of weaknesses. It is not clear how they will be using their inclusive definition of a student carer throughout the scoping review. Response: With respect to the first weakness identified, we are using the term ‘student carers in higher education institutes’ for the purposes of the scoping review to mean ‘any student in HEIs who is, becomes or has been caring, unpaid, for a friend or family member who due to illness, disability, a mental health problem or an addiction cannot cope without their support.’ One of the research questions of our scoping review is ‘What definitions of student carers in HEIs are typically adopted?’ We plan to examine the extent to which the definitions identified from included studies align with the inclusive definition that we have adopted. Comment: It will be worth working with carers organisations on the dissemination and eliciting their support in working with policy makers. Response: Thank-you also for your comment about working with carers organisations. We are in contact with and have good working relationships with carers organisations in Ireland. These organisations are aware that the scoping review is underway. We are keeping them updated on how the work is progressing. The carers organisations have expressed interest in the scoping review and there is scope for working with carers organisations on the dissemination and eliciting their support in working with policy makers. Another promising avenue for dissemination and support in working with policy makers and other relevant stakeholders is the Higher Educational Institutes Carer Network that was established in Ireland in 2024. One of the authors (AL) of the scoping review is a founding member of the network and another (MP) is a member of the network. Maria Pierce on behalf of author team We wish to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our submission and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled ‘ Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol’ . We have carefully considered each comment. Below, we provide a detailed response to each point raised, which we believe will strengthen the manuscript considerably. Comment: The authors are to be congratulated on their use of such an Inclusive definition of Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions, Rigorous use of Arksey and O’Malley’s five stage framework. They also present some excellent ideas about ways of accessing and including grey literature. If the aims of the scoping review can achieved it will certainly address key outstanding issues which underpin future student carer research and policy making. Response: Thank-you for your encouraging comments and for identifying weaknesses. Comment: There are a couple of weaknesses. It is not clear how they will be using their inclusive definition of a student carer throughout the scoping review. Response: With respect to the first weakness identified, we are using the term ‘student carers in higher education institutes’ for the purposes of the scoping review to mean ‘any student in HEIs who is, becomes or has been caring, unpaid, for a friend or family member who due to illness, disability, a mental health problem or an addiction cannot cope without their support.’ One of the research questions of our scoping review is ‘What definitions of student carers in HEIs are typically adopted?’ We plan to examine the extent to which the definitions identified from included studies align with the inclusive definition that we have adopted. Comment: It will be worth working with carers organisations on the dissemination and eliciting their support in working with policy makers. Response: Thank-you also for your comment about working with carers organisations. We are in contact with and have good working relationships with carers organisations in Ireland. These organisations are aware that the scoping review is underway. We are keeping them updated on how the work is progressing. The carers organisations have expressed interest in the scoping review and there is scope for working with carers organisations on the dissemination and eliciting their support in working with policy makers. Another promising avenue for dissemination and support in working with policy makers and other relevant stakeholders is the Higher Educational Institutes Carer Network that was established in Ireland in 2024. One of the authors (AL) of the scoping review is a founding member of the network and another (MP) is a member of the network. Maria Pierce on behalf of author team Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 10 Sep 2025 Maria Pierce , Applied Social Studies, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Ireland 10 Sep 2025 Author Response We wish to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our submission and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled ‘ Student Carers ... Continue reading We wish to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our submission and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled ‘ Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol’ . We have carefully considered each comment. Below, we provide a detailed response to each point raised, which we believe will strengthen the manuscript considerably. Comment: The authors are to be congratulated on their use of such an Inclusive definition of Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions, Rigorous use of Arksey and O’Malley’s five stage framework. They also present some excellent ideas about ways of accessing and including grey literature. If the aims of the scoping review can achieved it will certainly address key outstanding issues which underpin future student carer research and policy making. Response: Thank-you for your encouraging comments and for identifying weaknesses. Comment: There are a couple of weaknesses. It is not clear how they will be using their inclusive definition of a student carer throughout the scoping review. Response: With respect to the first weakness identified, we are using the term ‘student carers in higher education institutes’ for the purposes of the scoping review to mean ‘any student in HEIs who is, becomes or has been caring, unpaid, for a friend or family member who due to illness, disability, a mental health problem or an addiction cannot cope without their support.’ One of the research questions of our scoping review is ‘What definitions of student carers in HEIs are typically adopted?’ We plan to examine the extent to which the definitions identified from included studies align with the inclusive definition that we have adopted. Comment: It will be worth working with carers organisations on the dissemination and eliciting their support in working with policy makers. Response: Thank-you also for your comment about working with carers organisations. We are in contact with and have good working relationships with carers organisations in Ireland. These organisations are aware that the scoping review is underway. We are keeping them updated on how the work is progressing. The carers organisations have expressed interest in the scoping review and there is scope for working with carers organisations on the dissemination and eliciting their support in working with policy makers. Another promising avenue for dissemination and support in working with policy makers and other relevant stakeholders is the Higher Educational Institutes Carer Network that was established in Ireland in 2024. One of the authors (AL) of the scoping review is a founding member of the network and another (MP) is a member of the network. Maria Pierce on behalf of author team We wish to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our submission and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled ‘ Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol’ . We have carefully considered each comment. Below, we provide a detailed response to each point raised, which we believe will strengthen the manuscript considerably. Comment: The authors are to be congratulated on their use of such an Inclusive definition of Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions, Rigorous use of Arksey and O’Malley’s five stage framework. They also present some excellent ideas about ways of accessing and including grey literature. If the aims of the scoping review can achieved it will certainly address key outstanding issues which underpin future student carer research and policy making. Response: Thank-you for your encouraging comments and for identifying weaknesses. Comment: There are a couple of weaknesses. It is not clear how they will be using their inclusive definition of a student carer throughout the scoping review. Response: With respect to the first weakness identified, we are using the term ‘student carers in higher education institutes’ for the purposes of the scoping review to mean ‘any student in HEIs who is, becomes or has been caring, unpaid, for a friend or family member who due to illness, disability, a mental health problem or an addiction cannot cope without their support.’ One of the research questions of our scoping review is ‘What definitions of student carers in HEIs are typically adopted?’ We plan to examine the extent to which the definitions identified from included studies align with the inclusive definition that we have adopted. Comment: It will be worth working with carers organisations on the dissemination and eliciting their support in working with policy makers. Response: Thank-you also for your comment about working with carers organisations. We are in contact with and have good working relationships with carers organisations in Ireland. These organisations are aware that the scoping review is underway. We are keeping them updated on how the work is progressing. The carers organisations have expressed interest in the scoping review and there is scope for working with carers organisations on the dissemination and eliciting their support in working with policy makers. Another promising avenue for dissemination and support in working with policy makers and other relevant stakeholders is the Higher Educational Institutes Carer Network that was established in Ireland in 2024. One of the authors (AL) of the scoping review is a founding member of the network and another (MP) is a member of the network. Maria Pierce on behalf of author team Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Runacres J. Reviewer Report For: Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :9 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15424.r45182 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-9/v1#referee-response-45182 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 26 Feb 2025 Jessica Runacres , University of Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent, UK Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15424.r45182 This is a protocol for a scoping review focusing on student carers in higher education which is an emerging and interesting area of research. The researchers present a detailed outline of the methods to be undertaken and have generated broad ... Continue reading READ ALL This is a protocol for a scoping review focusing on student carers in higher education which is an emerging and interesting area of research. The researchers present a detailed outline of the methods to be undertaken and have generated broad research questions which address a noted gap in the current literature. It is clear that a significant amount of thought has been put into the proposed methods which are well articulated and suitably referenced. Some points to consider below: The work of Runacres et al. (2024) and Knopf et al. (2022) is mentioned in the introduction, including the findings, and it is stated that there are some areas of discussion that have yet to be explored, however specifically how this scoping review will build on this existing work is unclear. Some further critical engagement with the existing literature reviews on this topic would be beneficial here. Furthermore, the introduction argues that “there is a need to explore other aspects not covered by existing reviews” but why could be further justified. There is a brief argument for the use of a scoping review at the end of the introduction, this argues that this scoping review intends to address a broad question and incorporate studies using a variety of different study designs, however, this is possible within a systematic review. This section also states that the reviewers are using a scoping review as they do not intend to assess quality, and, whilst this is the case within a scoping review, it should not be used as an argument for the use of this. Instead, it would be interesting to hear why it is important that quality is not assessed for this review. Also, it is stated in this protocol that policy responses to student carers in HEIs will be examined. I would assume that this information is within the grey literature, which therefore means that a scoping review would be suitable, and quality appraisal would be challenging. This justification for the chosen review approach could be mentioned here. It is mentioned at the end of the introduction that the term “caring-experienced students” will be adopted by this review, however this is not the case, instead “student carer” is used throughout. This needs to be clarified. The aim and objectives are clear, although perhaps very broad for a single review. I am unsure how you will be able to recognise these broad objectives within a single analysis. There is overlap in your search terms. For example, al the subsequent terms would be captured by the first ““Care*” OR “caregiver*” OR “care-giver*” OR “caregiving” OR “care-giving” OR “caring”. This is the case within other levels of your search strategy. Your definition for this review of student carers is those who provide care for a friend or family member, yet “friend” is not encompassed within your search terms. Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described? Partly Is the study design appropriate for the research question? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others? Yes Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Not applicable Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Student carers, informal carers, literature reviews I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Runacres J. Reviewer Report For: Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :9 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15424.r45182 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-9/v1#referee-response-45182 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 10 Sep 2025 Maria Pierce , Applied Social Studies, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Ireland 10 Sep 2025 Author Response We wish to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our submission and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled ‘ Student Carers ... Continue reading We wish to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our submission and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled ‘ Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol’ . We have carefully considered each comment. Below, we provide a detailed response to each point raised, as well as supporting references. We believe that these author responses strengthen the manuscript considerably, and we hope it will now meet the standards for approval status in HRB Open Research . Comment: This is a protocol for a scoping review focusing on student carers in higher education which is an emerging and interesting area of research. The researchers present a detailed outline of the methods to be undertaken and have generated broad research questions which address a noted gap in the current literature. It is clear that a significant amount of thought has been put into the proposed methods which are well articulated and suitably referenced. Some points to consider below. Response: Thank-you for identifying points that warrant further consideration. Please find below our response to each of the points made. We would be happy to provide further clarification if necessary. Comment: The work of Runacres et al. (2024) and Knopf et al. (2022) is mentioned in the introduction, including the findings, and it is stated that there are some areas of discussion that have yet to be explored, however specifically how this scoping review will build on this existing work is unclear. Some further critical engagement with the existing literature reviews on this topic would be beneficial here. Furthermore, the introduction argues that “there is a need to explore other aspects not covered by existing reviews” but why could be further justified. Response: The scoping review seeks both to complement and build on the work of and Knopf et al. (2022) and Runacres et al. (2024). With respect to building on this work, it will analyse information on some of the knowledge gaps in the literature that have been identified by the authors of these works. For example, Runacres et al. (2024) identify the importance of knowing the prevalence and demographics of student carers in HEIs. Our scoping review will analyse and report on the findings from included studies estimating the prevalence and demographics of student carers in HEIs (e.g. Haugland et al., 2020; Armstrong-Carter et al., 2022; Chevrier et al., 2023), and methods used. The analysis will be useful for universities seeking to capture data on prevalence and demographics of student carers among their student populations, as well as for researchers. Comment: The scoping review identified the following salient gaps in the literature. Firstly, limited research within any one country could be identified. This is a concern as the differences in education and healthcare between countries limits the comparisons and generalisations that can be made. Response: We agree that making comparisons between countries is challenging and we acknowledge that countries will differ with respect to both their education and health and social care systems. When publishing our findings, we will make the challenges we encounter clearly known. We are not planning to compare the organisation, operation or delivery of education and health care systems across different countries. Rather than making generalisations, our intention in comparing countries is to have better awareness and understanding of the range of broad policy options available from different countries for responding to the needs of student carers in HEIs. Better awareness and understanding of different policy options is a key goal of comparative social policy (Lawrence, 1986). Comment: Furthermore, no longitudinal research was identified, consequently still relatively little is known about mechanisms and causal links which impact student carers across their life course. A better understanding of these mechanisms is crucial for designing appropriate interventions. This is particularly salient as the scoping review identified concerns with employment prospects (Day 2019; Kettell 2018); this suggests that being a student carer might have an impact in future life regardless of the continuation of caring responsibilities. Response: Existing reviews did not identify any longitudinal research. Our scoping review provides an opportunity to identify and report on findings of any longitudinal studies on student carers in HEIs conducted after these reviews were completed such as the qualitative longitudinal study undertaken by Runacres, Herron and Crust (2025). A life course perspective offers a very useful framework that could be used to inform the design of future research studies on student carers in HEIs. One of the questions of our scoping review relates to theoretical perspectives and concepts underpinning studies on student carers in HEIs, and the life course perspective could potentially be discussed as part of the analysis. Comment: Much identified research focussed on student carer’s experiences, their health and well-being, and academic outcomes, little research has examined the implications of being a carer on broader student life, such as social activities. Response: Research on the implications of being a carer on broader student life is limited. However, we have identified research published in 2020 that includes an examination of the issue of socialising for student carers in HEIs. This and any other research published since 2020 on this issue identified via our search strategy will be included and reported on in our scoping review. Comment: There is a brief argument for the use of a scoping review at the end of the introduction, this argues that this scoping review intends to address a broad question and incorporate studies using a variety of different study designs, however, this is possible within a systematic review. This section also states that the reviewers are using a scoping review as they do not intend to assess quality, and, whilst this is the case within a scoping review, it should not be used as an argument for the use of this. Instead, it would be interesting to hear why it is important that quality is not assessed for this review. Also, it is stated in this protocol that policy responses to student carers in HEIs will be examined. I would assume that this information is within the grey literature, which therefore means that a scoping review would be suitable, and quality appraisal would be challenging. This justification for the chosen review approach could be mentioned here. Response: Thank-you for making these points. While it is possible to address a broad question and incorporate studies using a variety of different study designs in a systematic review, the reason we chose to conduct a scoping review is because we will be including grey literature as a source of information to examine policy responses to student carers in HEIs. Hence, a scoping review is an appropriate approach to take. It was not our intention to use our decision not to assess quality as an argument for conducting a scoping review. We will make this clearer when writing a paper on the findings of our scoping review. Unlike systematic reviews, the quality of included studies is often omitted from scoping reviews, as it is not mandatory for scoping reviews, given that the goal is to map rather than critique existing empirical and grey literature (Arksey and O’Malley, 2005; Pollock et al., 2022). Moreover, information on the availability of tools and guidance for critical appraisal and risk of bias assessments of studies included in scoping reviews is lacking (Pollock et al., 2022). A clearer justification for applying the scoping review methodology will be included in the forthcoming manuscript. Comment: It is mentioned at the end of the introduction that the term “caring-experienced students” will be adopted by this review, however this is not the case, instead “student carer” is used throughout. This needs to be clarified. Response: We acknowledge that our explanation of the terms adopted is confusing. To clarify, we are using the term ‘student carers in higher education institutes’ for the purposes of the scoping review, as this is a commonly used and well-known term. However, we wanted to embrace the proposal by Larkin and colleagues to use an inclusive definition of student carers. Therefore, we amended the definition provided by the Carer’s Trust (2015: 7) to be inclusive of what Larkin et al (2021) refer to as ‘caring-experienced students.’ Consequently, for the scoping review, we adopt the term student carers in HEIs, defined as ‘any student in HEIs who is, becomes or has been caring, unpaid, for a friend or family member who due to illness, disability, a mental health problem or an addiction cannot cope without their support.’ Comment: The aim and objectives are clear, although perhaps very broad for a single review. I am unsure how you will be able to recognise these broad objectives within a single analysis. Response: We agree that the aims and objectives are broad. We plan to present the findings from the review in an integrated way, with the potential of supplemental files to support the key findings. We will only consider splitting the paper if it does not undermine the findings. Comment: There is overlap in your search terms. For example, al the subsequent terms would be captured by the first ““Care*” OR “caregiver*” OR “care-giver*” OR “caregiving” OR “care-giving” OR “caring”. This is the case within other levels of your search strategy. Response: Table 1 of the paper provides a list of the ‘proposed’ search terms to be used to develop the search strategy. We are aware of the overlap in search terms, and this issue was addrssed during the exploratory scoping phase, which was undertaken soon after the protocol paper was published. For example, the inclusion of “Care*” resulted in many studies focused on career options of higher education students. Following this exploratory scoping phase, we addressed any issues and finalised the search terms and strings. The string for carers is now amended, as guided by our University Librarian. “carer*” OR “care” OR “caregiv*” OR “care-giv*” OR “caring” OR “unpaid care*” OR “Family care” OR “eldercare” OR “elder-care” OR “elder care” We will be reporting on the final search strategy that we used when reporting the findings of our scoping review. Comment: Your definition for this review of student carers is those who provide care for a friend or family member, yet “friend” is not encompassed within your search terms. Response: Similarly to our response to the above comment, we identified this omission during the exploratory scoping phase and set about addressing it. We will be reporting on the final search terms that we used when reporting on the findings of our scoping review. References Arksey H, O'Malley L: Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005; 8(1): 19–32. Armstrong-Carter E, Panter AT, Hutson B, et al.: A university-wide survey of caregiving students in the US: individual differences and associations with emotional and academic adjustment. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2022; 9(1): 300. Carers Trust: Supporting students with caring responsibilities: ideas and practice for universities to help student carers access and succeed in Higher Education. London: Carers Trust, 2015. Chevrier B, Untas A, Dorard G: Young adult caregivers in Higher Education: a study of prevalence in France. J Further High Educ. 2023; 47(5): 699–710. Haugland BSM, Hysing M, Sivertsen B: The burden of care: a national survey on the prevalence, demographic characteristics and health problems among Young Adult Carers attending Higher Education in Norway. Front Psychol. 2020; 10: 2859. Knopf L, Wazinski K, Wanka A, et al.: Caregiving students: a systematic literature review of an under-researched group. J Further High Educ. 2022; 46(6): 822–835. Larkin M, Kubiak C: Carers and Higher Education: where next? Widen Participat Lifelong Learn. 2021; 23(2): 130–151. Lawrence, J. (1986) Comparative study of social policy: Conceptual and Methodological Issues’ International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy , 6(3), 1-12. Pollock D, Tricco AC, Peters MDJ, Mclnerney PA, Khalil H, Godfrey CM, Alexander LA, Munn Z. Methodological quality, guidance, and tools in scoping reviews: a scoping review protocol. JBI Evid Synth. 2022 Apr 1;20(4):1098-1105. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-20-00570. Runacres J, Herron D, Buckless K, et al.: Student carer experiences of Higher Education and support: a scoping review. Int J Inclus Educ. 2024; 28(7): 1275–1292. Maria Pierce on behalf of author team We wish to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our submission and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled ‘ Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol’ . We have carefully considered each comment. Below, we provide a detailed response to each point raised, as well as supporting references. We believe that these author responses strengthen the manuscript considerably, and we hope it will now meet the standards for approval status in HRB Open Research . Comment: This is a protocol for a scoping review focusing on student carers in higher education which is an emerging and interesting area of research. The researchers present a detailed outline of the methods to be undertaken and have generated broad research questions which address a noted gap in the current literature. It is clear that a significant amount of thought has been put into the proposed methods which are well articulated and suitably referenced. Some points to consider below. Response: Thank-you for identifying points that warrant further consideration. Please find below our response to each of the points made. We would be happy to provide further clarification if necessary. Comment: The work of Runacres et al. (2024) and Knopf et al. (2022) is mentioned in the introduction, including the findings, and it is stated that there are some areas of discussion that have yet to be explored, however specifically how this scoping review will build on this existing work is unclear. Some further critical engagement with the existing literature reviews on this topic would be beneficial here. Furthermore, the introduction argues that “there is a need to explore other aspects not covered by existing reviews” but why could be further justified. Response: The scoping review seeks both to complement and build on the work of and Knopf et al. (2022) and Runacres et al. (2024). With respect to building on this work, it will analyse information on some of the knowledge gaps in the literature that have been identified by the authors of these works. For example, Runacres et al. (2024) identify the importance of knowing the prevalence and demographics of student carers in HEIs. Our scoping review will analyse and report on the findings from included studies estimating the prevalence and demographics of student carers in HEIs (e.g. Haugland et al., 2020; Armstrong-Carter et al., 2022; Chevrier et al., 2023), and methods used. The analysis will be useful for universities seeking to capture data on prevalence and demographics of student carers among their student populations, as well as for researchers. Comment: The scoping review identified the following salient gaps in the literature. Firstly, limited research within any one country could be identified. This is a concern as the differences in education and healthcare between countries limits the comparisons and generalisations that can be made. Response: We agree that making comparisons between countries is challenging and we acknowledge that countries will differ with respect to both their education and health and social care systems. When publishing our findings, we will make the challenges we encounter clearly known. We are not planning to compare the organisation, operation or delivery of education and health care systems across different countries. Rather than making generalisations, our intention in comparing countries is to have better awareness and understanding of the range of broad policy options available from different countries for responding to the needs of student carers in HEIs. Better awareness and understanding of different policy options is a key goal of comparative social policy (Lawrence, 1986). Comment: Furthermore, no longitudinal research was identified, consequently still relatively little is known about mechanisms and causal links which impact student carers across their life course. A better understanding of these mechanisms is crucial for designing appropriate interventions. This is particularly salient as the scoping review identified concerns with employment prospects (Day 2019; Kettell 2018); this suggests that being a student carer might have an impact in future life regardless of the continuation of caring responsibilities. Response: Existing reviews did not identify any longitudinal research. Our scoping review provides an opportunity to identify and report on findings of any longitudinal studies on student carers in HEIs conducted after these reviews were completed such as the qualitative longitudinal study undertaken by Runacres, Herron and Crust (2025). A life course perspective offers a very useful framework that could be used to inform the design of future research studies on student carers in HEIs. One of the questions of our scoping review relates to theoretical perspectives and concepts underpinning studies on student carers in HEIs, and the life course perspective could potentially be discussed as part of the analysis. Comment: Much identified research focussed on student carer’s experiences, their health and well-being, and academic outcomes, little research has examined the implications of being a carer on broader student life, such as social activities. Response: Research on the implications of being a carer on broader student life is limited. However, we have identified research published in 2020 that includes an examination of the issue of socialising for student carers in HEIs. This and any other research published since 2020 on this issue identified via our search strategy will be included and reported on in our scoping review. Comment: There is a brief argument for the use of a scoping review at the end of the introduction, this argues that this scoping review intends to address a broad question and incorporate studies using a variety of different study designs, however, this is possible within a systematic review. This section also states that the reviewers are using a scoping review as they do not intend to assess quality, and, whilst this is the case within a scoping review, it should not be used as an argument for the use of this. Instead, it would be interesting to hear why it is important that quality is not assessed for this review. Also, it is stated in this protocol that policy responses to student carers in HEIs will be examined. I would assume that this information is within the grey literature, which therefore means that a scoping review would be suitable, and quality appraisal would be challenging. This justification for the chosen review approach could be mentioned here. Response: Thank-you for making these points. While it is possible to address a broad question and incorporate studies using a variety of different study designs in a systematic review, the reason we chose to conduct a scoping review is because we will be including grey literature as a source of information to examine policy responses to student carers in HEIs. Hence, a scoping review is an appropriate approach to take. It was not our intention to use our decision not to assess quality as an argument for conducting a scoping review. We will make this clearer when writing a paper on the findings of our scoping review. Unlike systematic reviews, the quality of included studies is often omitted from scoping reviews, as it is not mandatory for scoping reviews, given that the goal is to map rather than critique existing empirical and grey literature (Arksey and O’Malley, 2005; Pollock et al., 2022). Moreover, information on the availability of tools and guidance for critical appraisal and risk of bias assessments of studies included in scoping reviews is lacking (Pollock et al., 2022). A clearer justification for applying the scoping review methodology will be included in the forthcoming manuscript. Comment: It is mentioned at the end of the introduction that the term “caring-experienced students” will be adopted by this review, however this is not the case, instead “student carer” is used throughout. This needs to be clarified. Response: We acknowledge that our explanation of the terms adopted is confusing. To clarify, we are using the term ‘student carers in higher education institutes’ for the purposes of the scoping review, as this is a commonly used and well-known term. However, we wanted to embrace the proposal by Larkin and colleagues to use an inclusive definition of student carers. Therefore, we amended the definition provided by the Carer’s Trust (2015: 7) to be inclusive of what Larkin et al (2021) refer to as ‘caring-experienced students.’ Consequently, for the scoping review, we adopt the term student carers in HEIs, defined as ‘any student in HEIs who is, becomes or has been caring, unpaid, for a friend or family member who due to illness, disability, a mental health problem or an addiction cannot cope without their support.’ Comment: The aim and objectives are clear, although perhaps very broad for a single review. I am unsure how you will be able to recognise these broad objectives within a single analysis. Response: We agree that the aims and objectives are broad. We plan to present the findings from the review in an integrated way, with the potential of supplemental files to support the key findings. We will only consider splitting the paper if it does not undermine the findings. Comment: There is overlap in your search terms. For example, al the subsequent terms would be captured by the first ““Care*” OR “caregiver*” OR “care-giver*” OR “caregiving” OR “care-giving” OR “caring”. This is the case within other levels of your search strategy. Response: Table 1 of the paper provides a list of the ‘proposed’ search terms to be used to develop the search strategy. We are aware of the overlap in search terms, and this issue was addrssed during the exploratory scoping phase, which was undertaken soon after the protocol paper was published. For example, the inclusion of “Care*” resulted in many studies focused on career options of higher education students. Following this exploratory scoping phase, we addressed any issues and finalised the search terms and strings. The string for carers is now amended, as guided by our University Librarian. “carer*” OR “care” OR “caregiv*” OR “care-giv*” OR “caring” OR “unpaid care*” OR “Family care” OR “eldercare” OR “elder-care” OR “elder care” We will be reporting on the final search strategy that we used when reporting the findings of our scoping review. Comment: Your definition for this review of student carers is those who provide care for a friend or family member, yet “friend” is not encompassed within your search terms. Response: Similarly to our response to the above comment, we identified this omission during the exploratory scoping phase and set about addressing it. We will be reporting on the final search terms that we used when reporting on the findings of our scoping review. References Arksey H, O'Malley L: Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005; 8(1): 19–32. Armstrong-Carter E, Panter AT, Hutson B, et al.: A university-wide survey of caregiving students in the US: individual differences and associations with emotional and academic adjustment. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2022; 9(1): 300. Carers Trust: Supporting students with caring responsibilities: ideas and practice for universities to help student carers access and succeed in Higher Education. London: Carers Trust, 2015. Chevrier B, Untas A, Dorard G: Young adult caregivers in Higher Education: a study of prevalence in France. J Further High Educ. 2023; 47(5): 699–710. Haugland BSM, Hysing M, Sivertsen B: The burden of care: a national survey on the prevalence, demographic characteristics and health problems among Young Adult Carers attending Higher Education in Norway. Front Psychol. 2020; 10: 2859. Knopf L, Wazinski K, Wanka A, et al.: Caregiving students: a systematic literature review of an under-researched group. J Further High Educ. 2022; 46(6): 822–835. Larkin M, Kubiak C: Carers and Higher Education: where next? Widen Participat Lifelong Learn. 2021; 23(2): 130–151. Lawrence, J. (1986) Comparative study of social policy: Conceptual and Methodological Issues’ International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy , 6(3), 1-12. Pollock D, Tricco AC, Peters MDJ, Mclnerney PA, Khalil H, Godfrey CM, Alexander LA, Munn Z. Methodological quality, guidance, and tools in scoping reviews: a scoping review protocol. JBI Evid Synth. 2022 Apr 1;20(4):1098-1105. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-20-00570. Runacres J, Herron D, Buckless K, et al.: Student carer experiences of Higher Education and support: a scoping review. Int J Inclus Educ. 2024; 28(7): 1275–1292. Maria Pierce on behalf of author team Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 10 Sep 2025 Maria Pierce , Applied Social Studies, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Ireland 10 Sep 2025 Author Response We wish to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our submission and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled ‘ Student Carers ... Continue reading We wish to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our submission and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled ‘ Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol’ . We have carefully considered each comment. Below, we provide a detailed response to each point raised, as well as supporting references. We believe that these author responses strengthen the manuscript considerably, and we hope it will now meet the standards for approval status in HRB Open Research . Comment: This is a protocol for a scoping review focusing on student carers in higher education which is an emerging and interesting area of research. The researchers present a detailed outline of the methods to be undertaken and have generated broad research questions which address a noted gap in the current literature. It is clear that a significant amount of thought has been put into the proposed methods which are well articulated and suitably referenced. Some points to consider below. Response: Thank-you for identifying points that warrant further consideration. Please find below our response to each of the points made. We would be happy to provide further clarification if necessary. Comment: The work of Runacres et al. (2024) and Knopf et al. (2022) is mentioned in the introduction, including the findings, and it is stated that there are some areas of discussion that have yet to be explored, however specifically how this scoping review will build on this existing work is unclear. Some further critical engagement with the existing literature reviews on this topic would be beneficial here. Furthermore, the introduction argues that “there is a need to explore other aspects not covered by existing reviews” but why could be further justified. Response: The scoping review seeks both to complement and build on the work of and Knopf et al. (2022) and Runacres et al. (2024). With respect to building on this work, it will analyse information on some of the knowledge gaps in the literature that have been identified by the authors of these works. For example, Runacres et al. (2024) identify the importance of knowing the prevalence and demographics of student carers in HEIs. Our scoping review will analyse and report on the findings from included studies estimating the prevalence and demographics of student carers in HEIs (e.g. Haugland et al., 2020; Armstrong-Carter et al., 2022; Chevrier et al., 2023), and methods used. The analysis will be useful for universities seeking to capture data on prevalence and demographics of student carers among their student populations, as well as for researchers. Comment: The scoping review identified the following salient gaps in the literature. Firstly, limited research within any one country could be identified. This is a concern as the differences in education and healthcare between countries limits the comparisons and generalisations that can be made. Response: We agree that making comparisons between countries is challenging and we acknowledge that countries will differ with respect to both their education and health and social care systems. When publishing our findings, we will make the challenges we encounter clearly known. We are not planning to compare the organisation, operation or delivery of education and health care systems across different countries. Rather than making generalisations, our intention in comparing countries is to have better awareness and understanding of the range of broad policy options available from different countries for responding to the needs of student carers in HEIs. Better awareness and understanding of different policy options is a key goal of comparative social policy (Lawrence, 1986). Comment: Furthermore, no longitudinal research was identified, consequently still relatively little is known about mechanisms and causal links which impact student carers across their life course. A better understanding of these mechanisms is crucial for designing appropriate interventions. This is particularly salient as the scoping review identified concerns with employment prospects (Day 2019; Kettell 2018); this suggests that being a student carer might have an impact in future life regardless of the continuation of caring responsibilities. Response: Existing reviews did not identify any longitudinal research. Our scoping review provides an opportunity to identify and report on findings of any longitudinal studies on student carers in HEIs conducted after these reviews were completed such as the qualitative longitudinal study undertaken by Runacres, Herron and Crust (2025). A life course perspective offers a very useful framework that could be used to inform the design of future research studies on student carers in HEIs. One of the questions of our scoping review relates to theoretical perspectives and concepts underpinning studies on student carers in HEIs, and the life course perspective could potentially be discussed as part of the analysis. Comment: Much identified research focussed on student carer’s experiences, their health and well-being, and academic outcomes, little research has examined the implications of being a carer on broader student life, such as social activities. Response: Research on the implications of being a carer on broader student life is limited. However, we have identified research published in 2020 that includes an examination of the issue of socialising for student carers in HEIs. This and any other research published since 2020 on this issue identified via our search strategy will be included and reported on in our scoping review. Comment: There is a brief argument for the use of a scoping review at the end of the introduction, this argues that this scoping review intends to address a broad question and incorporate studies using a variety of different study designs, however, this is possible within a systematic review. This section also states that the reviewers are using a scoping review as they do not intend to assess quality, and, whilst this is the case within a scoping review, it should not be used as an argument for the use of this. Instead, it would be interesting to hear why it is important that quality is not assessed for this review. Also, it is stated in this protocol that policy responses to student carers in HEIs will be examined. I would assume that this information is within the grey literature, which therefore means that a scoping review would be suitable, and quality appraisal would be challenging. This justification for the chosen review approach could be mentioned here. Response: Thank-you for making these points. While it is possible to address a broad question and incorporate studies using a variety of different study designs in a systematic review, the reason we chose to conduct a scoping review is because we will be including grey literature as a source of information to examine policy responses to student carers in HEIs. Hence, a scoping review is an appropriate approach to take. It was not our intention to use our decision not to assess quality as an argument for conducting a scoping review. We will make this clearer when writing a paper on the findings of our scoping review. Unlike systematic reviews, the quality of included studies is often omitted from scoping reviews, as it is not mandatory for scoping reviews, given that the goal is to map rather than critique existing empirical and grey literature (Arksey and O’Malley, 2005; Pollock et al., 2022). Moreover, information on the availability of tools and guidance for critical appraisal and risk of bias assessments of studies included in scoping reviews is lacking (Pollock et al., 2022). A clearer justification for applying the scoping review methodology will be included in the forthcoming manuscript. Comment: It is mentioned at the end of the introduction that the term “caring-experienced students” will be adopted by this review, however this is not the case, instead “student carer” is used throughout. This needs to be clarified. Response: We acknowledge that our explanation of the terms adopted is confusing. To clarify, we are using the term ‘student carers in higher education institutes’ for the purposes of the scoping review, as this is a commonly used and well-known term. However, we wanted to embrace the proposal by Larkin and colleagues to use an inclusive definition of student carers. Therefore, we amended the definition provided by the Carer’s Trust (2015: 7) to be inclusive of what Larkin et al (2021) refer to as ‘caring-experienced students.’ Consequently, for the scoping review, we adopt the term student carers in HEIs, defined as ‘any student in HEIs who is, becomes or has been caring, unpaid, for a friend or family member who due to illness, disability, a mental health problem or an addiction cannot cope without their support.’ Comment: The aim and objectives are clear, although perhaps very broad for a single review. I am unsure how you will be able to recognise these broad objectives within a single analysis. Response: We agree that the aims and objectives are broad. We plan to present the findings from the review in an integrated way, with the potential of supplemental files to support the key findings. We will only consider splitting the paper if it does not undermine the findings. Comment: There is overlap in your search terms. For example, al the subsequent terms would be captured by the first ““Care*” OR “caregiver*” OR “care-giver*” OR “caregiving” OR “care-giving” OR “caring”. This is the case within other levels of your search strategy. Response: Table 1 of the paper provides a list of the ‘proposed’ search terms to be used to develop the search strategy. We are aware of the overlap in search terms, and this issue was addrssed during the exploratory scoping phase, which was undertaken soon after the protocol paper was published. For example, the inclusion of “Care*” resulted in many studies focused on career options of higher education students. Following this exploratory scoping phase, we addressed any issues and finalised the search terms and strings. The string for carers is now amended, as guided by our University Librarian. “carer*” OR “care” OR “caregiv*” OR “care-giv*” OR “caring” OR “unpaid care*” OR “Family care” OR “eldercare” OR “elder-care” OR “elder care” We will be reporting on the final search strategy that we used when reporting the findings of our scoping review. Comment: Your definition for this review of student carers is those who provide care for a friend or family member, yet “friend” is not encompassed within your search terms. Response: Similarly to our response to the above comment, we identified this omission during the exploratory scoping phase and set about addressing it. We will be reporting on the final search terms that we used when reporting on the findings of our scoping review. References Arksey H, O'Malley L: Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005; 8(1): 19–32. Armstrong-Carter E, Panter AT, Hutson B, et al.: A university-wide survey of caregiving students in the US: individual differences and associations with emotional and academic adjustment. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2022; 9(1): 300. Carers Trust: Supporting students with caring responsibilities: ideas and practice for universities to help student carers access and succeed in Higher Education. London: Carers Trust, 2015. Chevrier B, Untas A, Dorard G: Young adult caregivers in Higher Education: a study of prevalence in France. J Further High Educ. 2023; 47(5): 699–710. Haugland BSM, Hysing M, Sivertsen B: The burden of care: a national survey on the prevalence, demographic characteristics and health problems among Young Adult Carers attending Higher Education in Norway. Front Psychol. 2020; 10: 2859. Knopf L, Wazinski K, Wanka A, et al.: Caregiving students: a systematic literature review of an under-researched group. J Further High Educ. 2022; 46(6): 822–835. Larkin M, Kubiak C: Carers and Higher Education: where next? Widen Participat Lifelong Learn. 2021; 23(2): 130–151. Lawrence, J. (1986) Comparative study of social policy: Conceptual and Methodological Issues’ International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy , 6(3), 1-12. Pollock D, Tricco AC, Peters MDJ, Mclnerney PA, Khalil H, Godfrey CM, Alexander LA, Munn Z. Methodological quality, guidance, and tools in scoping reviews: a scoping review protocol. JBI Evid Synth. 2022 Apr 1;20(4):1098-1105. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-20-00570. Runacres J, Herron D, Buckless K, et al.: Student carer experiences of Higher Education and support: a scoping review. Int J Inclus Educ. 2024; 28(7): 1275–1292. Maria Pierce on behalf of author team We wish to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our submission and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled ‘ Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol’ . We have carefully considered each comment. Below, we provide a detailed response to each point raised, as well as supporting references. We believe that these author responses strengthen the manuscript considerably, and we hope it will now meet the standards for approval status in HRB Open Research . Comment: This is a protocol for a scoping review focusing on student carers in higher education which is an emerging and interesting area of research. The researchers present a detailed outline of the methods to be undertaken and have generated broad research questions which address a noted gap in the current literature. It is clear that a significant amount of thought has been put into the proposed methods which are well articulated and suitably referenced. Some points to consider below. Response: Thank-you for identifying points that warrant further consideration. Please find below our response to each of the points made. We would be happy to provide further clarification if necessary. Comment: The work of Runacres et al. (2024) and Knopf et al. (2022) is mentioned in the introduction, including the findings, and it is stated that there are some areas of discussion that have yet to be explored, however specifically how this scoping review will build on this existing work is unclear. Some further critical engagement with the existing literature reviews on this topic would be beneficial here. Furthermore, the introduction argues that “there is a need to explore other aspects not covered by existing reviews” but why could be further justified. Response: The scoping review seeks both to complement and build on the work of and Knopf et al. (2022) and Runacres et al. (2024). With respect to building on this work, it will analyse information on some of the knowledge gaps in the literature that have been identified by the authors of these works. For example, Runacres et al. (2024) identify the importance of knowing the prevalence and demographics of student carers in HEIs. Our scoping review will analyse and report on the findings from included studies estimating the prevalence and demographics of student carers in HEIs (e.g. Haugland et al., 2020; Armstrong-Carter et al., 2022; Chevrier et al., 2023), and methods used. The analysis will be useful for universities seeking to capture data on prevalence and demographics of student carers among their student populations, as well as for researchers. Comment: The scoping review identified the following salient gaps in the literature. Firstly, limited research within any one country could be identified. This is a concern as the differences in education and healthcare between countries limits the comparisons and generalisations that can be made. Response: We agree that making comparisons between countries is challenging and we acknowledge that countries will differ with respect to both their education and health and social care systems. When publishing our findings, we will make the challenges we encounter clearly known. We are not planning to compare the organisation, operation or delivery of education and health care systems across different countries. Rather than making generalisations, our intention in comparing countries is to have better awareness and understanding of the range of broad policy options available from different countries for responding to the needs of student carers in HEIs. Better awareness and understanding of different policy options is a key goal of comparative social policy (Lawrence, 1986). Comment: Furthermore, no longitudinal research was identified, consequently still relatively little is known about mechanisms and causal links which impact student carers across their life course. A better understanding of these mechanisms is crucial for designing appropriate interventions. This is particularly salient as the scoping review identified concerns with employment prospects (Day 2019; Kettell 2018); this suggests that being a student carer might have an impact in future life regardless of the continuation of caring responsibilities. Response: Existing reviews did not identify any longitudinal research. Our scoping review provides an opportunity to identify and report on findings of any longitudinal studies on student carers in HEIs conducted after these reviews were completed such as the qualitative longitudinal study undertaken by Runacres, Herron and Crust (2025). A life course perspective offers a very useful framework that could be used to inform the design of future research studies on student carers in HEIs. One of the questions of our scoping review relates to theoretical perspectives and concepts underpinning studies on student carers in HEIs, and the life course perspective could potentially be discussed as part of the analysis. Comment: Much identified research focussed on student carer’s experiences, their health and well-being, and academic outcomes, little research has examined the implications of being a carer on broader student life, such as social activities. Response: Research on the implications of being a carer on broader student life is limited. However, we have identified research published in 2020 that includes an examination of the issue of socialising for student carers in HEIs. This and any other research published since 2020 on this issue identified via our search strategy will be included and reported on in our scoping review. Comment: There is a brief argument for the use of a scoping review at the end of the introduction, this argues that this scoping review intends to address a broad question and incorporate studies using a variety of different study designs, however, this is possible within a systematic review. This section also states that the reviewers are using a scoping review as they do not intend to assess quality, and, whilst this is the case within a scoping review, it should not be used as an argument for the use of this. Instead, it would be interesting to hear why it is important that quality is not assessed for this review. Also, it is stated in this protocol that policy responses to student carers in HEIs will be examined. I would assume that this information is within the grey literature, which therefore means that a scoping review would be suitable, and quality appraisal would be challenging. This justification for the chosen review approach could be mentioned here. Response: Thank-you for making these points. While it is possible to address a broad question and incorporate studies using a variety of different study designs in a systematic review, the reason we chose to conduct a scoping review is because we will be including grey literature as a source of information to examine policy responses to student carers in HEIs. Hence, a scoping review is an appropriate approach to take. It was not our intention to use our decision not to assess quality as an argument for conducting a scoping review. We will make this clearer when writing a paper on the findings of our scoping review. Unlike systematic reviews, the quality of included studies is often omitted from scoping reviews, as it is not mandatory for scoping reviews, given that the goal is to map rather than critique existing empirical and grey literature (Arksey and O’Malley, 2005; Pollock et al., 2022). Moreover, information on the availability of tools and guidance for critical appraisal and risk of bias assessments of studies included in scoping reviews is lacking (Pollock et al., 2022). A clearer justification for applying the scoping review methodology will be included in the forthcoming manuscript. Comment: It is mentioned at the end of the introduction that the term “caring-experienced students” will be adopted by this review, however this is not the case, instead “student carer” is used throughout. This needs to be clarified. Response: We acknowledge that our explanation of the terms adopted is confusing. To clarify, we are using the term ‘student carers in higher education institutes’ for the purposes of the scoping review, as this is a commonly used and well-known term. However, we wanted to embrace the proposal by Larkin and colleagues to use an inclusive definition of student carers. Therefore, we amended the definition provided by the Carer’s Trust (2015: 7) to be inclusive of what Larkin et al (2021) refer to as ‘caring-experienced students.’ Consequently, for the scoping review, we adopt the term student carers in HEIs, defined as ‘any student in HEIs who is, becomes or has been caring, unpaid, for a friend or family member who due to illness, disability, a mental health problem or an addiction cannot cope without their support.’ Comment: The aim and objectives are clear, although perhaps very broad for a single review. I am unsure how you will be able to recognise these broad objectives within a single analysis. Response: We agree that the aims and objectives are broad. We plan to present the findings from the review in an integrated way, with the potential of supplemental files to support the key findings. We will only consider splitting the paper if it does not undermine the findings. Comment: There is overlap in your search terms. For example, al the subsequent terms would be captured by the first ““Care*” OR “caregiver*” OR “care-giver*” OR “caregiving” OR “care-giving” OR “caring”. This is the case within other levels of your search strategy. Response: Table 1 of the paper provides a list of the ‘proposed’ search terms to be used to develop the search strategy. We are aware of the overlap in search terms, and this issue was addrssed during the exploratory scoping phase, which was undertaken soon after the protocol paper was published. For example, the inclusion of “Care*” resulted in many studies focused on career options of higher education students. Following this exploratory scoping phase, we addressed any issues and finalised the search terms and strings. The string for carers is now amended, as guided by our University Librarian. “carer*” OR “care” OR “caregiv*” OR “care-giv*” OR “caring” OR “unpaid care*” OR “Family care” OR “eldercare” OR “elder-care” OR “elder care” We will be reporting on the final search strategy that we used when reporting the findings of our scoping review. Comment: Your definition for this review of student carers is those who provide care for a friend or family member, yet “friend” is not encompassed within your search terms. Response: Similarly to our response to the above comment, we identified this omission during the exploratory scoping phase and set about addressing it. We will be reporting on the final search terms that we used when reporting on the findings of our scoping review. References Arksey H, O'Malley L: Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005; 8(1): 19–32. Armstrong-Carter E, Panter AT, Hutson B, et al.: A university-wide survey of caregiving students in the US: individual differences and associations with emotional and academic adjustment. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2022; 9(1): 300. Carers Trust: Supporting students with caring responsibilities: ideas and practice for universities to help student carers access and succeed in Higher Education. London: Carers Trust, 2015. Chevrier B, Untas A, Dorard G: Young adult caregivers in Higher Education: a study of prevalence in France. J Further High Educ. 2023; 47(5): 699–710. Haugland BSM, Hysing M, Sivertsen B: The burden of care: a national survey on the prevalence, demographic characteristics and health problems among Young Adult Carers attending Higher Education in Norway. Front Psychol. 2020; 10: 2859. Knopf L, Wazinski K, Wanka A, et al.: Caregiving students: a systematic literature review of an under-researched group. J Further High Educ. 2022; 46(6): 822–835. Larkin M, Kubiak C: Carers and Higher Education: where next? Widen Participat Lifelong Learn. 2021; 23(2): 130–151. Lawrence, J. (1986) Comparative study of social policy: Conceptual and Methodological Issues’ International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy , 6(3), 1-12. Pollock D, Tricco AC, Peters MDJ, Mclnerney PA, Khalil H, Godfrey CM, Alexander LA, Munn Z. Methodological quality, guidance, and tools in scoping reviews: a scoping review protocol. JBI Evid Synth. 2022 Apr 1;20(4):1098-1105. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-20-00570. Runacres J, Herron D, Buckless K, et al.: Student carer experiences of Higher Education and support: a scoping review. Int J Inclus Educ. 2024; 28(7): 1275–1292. Maria Pierce on behalf of author team Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 23 Jan 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 Version 1 23 Jan 25 read read read Jessica Runacres , University of Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent, UK Mary Larkin , The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK Peter Unwin , University of Worcester, Worcester, UK Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Unwin P. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 04 Mar 2025 | for Version 1 Peter Unwin , University of Worcester, Worcester, UK 0 Views copyright © 2025 Unwin P. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions This is a well-written proposal on an important issue that has not been fully addressed by previous research. The structure flows well and it would appear that key extant literature is already known to the authors, who set out an ambitious project. It will be challenging to compare different countries' experiences, and to make reliable comparators. Contextual factors such as levels of fees / complexities in any 'carers' allowances' and percentages of 'study at home' / flexi studies in different disciplines will be very different across countries. Depending on how manageable the logistics appear, it might be worth narrowing the scope to specific disciplines which might allow for more validity comparisons to be drawn. For example, some disciplines ( history/ languages, literature) lend themselves more to flexi - hours whereas certain science subjects demand on-campus lab time and vocational courses such as nursing and social work have considerable placement demands, with very little in-built flexibility. It may , of course, be that the team find that the study foci of caring-experienced students reflect a tendency toward certain subjects. Another factor of interest, which might be a challenge too far, is to consider cohorts which became carers after their studies had commenced as compared to those who applied to HEIs when they were already carers. On a point of detail, I note the team's preference for the term 'caring-experienced students' but that the proposed research questions use the term 'student carers'. Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described? Yes Is the study design appropriate for the research question? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others? Yes Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Not applicable Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Voices of service users and carers in education -Marginalised groups - Social Inclusion- Disability I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 10 Sep 2025 Maria Pierce, Applied Social Studies, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Ireland We wish to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our submissions and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled ‘ Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol’ . We have carefully considered each comment. Below, we provide a detailed response to each point raised, as well as supporting references, which we believe will strengthen the manuscript considerably. Comment: This is a well-written proposal on an important issue that has not been fully addressed by previous research. The structure flows well and it would appear that key extant literature is already known to the authors, who set out an ambitious project. Response: Thank-you for these comments. Please find below our response to each point your provided. We would be happy to provide further clarification if necessary. Comment: It will be challenging to compare different countries' experiences, and to make reliable comparators. Contextual factors such as levels of fees / complexities in any 'carers' allowances' and percentages of 'study at home' / flexi studies in different disciplines will be very different across countries. Depending on how manageable the logistics appear, it might be worth narrowing the scope to specific disciplines which might allow for more validity comparisons to be drawn. For example, some disciplines (history/ languages, literature) lend themselves more to flexi - hours whereas certain science subjects demand on-campus lab time and vocational courses such as nursing and social work have considerable placement demands, with very little in-built flexibility. It may, of course, be that the team find that the study foci of caring-experienced students reflect a tendency toward certain subjects. Response: We agree that making comparisons between countries is challenging and will make these challenges known and acknowledge the important contextual differences between countries when reporting on the findings. However, rather than making a detailed comparison of different aspects of the higher education systems and carer supports in different countries, our intention in comparing countries is to have better awareness and understanding of the range of broad policy options available for responding to the needs of student carers in HEIs, which a key goal of comparative social policy (Lawrence, 1986). We will be examining the literature to see what it says about programme flexibility and student choice in specific disciplines. Comment: Another factor of interest, which might be a challenge too far, is to consider cohorts which became carers after their studies had commenced as compared to those who applied to HEIs when they were already carers. Response: We agree that this would be interesting comparison. It will be interesting to see if any of the literature included in our scoping review makes this comparison. Comment: On a point of detail, I note the team's preference for the term 'caring-experienced students' but that the proposed research questions use the term 'student carers'. Response: To clarify, we are using the term ‘student carers in higher education institutes’ for the purposes of the scoping review, as this is a commonly used and well-known term. However, we wanted to embrace the proposal by Larkin and colleagues to use an inclusive definition of student carers. Therefore, we amended the definition provided by the Carer’s Trust (2015: 7) to be inclusive of what Larkin et al (2021) refer to as ‘caring-experienced students.’ Consequently, for the scoping review, we adopt the term student carers in HEIs and use it to mean ‘any student in HEIs who is, becomes or has been caring, unpaid, for a friend or family member who due to illness, disability, a mental health problem or an addiction cannot cope without their support.’ References Carers Trust: Supporting students with caring responsibilities: ideas and practice for universities to help student carers access and succeed in Higher Education. London: Carers Trust, 2015. Larkin M, Kubiak C: Carers and Higher Education: where next? Widen Participat Lifelong Learn. 2021; 23(2): 130–151. Lawrence, J. (1986) Comparative study of social policy: Conceptual and Methodological Issues’ International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 6(3), 1-12. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Unwin P. Peer Review Report For: Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :9 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15424.r45954) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-9/v1#referee-response-45954 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Larkin M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 03 Mar 2025 | for Version 1 Mary Larkin , The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK 0 Views copyright © 2025 Larkin M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The authors are to be congratulated on their use of such an Inclusive definition of Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions, Rigorous use of Arksey and O’Malley’s five stage framework. They also present some excellent ideas about ways of accessing and including grey literature. If the aims of the scoping review can achieved it will certainly address key outstanding issues which underpin future student carer research and policy making There are a couple of weaknesses:: - It is not clear how they will be using their inclusive definition of a student carer throughout the scoping - review It will be worth working with carers organisations on the dissemination and eliciting their support in working with policy makers Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described? Yes Is the study design appropriate for the research question? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others? Yes Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise care, carers and caring I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 10 Sep 2025 Maria Pierce, Applied Social Studies, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Ireland We wish to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our submission and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled ‘ Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol’ . We have carefully considered each comment. Below, we provide a detailed response to each point raised, which we believe will strengthen the manuscript considerably. Comment: The authors are to be congratulated on their use of such an Inclusive definition of Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions, Rigorous use of Arksey and O’Malley’s five stage framework. They also present some excellent ideas about ways of accessing and including grey literature. If the aims of the scoping review can achieved it will certainly address key outstanding issues which underpin future student carer research and policy making. Response: Thank-you for your encouraging comments and for identifying weaknesses. Comment: There are a couple of weaknesses. It is not clear how they will be using their inclusive definition of a student carer throughout the scoping review. Response: With respect to the first weakness identified, we are using the term ‘student carers in higher education institutes’ for the purposes of the scoping review to mean ‘any student in HEIs who is, becomes or has been caring, unpaid, for a friend or family member who due to illness, disability, a mental health problem or an addiction cannot cope without their support.’ One of the research questions of our scoping review is ‘What definitions of student carers in HEIs are typically adopted?’ We plan to examine the extent to which the definitions identified from included studies align with the inclusive definition that we have adopted. Comment: It will be worth working with carers organisations on the dissemination and eliciting their support in working with policy makers. Response: Thank-you also for your comment about working with carers organisations. We are in contact with and have good working relationships with carers organisations in Ireland. These organisations are aware that the scoping review is underway. We are keeping them updated on how the work is progressing. The carers organisations have expressed interest in the scoping review and there is scope for working with carers organisations on the dissemination and eliciting their support in working with policy makers. Another promising avenue for dissemination and support in working with policy makers and other relevant stakeholders is the Higher Educational Institutes Carer Network that was established in Ireland in 2024. One of the authors (AL) of the scoping review is a founding member of the network and another (MP) is a member of the network. Maria Pierce on behalf of author team View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Larkin M. Peer Review Report For: Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :9 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15424.r45189) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-9/v1#referee-response-45189 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Runacres J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 26 Feb 2025 | for Version 1 Jessica Runacres , University of Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent, UK 0 Views copyright © 2025 Runacres J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions This is a protocol for a scoping review focusing on student carers in higher education which is an emerging and interesting area of research. The researchers present a detailed outline of the methods to be undertaken and have generated broad research questions which address a noted gap in the current literature. It is clear that a significant amount of thought has been put into the proposed methods which are well articulated and suitably referenced. Some points to consider below: The work of Runacres et al. (2024) and Knopf et al. (2022) is mentioned in the introduction, including the findings, and it is stated that there are some areas of discussion that have yet to be explored, however specifically how this scoping review will build on this existing work is unclear. Some further critical engagement with the existing literature reviews on this topic would be beneficial here. Furthermore, the introduction argues that “there is a need to explore other aspects not covered by existing reviews” but why could be further justified. There is a brief argument for the use of a scoping review at the end of the introduction, this argues that this scoping review intends to address a broad question and incorporate studies using a variety of different study designs, however, this is possible within a systematic review. This section also states that the reviewers are using a scoping review as they do not intend to assess quality, and, whilst this is the case within a scoping review, it should not be used as an argument for the use of this. Instead, it would be interesting to hear why it is important that quality is not assessed for this review. Also, it is stated in this protocol that policy responses to student carers in HEIs will be examined. I would assume that this information is within the grey literature, which therefore means that a scoping review would be suitable, and quality appraisal would be challenging. This justification for the chosen review approach could be mentioned here. It is mentioned at the end of the introduction that the term “caring-experienced students” will be adopted by this review, however this is not the case, instead “student carer” is used throughout. This needs to be clarified. The aim and objectives are clear, although perhaps very broad for a single review. I am unsure how you will be able to recognise these broad objectives within a single analysis. There is overlap in your search terms. For example, al the subsequent terms would be captured by the first ““Care*” OR “caregiver*” OR “care-giver*” OR “caregiving” OR “care-giving” OR “caring”. This is the case within other levels of your search strategy. Your definition for this review of student carers is those who provide care for a friend or family member, yet “friend” is not encompassed within your search terms. Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described? Partly Is the study design appropriate for the research question? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others? Yes Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Not applicable Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Student carers, informal carers, literature reviews I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 10 Sep 2025 Maria Pierce, Applied Social Studies, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Ireland We wish to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our submission and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled ‘ Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol’ . We have carefully considered each comment. Below, we provide a detailed response to each point raised, as well as supporting references. We believe that these author responses strengthen the manuscript considerably, and we hope it will now meet the standards for approval status in HRB Open Research . Comment: This is a protocol for a scoping review focusing on student carers in higher education which is an emerging and interesting area of research. The researchers present a detailed outline of the methods to be undertaken and have generated broad research questions which address a noted gap in the current literature. It is clear that a significant amount of thought has been put into the proposed methods which are well articulated and suitably referenced. Some points to consider below. Response: Thank-you for identifying points that warrant further consideration. Please find below our response to each of the points made. We would be happy to provide further clarification if necessary. Comment: The work of Runacres et al. (2024) and Knopf et al. (2022) is mentioned in the introduction, including the findings, and it is stated that there are some areas of discussion that have yet to be explored, however specifically how this scoping review will build on this existing work is unclear. Some further critical engagement with the existing literature reviews on this topic would be beneficial here. Furthermore, the introduction argues that “there is a need to explore other aspects not covered by existing reviews” but why could be further justified. Response: The scoping review seeks both to complement and build on the work of and Knopf et al. (2022) and Runacres et al. (2024). With respect to building on this work, it will analyse information on some of the knowledge gaps in the literature that have been identified by the authors of these works. For example, Runacres et al. (2024) identify the importance of knowing the prevalence and demographics of student carers in HEIs. Our scoping review will analyse and report on the findings from included studies estimating the prevalence and demographics of student carers in HEIs (e.g. Haugland et al., 2020; Armstrong-Carter et al., 2022; Chevrier et al., 2023), and methods used. The analysis will be useful for universities seeking to capture data on prevalence and demographics of student carers among their student populations, as well as for researchers. Comment: The scoping review identified the following salient gaps in the literature. Firstly, limited research within any one country could be identified. This is a concern as the differences in education and healthcare between countries limits the comparisons and generalisations that can be made. Response: We agree that making comparisons between countries is challenging and we acknowledge that countries will differ with respect to both their education and health and social care systems. When publishing our findings, we will make the challenges we encounter clearly known. We are not planning to compare the organisation, operation or delivery of education and health care systems across different countries. Rather than making generalisations, our intention in comparing countries is to have better awareness and understanding of the range of broad policy options available from different countries for responding to the needs of student carers in HEIs. Better awareness and understanding of different policy options is a key goal of comparative social policy (Lawrence, 1986). Comment: Furthermore, no longitudinal research was identified, consequently still relatively little is known about mechanisms and causal links which impact student carers across their life course. A better understanding of these mechanisms is crucial for designing appropriate interventions. This is particularly salient as the scoping review identified concerns with employment prospects (Day 2019; Kettell 2018); this suggests that being a student carer might have an impact in future life regardless of the continuation of caring responsibilities. Response: Existing reviews did not identify any longitudinal research. Our scoping review provides an opportunity to identify and report on findings of any longitudinal studies on student carers in HEIs conducted after these reviews were completed such as the qualitative longitudinal study undertaken by Runacres, Herron and Crust (2025). A life course perspective offers a very useful framework that could be used to inform the design of future research studies on student carers in HEIs. One of the questions of our scoping review relates to theoretical perspectives and concepts underpinning studies on student carers in HEIs, and the life course perspective could potentially be discussed as part of the analysis. Comment: Much identified research focussed on student carer’s experiences, their health and well-being, and academic outcomes, little research has examined the implications of being a carer on broader student life, such as social activities. Response: Research on the implications of being a carer on broader student life is limited. However, we have identified research published in 2020 that includes an examination of the issue of socialising for student carers in HEIs. This and any other research published since 2020 on this issue identified via our search strategy will be included and reported on in our scoping review. Comment: There is a brief argument for the use of a scoping review at the end of the introduction, this argues that this scoping review intends to address a broad question and incorporate studies using a variety of different study designs, however, this is possible within a systematic review. This section also states that the reviewers are using a scoping review as they do not intend to assess quality, and, whilst this is the case within a scoping review, it should not be used as an argument for the use of this. Instead, it would be interesting to hear why it is important that quality is not assessed for this review. Also, it is stated in this protocol that policy responses to student carers in HEIs will be examined. I would assume that this information is within the grey literature, which therefore means that a scoping review would be suitable, and quality appraisal would be challenging. This justification for the chosen review approach could be mentioned here. Response: Thank-you for making these points. While it is possible to address a broad question and incorporate studies using a variety of different study designs in a systematic review, the reason we chose to conduct a scoping review is because we will be including grey literature as a source of information to examine policy responses to student carers in HEIs. Hence, a scoping review is an appropriate approach to take. It was not our intention to use our decision not to assess quality as an argument for conducting a scoping review. We will make this clearer when writing a paper on the findings of our scoping review. Unlike systematic reviews, the quality of included studies is often omitted from scoping reviews, as it is not mandatory for scoping reviews, given that the goal is to map rather than critique existing empirical and grey literature (Arksey and O’Malley, 2005; Pollock et al., 2022). Moreover, information on the availability of tools and guidance for critical appraisal and risk of bias assessments of studies included in scoping reviews is lacking (Pollock et al., 2022). A clearer justification for applying the scoping review methodology will be included in the forthcoming manuscript. Comment: It is mentioned at the end of the introduction that the term “caring-experienced students” will be adopted by this review, however this is not the case, instead “student carer” is used throughout. This needs to be clarified. Response: We acknowledge that our explanation of the terms adopted is confusing. To clarify, we are using the term ‘student carers in higher education institutes’ for the purposes of the scoping review, as this is a commonly used and well-known term. However, we wanted to embrace the proposal by Larkin and colleagues to use an inclusive definition of student carers. Therefore, we amended the definition provided by the Carer’s Trust (2015: 7) to be inclusive of what Larkin et al (2021) refer to as ‘caring-experienced students.’ Consequently, for the scoping review, we adopt the term student carers in HEIs, defined as ‘any student in HEIs who is, becomes or has been caring, unpaid, for a friend or family member who due to illness, disability, a mental health problem or an addiction cannot cope without their support.’ Comment: The aim and objectives are clear, although perhaps very broad for a single review. I am unsure how you will be able to recognise these broad objectives within a single analysis. Response: We agree that the aims and objectives are broad. We plan to present the findings from the review in an integrated way, with the potential of supplemental files to support the key findings. We will only consider splitting the paper if it does not undermine the findings. Comment: There is overlap in your search terms. For example, al the subsequent terms would be captured by the first ““Care*” OR “caregiver*” OR “care-giver*” OR “caregiving” OR “care-giving” OR “caring”. This is the case within other levels of your search strategy. Response: Table 1 of the paper provides a list of the ‘proposed’ search terms to be used to develop the search strategy. We are aware of the overlap in search terms, and this issue was addrssed during the exploratory scoping phase, which was undertaken soon after the protocol paper was published. For example, the inclusion of “Care*” resulted in many studies focused on career options of higher education students. Following this exploratory scoping phase, we addressed any issues and finalised the search terms and strings. The string for carers is now amended, as guided by our University Librarian. “carer*” OR “care” OR “caregiv*” OR “care-giv*” OR “caring” OR “unpaid care*” OR “Family care” OR “eldercare” OR “elder-care” OR “elder care” We will be reporting on the final search strategy that we used when reporting the findings of our scoping review. Comment: Your definition for this review of student carers is those who provide care for a friend or family member, yet “friend” is not encompassed within your search terms. Response: Similarly to our response to the above comment, we identified this omission during the exploratory scoping phase and set about addressing it. We will be reporting on the final search terms that we used when reporting on the findings of our scoping review. References Arksey H, O'Malley L: Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005; 8(1): 19–32. Armstrong-Carter E, Panter AT, Hutson B, et al.: A university-wide survey of caregiving students in the US: individual differences and associations with emotional and academic adjustment. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2022; 9(1): 300. Carers Trust: Supporting students with caring responsibilities: ideas and practice for universities to help student carers access and succeed in Higher Education. London: Carers Trust, 2015. Chevrier B, Untas A, Dorard G: Young adult caregivers in Higher Education: a study of prevalence in France. J Further High Educ. 2023; 47(5): 699–710. Haugland BSM, Hysing M, Sivertsen B: The burden of care: a national survey on the prevalence, demographic characteristics and health problems among Young Adult Carers attending Higher Education in Norway. Front Psychol. 2020; 10: 2859. Knopf L, Wazinski K, Wanka A, et al.: Caregiving students: a systematic literature review of an under-researched group. J Further High Educ. 2022; 46(6): 822–835. Larkin M, Kubiak C: Carers and Higher Education: where next? Widen Participat Lifelong Learn. 2021; 23(2): 130–151. Lawrence, J. (1986) Comparative study of social policy: Conceptual and Methodological Issues’ International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy , 6(3), 1-12. Pollock D, Tricco AC, Peters MDJ, Mclnerney PA, Khalil H, Godfrey CM, Alexander LA, Munn Z. Methodological quality, guidance, and tools in scoping reviews: a scoping review protocol. JBI Evid Synth. 2022 Apr 1;20(4):1098-1105. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-20-00570. Runacres J, Herron D, Buckless K, et al.: Student carer experiences of Higher Education and support: a scoping review. Int J Inclus Educ. 2024; 28(7): 1275–1292. Maria Pierce on behalf of author team View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Runacres J. Peer Review Report For: Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :9 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15424.r45182) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-9/v1#referee-response-45182 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with HRB Open Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions:...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-9/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-9/v1&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-9/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Pierce M et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-9/v1/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-9", templates : { twitter : "Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review.... Pierce M et al., published by " + "@HRBOpenRes" + ", https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-9/v1" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/14047/15424") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "15424"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "45184": 0, "45952": 0, "45441": 0, "45185": 0, "45953": 0, "45442": 0, "45186": 0, "45954": 26, "45443": 0, "45187": 0, "45955": 0, "45444": 0, "45188": 0, "45956": 0, "45445": 0, "45957": 0, "45189": 29, "45446": 0, "45190": 0, "45958": 0, "45447": 0, "45959": 0, "45448": 0, "45449": 0, "45450": 0, "44973": 0, "44974": 0, "44975": 0, "44976": 0, "44977": 0, "44978": 0, "44979": 0, "44980": 0, "44981": 0, "44982": 0, "45681": 0, "45682": 0, "45683": 0, "45684": 0, "45685": 0, "45686": 0, "45687": 0, "45688": 0, "45689": 0, "45690": 0, "45181": 0, "45950": 0, "45182": 49, "45183": 0, "45951": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "c7f45c9d-1b0c-49a7-968c-830d826f9f79"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); Are you a HRB-funded researcher? Submission to HRB Open Research is open to all HRB grantholders or people working on a HRB-funded/co-funded grant on or since 1 January 2017. Sign up for information about developments, publishing and publications from HRB Open Research. First Name * You must provide your first name Last Name * You must provide your last name Email * You must provide a valid email address Institution You must provide an institution. Submit Thank you! We'll keep you updated on any major new updates to HRB Open Research HRB Open Research Browse How to Publish About Contact RSS Cookie Notice Privacy Notice Legal Submit Your Research © F1000 Research Limited and its licensors ISSN 2515-4826 | Legal background var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "hrb", displayName: "HRB Open Research", hostName: "hrbopenresearch.org", id: "5", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]" }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); }); (function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML="window.__CF$cv$params={r:'a027cfac2ab4593a',t:'MTc3OTkxNDE4MA=='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})();