Interventions to improve sexual health among the homeless community: a realist review protocol

Interventions to improve sexual health among... | 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/8-83" }, "headline": "Interventions to improve sexual health among the homeless community: a realist review protocol", "datePublished": "2025-07-23T15:17:55", "dateModified": "2026-05-05T11:18:13", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Hau Nguyen" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "John Gilmore" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Rikke Siersbaek" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Chris Noone" } ], "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": " Background People experiencing homelessness face profound sexual health inequities, driven by overlapping structural vulnerabilities including housing instability, stigma, limited healthcare access, and social exclusion. Interventions designed to improve sexual health outcomes within this population are diverse, ranging from peer-led education to nurse-led clinical models and structural supports such as housing. However, the effectiveness of these interventions depends on the content of the interventions as well as varying significantly across circumstances and subpopulations. A realist approach is useful for understanding how, for whom, and under what circumstances interventions produce intended (and unintended) outcomes. Methods This review will follow Pawson’s six-step realist synthesis methodology. An initial programme theory has been developed through preliminary literature searches and will be refined iteratively as new evidence is gathered. Published and grey literature will be systematically searched and selected for their relevance to developing and testing Context–Mechanism–Outcome Configurations. Data extraction will focus on identifying key information which can contribute to understanding contextual factors, mechanisms, and outcomes across intervention types. The synthesis will develop, refine, and test theories that explain how sexual health interventions produce change in varied contexts. Patient and public involvement contributors will be consulted throughout the review to validate findings and support interpretation. Conclusion This review will generate transferable insights into how sexual health interventions for people experiencing homelessness work across different contexts. By identifying mechanisms that spark outcomes, and the conditions that shape them, the findings will support more context-sensitive and effective policy, practice, and service design. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, practitioner-facing summaries, and community-informed outputs. " } { "@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/8-83/v1", "name": "Interventions to improve sexual health among the homeless community:..." } } ] } Home Browse Interventions to improve sexual health among the homeless community:... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Nguyen H, Gilmore J, Siersbaek R and Noone C. Interventions to improve sexual health among the homeless community: a realist review protocol [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :83 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14193.1 ) 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 Interventions to improve sexual health among the homeless community: a realist review protocol [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] Hau Nguyen https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2783-1774 1 , John Gilmore https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3943-0724 2 , Rikke Siersbaek https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3223-1420 3 , Chris Noone https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4974-9066 1 Hau Nguyen https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2783-1774 1 , John Gilmore https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3943-0724 2 , Rikke Siersbaek https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3223-1420 3 , Chris Noone https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4974-9066 1 PUBLISHED 23 Jul 2025 Author details Author details 1 University of Galway, Galway, County Galway, Ireland 2 University College Dublin, Dublin, Leinster, Ireland 3 The University of Dublin Trinity College, Dublin, Leinster, Ireland Hau Nguyen Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing John Gilmore Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Rikke Siersbaek Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Chris Noone Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS Abstract Background People experiencing homelessness face profound sexual health inequities, driven by overlapping structural vulnerabilities including housing instability, stigma, limited healthcare access, and social exclusion. Interventions designed to improve sexual health outcomes within this population are diverse, ranging from peer-led education to nurse-led clinical models and structural supports such as housing. However, the effectiveness of these interventions depends on the content of the interventions as well as varying significantly across circumstances and subpopulations. A realist approach is useful for understanding how, for whom, and under what circumstances interventions produce intended (and unintended) outcomes. Methods This review will follow Pawson’s six-step realist synthesis methodology. An initial programme theory has been developed through preliminary literature searches and will be refined iteratively as new evidence is gathered. Published and grey literature will be systematically searched and selected for their relevance to developing and testing Context–Mechanism–Outcome Configurations. Data extraction will focus on identifying key information which can contribute to understanding contextual factors, mechanisms, and outcomes across intervention types. The synthesis will develop, refine, and test theories that explain how sexual health interventions produce change in varied contexts. Patient and public involvement contributors will be consulted throughout the review to validate findings and support interpretation. Conclusion This review will generate transferable insights into how sexual health interventions for people experiencing homelessness work across different contexts. By identifying mechanisms that spark outcomes, and the conditions that shape them, the findings will support more context-sensitive and effective policy, practice, and service design. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, practitioner-facing summaries, and community-informed outputs. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Sexual health, Homelessness, Intervention, Realist review Corresponding Author(s) Hau Nguyen ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Hau Nguyen Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: This research project is funded by the University of Galway. The funding institution did not involve in developing this review protocol. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright: © 2025 Nguyen H 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: Nguyen H, Gilmore J, Siersbaek R and Noone C. Interventions to improve sexual health among the homeless community: a realist review protocol [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :83 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14193.1 ) First published: 23 Jul 2025, 8 :83 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14193.1 ) Latest published: 05 May 2026, 8 :83 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14193.2 )  There is a newer version of this article available. Suppress this message for one day. Introduction Homelessness is a complex and dynamic condition that manifests in multiple forms. It is frequently classified into unsheltered homelessness (e.g., sleeping rough or in vehicles), sheltered homelessness (e.g., use of emergency accommodation), and hidden homelessness (e.g., temporary stays with friends or family, often unrecorded in official statistics). The European Typology of Homelessness and Housing Exclusion (ETHOS) offers a nuanced conceptual framework detailing the full spectrum of the experience of homelessness, encompassing rooflessness, houselessness, insecure housing, and inadequate housing 1 . This typology is particularly relevant for research adopting a realist approach, as it supports an examination of how varying housing circumstances shape vulnerability and access to support. Across jurisdictions, definitions of homelessness vary based on policy, legal, and service delivery frameworks. In the U.S., homelessness is narrowly defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) based on the absence of a fixed, adequate nighttime residence 2 . In contrast, Canada and Ireland adopt broader definitions. Ireland’s Housing Act of 1988, for instance, includes those whose accommodation is unsuitable or poses a risk to health and safety 3 . These definitional differences reflect deeper structural and cultural assumptions about the causes and consequences of homelessness and inform how states respond. As of early 2025, homelessness in Ireland has reached unprecedented levels, with 14,864 people recorded in emergency accommodation—the highest since national records began 4 . Homelessness is underpinned by poverty, housing precarity, and systemic exclusion, and is associated with considerable disparities in physical and mental health 5 , 6 . Sexual health is a particularly neglected domain. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines sexual health as a state of physical, emotional, mental, and social well-being in relation to sexuality. It is not merely the absence of disease or dysfunction but requires a positive and respectful approach to sexuality and sexual relationships, as well as the possibility of having pleasurable and safe sexual experiences, free from coercion, discrimination, and violence 7 . Sexual health encompasses a wide range of issues, including access to contraception, prevention, and treatment of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), sexual education, and the ability to engage in consensual, safe sexual activities. For the people experiencing homelessness, maintaining sexual health is particularly challenging due to the instability and risks associated with their living situations. Research indicates that people experiencing homelessness are more likely than their housed counterparts to engage in high-risk sexual behaviours, such as having unprotected sex, engaging in transactional sex, or having multiple sexual partners 8 , 9 . These behaviours, combined with limited access to sexual health services, stigma, and the transient nature of homelessness contribute to elevated rates of STIs and other sexual health issues within this community 10 , 11 . Existing reviews of sexual health interventions targeting people experiencing homelessness and other high-risk populations highlight promising strategies but suffer from several shared limitations in scope and methodology. Wright and Walker conducted a narrative systematic review of sexual health interventions among homeless people who use drugs 12 . While they identified potentially effective behavioural and attitude change interventions, their findings were constrained by a limited six included studies, and a lack of exploration into how circumstantial and structural factors influenced outcomes and is now outdated. A systematic review by Naranbhai et al. focused specifically on HIV prevention among young people experiencing homelessness 13 . The authors were only able to include three RCTs for their review. They concluded that the lack of quality evidence and the heterogeneity in intervention characteristics hindered the synthesis of evidence regarding the effectiveness of these interventions. Brown et al. reviewed behavioural and psychosocial interventions for youth in high-risk communities 14 . Like Naranbhai et al. ’s review, the authors only included three studies in their review with regards to the homeless community without being able to come to conclusions as to how these interventions might work or whether they are effective as the studies were too heterogeneous to synthesise. Notably, the aforementioned reviews were mostly restricted to trials, either intentionally or unintentionally as most non-trial studies did not meet the quality criteria to be included, which limit their ability to account for the complexity of homelessness and healthcare interventions as well as their broader circumstances. Prioritising trials also risks leaving out broader implementation studies or qualitative evaluations that could provide richer insight into how interventions function the real world. Together, these reviews suggest that while there is emerging evidence of what works, the reliance on trials—though methodologically rigorous—often excludes valuable insights from mixed-methods, qualitative, or naturalistic studies. Such exclusions are particularly problematic in the homelessness field, where lack of funding, instability, and ethical concerns make controlled trials challenging. This highlights a pressing need for a different method for evidence synthesis that includes a broader evidence base and which is specifically designed to understand complex interventions and circumstances. Rationale Homelessness is a significant public health issue, including in high-income nations such as Ireland 15 . Communities experiencing homelessness face profound disparities in physical, mental, and sexual health due to structural and circumstantial factors, including housing instability, economic insecurity, and limited access to healthcare services. Sexual health is an often overlooked but critical aspect of wellbeing for people experiencing homelessness. Research highlights elevated rates of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), unintended pregnancies, and survival sex among this community 15 . However, key questions remain unanswered: In what ways, for whom, and under what conditions do sexual health interventions work—or fail—by triggering certain mechanisms within particular settings and life situations? A realist review is uniquely suited to address these questions. By examining a broader range of evidence—including but not limited to trials—this approach focuses on developing, refining, and testing programme theories that explain how latent powers (mechanisms) are triggered in a given context to produce outcomes 16 . Rather than asking simply whether an intervention works, this review will explore how and why it works (or fails), for whom, and in what circumstances. The current review This realist review aims to fill the gaps identified above by systematically synthesising the published evidence to explain how sexual health interventions for homeless populations work, for whom, and under what conditions. The review will identify causal patterns of change across intervention types (e.g., peer-led, nurse-led, educational, structural) and settings, and highlight how contextual factors (e.g., housing status, service delivery models) shape outcomes. Through the development of context–mechanism–outcome configurations (CMOCs) and theories, this realist review will provide policymakers, practitioners, and service planners with a deeper understanding of how to design and deliver more responsive, equitable, and sustainable sexual health interventions for people experiencing homelessness. Protocol This realist review seeks to explore how and why sexual health interventions for people experiencing homelessness lead to different outcomes, depending on individual circumstances and broader social circumstances. This protocol is registered on PROSPERO (CRD420251047807). Methods The current review will be conducted following a structured, theory-driven process composed of six iterative steps according to Pawson’s guidelines 16 . These include: (i) identifying the review question, (ii) searching for primary studies, (iii) quality appraisal, (iv) extracting the data, (v) synthesizing the data and (vi) disseminating the findings. First, the scope of the review is clarified by defining the research question in realist terms—focusing on what works, for whom, in what circumstances, and how—and by developing an initial programme theory to guide inquiry. Second, a systematic search for evidence is conducted across diverse sources, including both academic and grey literature, to identify data relevant to understanding how interventions function. Third, the evidence is appraised and extracted based on the relevance to the research question and the rigour of the study which produced it. Fourth, evidence is synthesised through the development and refinement of CMOCs, and then ultimately producing theories that explain how mechanisms are triggered under different contextual conditions to produce outcomes. Iterative data searching can take place at any point during the steps 2–4. Fifth, the programme theory is continually refined and tested throughout the review process as needed. Finally, the findings are disseminated in ways that are useful to policymakers, practitioners, and other stakeholders, emphasising transferable insights about how interventions operate. Initial programme theory Through a preliminary informal review of the literature, the authors identified a range of sexual health interventions targeting people experiencing homelessness, most of which can be categorised as one of the following categories: nurse-led, peer-led, educational or structural interventions. These interventions, varied in their design, delivery agents, and assumptions about how change occurs. Further synthesis revealed that these approaches often share underlying mechanisms and interact in complementary ways. Consequently, the authors developed an initial programme theory that captures the common mechanisms, contextual influences, and outcome pathways across these diverse interventions. This initial theory was subsequently refined through consultation with an expert advisory group, composed of professionals with experience in sexual health, homelessness, and social inclusion. Feedback gathered during a facilitated advisory panel meeting helped ensure the theory’s relevance, coherence, and grounding in real-world practice and research. Details of the initial programme theory can be found at the Open Science Framework (OSF): Interventions to improve sexual health among the homeless community: a realist review protocol. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/W9VXY 17 . Searches Following the principles outlined by Pawson 16 , the literature search for this realist review has been conducted in two phases. An initial, exploratory search was undertaken to identify key intervention types, contextual influences, and candidate mechanisms relevant to promoting sexual health among people experiencing homelessness. Along with the team’s subject area knowledge, this pilot search informed the development of an initial programme theory, which will guide the selection of search terms. A second systematic search will be undertaken with the assistance of a subject librarian. The search strategy used at the initial programme theory development stage can be found at the Open Science Framework (OSF): Interventions to improve sexual health among the homeless community: a realist review protocol. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/W9VXY 17 . Inclusion and exclusion criteria This review will include studies of any design—quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods—that provide data relevant to understanding how sexual health interventions work for people experiencing homelessness. Eligible studies must contain information that can contribute to the development or refinement of CMOCs, regardless of whether they report on intervention effectiveness. The main databases to be searched are CINAHL - Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase.com, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. Grey literature, policy documents, and theoretical papers will also be included where they offer explanatory insight. Studies that are not published in English will not be included. PICO criteria are as followed: Population: Included people experiencing homelessness or unstable housing, including subgroups (e.g., youth, LGBTQ+, those with mental health needs or substance use) Intervention(s) or exposure(s): Included sexual health interventions of any type (e.g., peer-led, nurse-led, educational, structural), including those integrated into wider health or social services Comparator(s) or control(s): This review does not have any comparators Study design: Both randomized and nonrandomized study types will be included. Data extraction and synthesis Covidence will be used to screen retrieved articles. Titles and abstracts will be double screened to ensure consistency. Discrepancies will be discussed, and if consensus cannot be reached, a third reviewer will be consulted to make the final decision. The same process will be applied during full-text screening. Expert advisory group. This review includes structured involvement from an expert advisory group, in line with best practice principles for ethical and meaningful engagement as outlined by the Irish Health Research Forum 18 . This review adopts a consultation-based approach whereby experts’ consultation will be sought twice- at the initial programme theory development stage and the study completion stage. The group is composed of individuals with expertise in frontline service provision, sexual health, social inclusion, and homelessness policy. The panel includes representatives from the Health Service Executive (HSE), Safetynet Primary Care, and the Dublin Simon Community—all of whom are directly involved in delivering or coordinating services for people experiencing homelessness. It also includes academics from Trinity College Dublin, University of Galway, and University College Dublin, whose research engages directly or indirectly with issues related to homelessness, health equity, and vulnerable populations. Together, the group brings a well-rounded and practice-informed perspective to the development and refinement of the review’s programme theory. In the first phase, the group met to discuss and shape the development of the initial programme theory. This session was facilitated to gather expert insights and test the early conceptual thinking behind how sexual health services may or may not work for people experiencing homelessness. The discussions helped identify key contextual factors, mechanisms, and outcomes to guide the subsequent literature review. A second consultation will take place once the realist synthesis is complete. At that stage, the group will be invited to provide feedback on the refined, overarching programme theory, offering critical reflections on its coherence, resonance with real-world practice, and potential relevance to policy and service design. We aim to include expertise through lived experience at this stage. Dissemination Results will be shared via peer-reviewed journal publications and conference presentations in the fields of public health, homelessness, and sexual health. In alignment with our commitment to patient and public involvement, accessible summaries will also be co-developed with public and patient involvement (PPI) contributors to share findings in plain language through community organisations, outreach networks, and advocacy groups. Key insights—particularly refined CMOCs—will be presented in visual formats such as logic models or evidence maps to support policy and practice uptake without the use of research jargon. Additionally, findings will be shared with stakeholders in health and homelessness services to inform future intervention design, delivery, and commissioning. Conclusion This realist review protocol outlines a comprehensive plan to investigate how sexual health interventions function for people experiencing homelessness, for whom, and under what circumstances. Moving beyond traditional systematic reviews which are designed to synthesise trial-based outcomes and effect sizes, this approach will synthesise evidence from a diverse range of study designs. By developing and testing CMOCs, the review aims to build theories that are transferable across settings. This theory-driven synthesis will help uncover the underlying mechanisms that shape intervention success or failure, while accounting for key contextual factors such as housing status and access to care. Meaningful patient and public involvement (PPI) will guide the review to ensure its relevance and impact. Ultimately, this work will inform more equitable, effective, and sustainable approaches to sexual health for the homeless community. Review stage The review has completed the IPT development stage, where the IPT was brought in for discussion with the expert advisory group to gather their insights and feedback. The next phase of the review will involve an in-depth literature review and realist data synthesis, aimed at testing and further refining the programme theories. Ethical considerations There are no ethical considerations necessary as this is a review study synthesising published literature. No primary data will be collected. Data availability statement Underlying data No data associated with this article. Extended data Open Science Framework (OSF): Interventions to improve sexual health among the homeless community: a realist review protocol, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/W9VXY 17 . This project contains the following underlying data: PRISMA-P checklist, Search strategies, Initial programme theory. Data are available under CC-By Attribution 4.0 International license. Faculty Opinions recommended References 1. FEANTSA: How to measure and monitor homelessness at EU level. Brussels: FEANTSA, 2010. Reference Source 2. Department of Housing and Urban Development: Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH): defining homeless final rule. 2011; [cited 2025 Jul 6]. Reference Source 3. Government of Ireland: Housing act 1988. Irish Statute Book, 1988. Reference Source 4. Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage: Homeless quarterly progress report for Q4 2024. Government of Ireland, 2024; [cited 2025 Jul 6]. Reference Source 5. Liu CY, Chai SJ, Watt JP: Communicable disease among people experiencing homelessness in California. Epidemiol Infect. 2020; 148 : e85. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 6. Mitchell E, Waring T, Ahern E, et al. : Predictors and consequences of homelessness in whole-population observational studies that used administrative data: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2023; 23 (1): 1610. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 7. World Health Organization: Sexual health. Geneva: World Health Organization, [cited 2025 Jul 6]. Reference Source 8. Czechowski K, Turner KA, Labelle PR, et al. : Sexual and romantic relationships among people experiencing homelessness: a scoping review. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2022; 92 (1): 25–38. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 9. Kushel MB, Evans JL, Perry S, et al. : No door to lock: victimization among homeless and marginally housed persons. Arch Intern Med. 2003; 163 (20): 2492–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 10. Paisi M, March-McDonald J, Burns L, et al. : Perceived barriers and facilitators to accessing and utilising sexual and reproductive healthcare for people who experience homelessness: a systematic review. BMJ Sex Reprod Health. 2021; 47 (3): 211–20. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 11. Salem BE, Nyamathi Anp A, Reback C, et al. : Unmet physical and mental healthcare needs among stimulant-using gay and bisexual homeless men. Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2015; 36 (9): 685–92. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 12. Wright NMJ, Walker J: Homelessness and drug use - a narrative systematic review of interventions to promote sexual health. AIDS Care. 2006; 18 (5): 467–78. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 13. Naranbhai V, Karim QA, Meyer-Weitz A: Interventions to modify sexual risk behaviours for preventing HIV in homeless youth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011; (1): CD007501. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 14. Brown E, Lo Monaco S, O’Donoghue B, et al. : Improving the sexual health of young people (under 25) in high-risk populations: a systematic review of behavioural and psychosocial interventions. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18 (17): 9063. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 15. O'Sullivan E, Benjaminsen L, Busch-Geertsema V, et al. : Homelessness in the European Union. 2023; [cited 2025 Jul 6]. Reference Source 16. Pawson R: Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2006. Reference Source 17. Nguyen H, Noone C, Gilmore J, et al. : Interventions to improve sexual heath among the homeless community: a realist review protocol. Open Science Framework. http://www.doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/W9VXY 18. Irish Health Research Forum: Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) in research. 2015; [cited 2025 Jul 6]. Reference Source Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 23 Jul 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 University of Galway, Galway, County Galway, Ireland 2 University College Dublin, Dublin, Leinster, Ireland 3 The University of Dublin Trinity College, Dublin, Leinster, Ireland Hau Nguyen Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing John Gilmore Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Rikke Siersbaek Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Chris Noone Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information This research project is funded by the University of Galway. The funding institution did not involve in developing this review protocol. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Article Versions (2) version 2 Revised Published: 05 May 2026, 8:83 https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14193.2 version 1 Published: 23 Jul 2025, 8:83 https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14193.1 Copyright © 2025 Nguyen H 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 Nguyen H, Gilmore J, Siersbaek R and Noone C. Interventions to improve sexual health among the homeless community: a realist review protocol [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :83 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14193.1 ) 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 Jul 2025 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Masterton W. Reviewer Report For: Interventions to improve sexual health among the homeless community: a realist review protocol [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :83 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15609.r53416 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-83/v1#referee-response-53416 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 2026 Wendy Masterton , University of Stirling, Stirling, UK Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15609.r53416 Thank you for the opportunity to review this protocol. It is an important topic, the protocol is considered and well written, and I am convinced by the realist approach. I have a few comments/suggestions that may strengthen it moving ... Continue reading READ ALL Thank you for the opportunity to review this protocol. It is an important topic, the protocol is considered and well written, and I am convinced by the realist approach. I have a few comments/suggestions that may strengthen it moving forward. Introduction I am glad to see the complexity of the homelessness definition discussed as this is important. I did find myself wondering what the geographical focus of the review was. The authors helpfully discuss the comparisons around homelessness definitions internationally, but the focus on Ireland becomes more apparent from paragraph 2. If the review is specific to Ireland and informing Irish policy/practice, I think this needs to be made explicit in the abstract, if not the title, as well as the aim of the current review. If it is designed to be internationally relevant, I think there needs to be a little bit of editing in the Introduction section to ensure it doesn’t read as Ireland-focused. Otherwise, the general evidence gap around the topic was clear to me, so with the above clarity, the rationale is strong. The authors shows good knowledge of realist methodology, but the introduction would benefit from some definition work around realist terms. The term ‘programme theory’ is only loosely defined, and it isn’t clear (with a realist lens) what context means. The authors may also want to add a little about context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOcs) as this is more implied than explicit. Realist terminology is notoriously jargony, and clarity is essential. Methods The review will be clearly mapped against Pawson’s guidelines which is good. It would further strengthen the methods to state that the review will be conducted and reported in line with the RAMESES realist review standards too as I would expect these to be followed/mentioned: [Ref 1] Helpful information provided about the IPT – this is so often missed/glossed over, so I applaud the authors for clearly explaining the IPT process and the importance of this. Extensive search strings which is also good to see, particularly given the complexity of the topic and many different potential terms used. It might be helpful to really emphasise that any and all types of studies/resources can be used in a realist review, this is one of the key differences from systematic reviews and is important if there is evidence in unpublished work (which I imagine there will be given the topic and organisational reports etc). I do always question why authors decide to not include studies that are not in English without any rationale provided. There are pretty accurate free translation online now that translates articles almost immediately and to a high quality. I don’t see what the rationale is for excluding these? The exclusion may be linked to relevance to Irish context? If so, make this relevance-related consideration clearer. There could be more clarity around synthesis. How will data be synthesised and tested against the IPTs? Will it be via NVivo or by hand? Inclusion of the advisory group is good, and the detail around how and when they contributed is clear. However, in the paper itself, the authors will need to provide more detail around the lived experience inclusion. Realist work can be quite difficult to gain consultation on, particularly with groups who haven’t worked in a research field before, so consideration of this, and how it will be reported, will be essential. This will also be relevant when thinking about dissemination and how this could look for non-academic audiences. This is briefly mentioned in the protocol, so I would urge the authors to give ample time to this. 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? Partly Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Not applicable References 1. Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Buckingham J, et al.: RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses. BMC Medicine . 2013; 11 (1). Publisher Full Text Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: substance use; harm reduction; mental health; realist methodology 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 Masterton W. Reviewer Report For: Interventions to improve sexual health among the homeless community: a realist review protocol [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :83 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15609.r53416 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-83/v1#referee-response-53416 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 05 May 2026 Hau Nguyen , University of Galway, Galway, Ireland 05 May 2026 Author Response Masterton’s Comment Address 1. Introduction I am glad to see the complexity of the homelessness definition discussed as this is important. I did find myself wondering what the geographical focus ... Continue reading Masterton’s Comment Address 1. Introduction I am glad to see the complexity of the homelessness definition discussed as this is important. I did find myself wondering what the geographical focus of the review was. The authors helpfully discuss the comparisons around homelessness definitions internationally, but the focus on Ireland becomes more apparent from paragraph 2. If the review is specific to Ireland and informing Irish policy/practice, I think this needs to be made explicit in the abstract, if not the title, as well as the aim of the current review. If it is designed to be internationally relevant, I think there needs to be a little bit of editing in the Introduction section to ensure it doesn’t read as Ireland-focused. Otherwise, the general evidence gap around the topic was clear to me, so with the above clarity, the rationale is strong.The authors shows good knowledge of realist methodology, but the introduction would benefit from some definition work around realist terms. The term ‘programme theory’ is only loosely defined, and it isn’t clear (with a realist lens) what context means. The authors may also want to add a little about context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOcs) as this is more implied than explicit. Realist terminology is notoriously jargony, and clarity is essential. Answer: Thank you for this helpful observation. The review aims to synthesise international evidence on sexual health interventions for people experiencing homelessness in order to develop programme theories that may be transferable across contexts. While the growing homelessness crisis in Ireland partly motivates the study, the review itself is not restricted to Irish evidence. We have revised the introduction by adding statistics from several other countries ensure the text does not appear overly Ireland-focused. Regarding the comment regarding the programme theory, we believe that it is in regard of the method section because that is where the term was first introduced. The method section hence has been revised to provide clearer definitions of key realist concepts, including programme theory, context, and context–mechanism–outcome configurations (CMOCs), to improve accessibility for readers unfamiliar with realist methodology. 2. Methods The review will be clearly mapped against Pawson’s guidelines which is good. It would further strengthen the methods to state that the review will be conducted and reported in line with the RAMESES realist review standards too as I would expect these to be followed/mentioned: [Ref 1] Helpful information provided about the IPT – this is so often missed/glossed over, so I applaud the authors for clearly explaining the IPT process and the importance of this. Extensive search strings which is also good to see, particularly given the complexity of the topic and many different potential terms used. It might be helpful to really emphasise that any and all types of studies/resources can be used in a realist review, this is one of the key differences from systematic reviews and is important if there is evidence in unpublished work (which I imagine there will be given the topic and organisational reports etc). I do always question why authors decide to not include studies that are not in English without any rationale provided. There are pretty accurate free translation online now that translates articles almost immediately and to a high quality. I don’t see what the rationale is for excluding these? The exclusion may be linked to relevance to Irish context? If so, make this relevance-related consideration clearer. Answer: Thank you for your helpful suggestions. We have reported that the review will be conducted and reported in line with the RAMESES realist review standards . We have reflected that any and all types of studies/resources can be used in a realist review in the method section. We have also clarified that qualitative data management software NVivo will be used to support coding and organisation of data during the synthesis process. While we acknowledge that machine translation tools have improved considerably, the interpretation of qualitative and contextual information remains particularly important in realist reviews, where nuanced descriptions of mechanisms, context, and programme implementation are central to theory development. Automated translation may not reliably capture these subtleties, which could affect the interpretation of context–mechanism–outcome relationships. In addition, the review team does not have the resources to conduct formal verification of machine-translated texts. For these reasons, the review will be limited to studies published in English. 3. Data extraction and synthesis There could be more clarity around synthesis. How will data be synthesised and tested against the IPTs? Will it be via NVivo or by hand? Answer: Thank you for this important comment. We have expanded the Methods section to provide greater clarity on how data will be synthesised and tested against the initial programme theory (IPT). Data synthesis will follow realist principles, involving iterative comparison of extracted data with the IPT to refine, confirm, or refute emerging context–mechanism–outcome configurations (CMOCs). This process will involve identifying patterns across studies, developing and testing explanatory propositions, and refining programme theories accordingly. We have also clarified that qualitative data management software (e.g., NVivo) may be used to support coding and organisation of data, although the analytic process will remain theory-driven and iterative rather than dependent on a specific software tool. 4.Expert Advisory Panel and Dissemination Inclusion of the advisory group is good, and the detail around how and when they contributed is clear. However, in the paper itself, the authors will need to provide more detail around the lived experience inclusion. Realist work can be quite difficult to gain consultation on, particularly with groups who haven’t worked in a research field before, so consideration of this, and how it will be reported, will be essential. This will also be relevant when thinking about dissemination and how this could look for non-academic audiences. This is briefly mentioned in the protocol, so I would urge the authors to give ample time to this. Answer: Thank you for this important observation. We recognise that realist methodology can be conceptually complex and that meaningful engagement with individuals who may not have prior research experience requires careful consideration. The protocol has been revised to provide further clarification on how individuals with lived experience of homelessness will be supported to engage with the review process. Lastly, the dissemination section has been revised to clarify that outputs will be developed in accessible formats and shared through community organisations and outreach networks to ensure that findings are accessible not only to practitioners and policymakers but also to people experiencing homelessness themselves. Masterton’s Comment Address 1. Introduction I am glad to see the complexity of the homelessness definition discussed as this is important. I did find myself wondering what the geographical focus of the review was. The authors helpfully discuss the comparisons around homelessness definitions internationally, but the focus on Ireland becomes more apparent from paragraph 2. If the review is specific to Ireland and informing Irish policy/practice, I think this needs to be made explicit in the abstract, if not the title, as well as the aim of the current review. If it is designed to be internationally relevant, I think there needs to be a little bit of editing in the Introduction section to ensure it doesn’t read as Ireland-focused. Otherwise, the general evidence gap around the topic was clear to me, so with the above clarity, the rationale is strong.The authors shows good knowledge of realist methodology, but the introduction would benefit from some definition work around realist terms. The term ‘programme theory’ is only loosely defined, and it isn’t clear (with a realist lens) what context means. The authors may also want to add a little about context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOcs) as this is more implied than explicit. Realist terminology is notoriously jargony, and clarity is essential. Answer: Thank you for this helpful observation. The review aims to synthesise international evidence on sexual health interventions for people experiencing homelessness in order to develop programme theories that may be transferable across contexts. While the growing homelessness crisis in Ireland partly motivates the study, the review itself is not restricted to Irish evidence. We have revised the introduction by adding statistics from several other countries ensure the text does not appear overly Ireland-focused. Regarding the comment regarding the programme theory, we believe that it is in regard of the method section because that is where the term was first introduced. The method section hence has been revised to provide clearer definitions of key realist concepts, including programme theory, context, and context–mechanism–outcome configurations (CMOCs), to improve accessibility for readers unfamiliar with realist methodology. 2. Methods The review will be clearly mapped against Pawson’s guidelines which is good. It would further strengthen the methods to state that the review will be conducted and reported in line with the RAMESES realist review standards too as I would expect these to be followed/mentioned: [Ref 1] Helpful information provided about the IPT – this is so often missed/glossed over, so I applaud the authors for clearly explaining the IPT process and the importance of this. Extensive search strings which is also good to see, particularly given the complexity of the topic and many different potential terms used. It might be helpful to really emphasise that any and all types of studies/resources can be used in a realist review, this is one of the key differences from systematic reviews and is important if there is evidence in unpublished work (which I imagine there will be given the topic and organisational reports etc). I do always question why authors decide to not include studies that are not in English without any rationale provided. There are pretty accurate free translation online now that translates articles almost immediately and to a high quality. I don’t see what the rationale is for excluding these? The exclusion may be linked to relevance to Irish context? If so, make this relevance-related consideration clearer. Answer: Thank you for your helpful suggestions. We have reported that the review will be conducted and reported in line with the RAMESES realist review standards . We have reflected that any and all types of studies/resources can be used in a realist review in the method section. We have also clarified that qualitative data management software NVivo will be used to support coding and organisation of data during the synthesis process. While we acknowledge that machine translation tools have improved considerably, the interpretation of qualitative and contextual information remains particularly important in realist reviews, where nuanced descriptions of mechanisms, context, and programme implementation are central to theory development. Automated translation may not reliably capture these subtleties, which could affect the interpretation of context–mechanism–outcome relationships. In addition, the review team does not have the resources to conduct formal verification of machine-translated texts. For these reasons, the review will be limited to studies published in English. 3. Data extraction and synthesis There could be more clarity around synthesis. How will data be synthesised and tested against the IPTs? Will it be via NVivo or by hand? Answer: Thank you for this important comment. We have expanded the Methods section to provide greater clarity on how data will be synthesised and tested against the initial programme theory (IPT). Data synthesis will follow realist principles, involving iterative comparison of extracted data with the IPT to refine, confirm, or refute emerging context–mechanism–outcome configurations (CMOCs). This process will involve identifying patterns across studies, developing and testing explanatory propositions, and refining programme theories accordingly. We have also clarified that qualitative data management software (e.g., NVivo) may be used to support coding and organisation of data, although the analytic process will remain theory-driven and iterative rather than dependent on a specific software tool. 4.Expert Advisory Panel and Dissemination Inclusion of the advisory group is good, and the detail around how and when they contributed is clear. However, in the paper itself, the authors will need to provide more detail around the lived experience inclusion. Realist work can be quite difficult to gain consultation on, particularly with groups who haven’t worked in a research field before, so consideration of this, and how it will be reported, will be essential. This will also be relevant when thinking about dissemination and how this could look for non-academic audiences. This is briefly mentioned in the protocol, so I would urge the authors to give ample time to this. Answer: Thank you for this important observation. We recognise that realist methodology can be conceptually complex and that meaningful engagement with individuals who may not have prior research experience requires careful consideration. The protocol has been revised to provide further clarification on how individuals with lived experience of homelessness will be supported to engage with the review process. Lastly, the dissemination section has been revised to clarify that outputs will be developed in accessible formats and shared through community organisations and outreach networks to ensure that findings are accessible not only to practitioners and policymakers but also to people experiencing homelessness themselves. Competing Interests: None Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 05 May 2026 Hau Nguyen , University of Galway, Galway, Ireland 05 May 2026 Author Response Masterton’s Comment Address 1. Introduction I am glad to see the complexity of the homelessness definition discussed as this is important. I did find myself wondering what the geographical focus ... Continue reading Masterton’s Comment Address 1. Introduction I am glad to see the complexity of the homelessness definition discussed as this is important. I did find myself wondering what the geographical focus of the review was. The authors helpfully discuss the comparisons around homelessness definitions internationally, but the focus on Ireland becomes more apparent from paragraph 2. If the review is specific to Ireland and informing Irish policy/practice, I think this needs to be made explicit in the abstract, if not the title, as well as the aim of the current review. If it is designed to be internationally relevant, I think there needs to be a little bit of editing in the Introduction section to ensure it doesn’t read as Ireland-focused. Otherwise, the general evidence gap around the topic was clear to me, so with the above clarity, the rationale is strong.The authors shows good knowledge of realist methodology, but the introduction would benefit from some definition work around realist terms. The term ‘programme theory’ is only loosely defined, and it isn’t clear (with a realist lens) what context means. The authors may also want to add a little about context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOcs) as this is more implied than explicit. Realist terminology is notoriously jargony, and clarity is essential. Answer: Thank you for this helpful observation. The review aims to synthesise international evidence on sexual health interventions for people experiencing homelessness in order to develop programme theories that may be transferable across contexts. While the growing homelessness crisis in Ireland partly motivates the study, the review itself is not restricted to Irish evidence. We have revised the introduction by adding statistics from several other countries ensure the text does not appear overly Ireland-focused. Regarding the comment regarding the programme theory, we believe that it is in regard of the method section because that is where the term was first introduced. The method section hence has been revised to provide clearer definitions of key realist concepts, including programme theory, context, and context–mechanism–outcome configurations (CMOCs), to improve accessibility for readers unfamiliar with realist methodology. 2. Methods The review will be clearly mapped against Pawson’s guidelines which is good. It would further strengthen the methods to state that the review will be conducted and reported in line with the RAMESES realist review standards too as I would expect these to be followed/mentioned: [Ref 1] Helpful information provided about the IPT – this is so often missed/glossed over, so I applaud the authors for clearly explaining the IPT process and the importance of this. Extensive search strings which is also good to see, particularly given the complexity of the topic and many different potential terms used. It might be helpful to really emphasise that any and all types of studies/resources can be used in a realist review, this is one of the key differences from systematic reviews and is important if there is evidence in unpublished work (which I imagine there will be given the topic and organisational reports etc). I do always question why authors decide to not include studies that are not in English without any rationale provided. There are pretty accurate free translation online now that translates articles almost immediately and to a high quality. I don’t see what the rationale is for excluding these? The exclusion may be linked to relevance to Irish context? If so, make this relevance-related consideration clearer. Answer: Thank you for your helpful suggestions. We have reported that the review will be conducted and reported in line with the RAMESES realist review standards . We have reflected that any and all types of studies/resources can be used in a realist review in the method section. We have also clarified that qualitative data management software NVivo will be used to support coding and organisation of data during the synthesis process. While we acknowledge that machine translation tools have improved considerably, the interpretation of qualitative and contextual information remains particularly important in realist reviews, where nuanced descriptions of mechanisms, context, and programme implementation are central to theory development. Automated translation may not reliably capture these subtleties, which could affect the interpretation of context–mechanism–outcome relationships. In addition, the review team does not have the resources to conduct formal verification of machine-translated texts. For these reasons, the review will be limited to studies published in English. 3. Data extraction and synthesis There could be more clarity around synthesis. How will data be synthesised and tested against the IPTs? Will it be via NVivo or by hand? Answer: Thank you for this important comment. We have expanded the Methods section to provide greater clarity on how data will be synthesised and tested against the initial programme theory (IPT). Data synthesis will follow realist principles, involving iterative comparison of extracted data with the IPT to refine, confirm, or refute emerging context–mechanism–outcome configurations (CMOCs). This process will involve identifying patterns across studies, developing and testing explanatory propositions, and refining programme theories accordingly. We have also clarified that qualitative data management software (e.g., NVivo) may be used to support coding and organisation of data, although the analytic process will remain theory-driven and iterative rather than dependent on a specific software tool. 4.Expert Advisory Panel and Dissemination Inclusion of the advisory group is good, and the detail around how and when they contributed is clear. However, in the paper itself, the authors will need to provide more detail around the lived experience inclusion. Realist work can be quite difficult to gain consultation on, particularly with groups who haven’t worked in a research field before, so consideration of this, and how it will be reported, will be essential. This will also be relevant when thinking about dissemination and how this could look for non-academic audiences. This is briefly mentioned in the protocol, so I would urge the authors to give ample time to this. Answer: Thank you for this important observation. We recognise that realist methodology can be conceptually complex and that meaningful engagement with individuals who may not have prior research experience requires careful consideration. The protocol has been revised to provide further clarification on how individuals with lived experience of homelessness will be supported to engage with the review process. Lastly, the dissemination section has been revised to clarify that outputs will be developed in accessible formats and shared through community organisations and outreach networks to ensure that findings are accessible not only to practitioners and policymakers but also to people experiencing homelessness themselves. Masterton’s Comment Address 1. Introduction I am glad to see the complexity of the homelessness definition discussed as this is important. I did find myself wondering what the geographical focus of the review was. The authors helpfully discuss the comparisons around homelessness definitions internationally, but the focus on Ireland becomes more apparent from paragraph 2. If the review is specific to Ireland and informing Irish policy/practice, I think this needs to be made explicit in the abstract, if not the title, as well as the aim of the current review. If it is designed to be internationally relevant, I think there needs to be a little bit of editing in the Introduction section to ensure it doesn’t read as Ireland-focused. Otherwise, the general evidence gap around the topic was clear to me, so with the above clarity, the rationale is strong.The authors shows good knowledge of realist methodology, but the introduction would benefit from some definition work around realist terms. The term ‘programme theory’ is only loosely defined, and it isn’t clear (with a realist lens) what context means. The authors may also want to add a little about context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOcs) as this is more implied than explicit. Realist terminology is notoriously jargony, and clarity is essential. Answer: Thank you for this helpful observation. The review aims to synthesise international evidence on sexual health interventions for people experiencing homelessness in order to develop programme theories that may be transferable across contexts. While the growing homelessness crisis in Ireland partly motivates the study, the review itself is not restricted to Irish evidence. We have revised the introduction by adding statistics from several other countries ensure the text does not appear overly Ireland-focused. Regarding the comment regarding the programme theory, we believe that it is in regard of the method section because that is where the term was first introduced. The method section hence has been revised to provide clearer definitions of key realist concepts, including programme theory, context, and context–mechanism–outcome configurations (CMOCs), to improve accessibility for readers unfamiliar with realist methodology. 2. Methods The review will be clearly mapped against Pawson’s guidelines which is good. It would further strengthen the methods to state that the review will be conducted and reported in line with the RAMESES realist review standards too as I would expect these to be followed/mentioned: [Ref 1] Helpful information provided about the IPT – this is so often missed/glossed over, so I applaud the authors for clearly explaining the IPT process and the importance of this. Extensive search strings which is also good to see, particularly given the complexity of the topic and many different potential terms used. It might be helpful to really emphasise that any and all types of studies/resources can be used in a realist review, this is one of the key differences from systematic reviews and is important if there is evidence in unpublished work (which I imagine there will be given the topic and organisational reports etc). I do always question why authors decide to not include studies that are not in English without any rationale provided. There are pretty accurate free translation online now that translates articles almost immediately and to a high quality. I don’t see what the rationale is for excluding these? The exclusion may be linked to relevance to Irish context? If so, make this relevance-related consideration clearer. Answer: Thank you for your helpful suggestions. We have reported that the review will be conducted and reported in line with the RAMESES realist review standards . We have reflected that any and all types of studies/resources can be used in a realist review in the method section. We have also clarified that qualitative data management software NVivo will be used to support coding and organisation of data during the synthesis process. While we acknowledge that machine translation tools have improved considerably, the interpretation of qualitative and contextual information remains particularly important in realist reviews, where nuanced descriptions of mechanisms, context, and programme implementation are central to theory development. Automated translation may not reliably capture these subtleties, which could affect the interpretation of context–mechanism–outcome relationships. In addition, the review team does not have the resources to conduct formal verification of machine-translated texts. For these reasons, the review will be limited to studies published in English. 3. Data extraction and synthesis There could be more clarity around synthesis. How will data be synthesised and tested against the IPTs? Will it be via NVivo or by hand? Answer: Thank you for this important comment. We have expanded the Methods section to provide greater clarity on how data will be synthesised and tested against the initial programme theory (IPT). Data synthesis will follow realist principles, involving iterative comparison of extracted data with the IPT to refine, confirm, or refute emerging context–mechanism–outcome configurations (CMOCs). This process will involve identifying patterns across studies, developing and testing explanatory propositions, and refining programme theories accordingly. We have also clarified that qualitative data management software (e.g., NVivo) may be used to support coding and organisation of data, although the analytic process will remain theory-driven and iterative rather than dependent on a specific software tool. 4.Expert Advisory Panel and Dissemination Inclusion of the advisory group is good, and the detail around how and when they contributed is clear. However, in the paper itself, the authors will need to provide more detail around the lived experience inclusion. Realist work can be quite difficult to gain consultation on, particularly with groups who haven’t worked in a research field before, so consideration of this, and how it will be reported, will be essential. This will also be relevant when thinking about dissemination and how this could look for non-academic audiences. This is briefly mentioned in the protocol, so I would urge the authors to give ample time to this. Answer: Thank you for this important observation. We recognise that realist methodology can be conceptually complex and that meaningful engagement with individuals who may not have prior research experience requires careful consideration. The protocol has been revised to provide further clarification on how individuals with lived experience of homelessness will be supported to engage with the review process. Lastly, the dissemination section has been revised to clarify that outputs will be developed in accessible formats and shared through community organisations and outreach networks to ensure that findings are accessible not only to practitioners and policymakers but also to people experiencing homelessness themselves. Competing Interests: None Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Paisi M. Reviewer Report For: Interventions to improve sexual health among the homeless community: a realist review protocol [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :83 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15609.r48576 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-83/v1#referee-response-48576 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 22 Aug 2025 Martha Paisi , University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15609.r48576 Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. This is a well-articulated and methodologically sound realist review protocol that seeks to explore how, why, and under what circumstances sexual health interventions work for people experiencing homelessness. The protocol is timely, relevant, ... Continue reading READ ALL Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. This is a well-articulated and methodologically sound realist review protocol that seeks to explore how, why, and under what circumstances sexual health interventions work for people experiencing homelessness. The protocol is timely, relevant, and aligned with a growing need to understand complex health interventions in vulnerable populations. It adheres closely to established realist methodology and shows a clear commitment to rigour, stakeholder involvement, and practical impact. The topic addresses a significant gap in the literature by moving beyond effectiveness and toward contextual understanding and theory building. I would recommend 'Accept with minor revisions'. 1.Abstract Strengths : The abstract succinctly captures the aims, rationale, and methodological approach. Recommendations: The complexity of lived experience could be introduced in the background section (it is appropriately discussed in detail later in the main text). Consider briefly defining “CMOC” or “realist review” for broader accessibility. 2. Introduction Strengths: Provides strong contextual background with international framing (e.g., ETHOS typology). The complexity of both the definition and lived experience of homelessness is well captured. Articulates the relevance of sexual health as a neglected domain among people experiencing homelessness. Well-referenced and connects with policy and public health literature. Recommendations: Slight repetition of critique regarding previous reviews may be condensed. 3. Rationale and Objectives Strengths: Strong justification for adopting a realist approach. Clearly identifies the gaps in the evidence base regarding sexual health interventions. 4. Methods Strengths: Adheres well to established realist methodology. Describes each stage of the synthesis clearly. Strong emphasis on theory development, iteration, and stakeholder input. Recommendations: Clarify how rigour and relevance will be assessed in included studies. Consider elaborating on whether additional software (e.g., NVivo) will be used for qualitative synthesis. Provide a short example or visualisation of how a CMOC might be constructed. 5. Programme Theory Development Strengths: The use of an expert advisory group enhances credibility and grounding in practice. Transparency is ensured via registration on OSF and PROSPERO. Recommendations: Consider summarising or visualising the initial programme theory within the protocol. 6. Search Strategy and Inclusion Criteria Strengths : Inclusive of a broad range of study types and grey literature aligned with realist principles. Appropriate databases selected. Clear inclusion criteria using PICO-like structure adapted for realist review. Recommendations : To clarify whether the reference lists of included papers will be examined. 7. Data Extraction and Synthesis Strengths : Plans for double screening and conflict resolution are clearly stated. Emphasis on CMOCs reflects strong realist methodology. Recommendations : Further clarification on how different types of data (qualitative vs quantitative) will be integrated into CMOCs would strengthen the section. A worked example of a CMOC could aid reader understanding. 8. Stakeholder and PPI Engagement Strengths : Strong and ethical engagement strategy, including frontline providers and policymakers. Intention to include individuals with lived experience at later stages is commendable and would strongly recommend. Recommendations : Consider more concrete description of how PPI will shape dissemination or interpretation of findings. 9. Dissemination Strengths : Good dissemination plans targeting academic and practitioner audiences. Use of visual summaries and non-academic formats is excellent. Recommendations : Could consider discussing how findings might be made accessible to people experiencing homelessness themselves. 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: Health equity, access to services for people expericning homelessness 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 Paisi M. Reviewer Report For: Interventions to improve sexual health among the homeless community: a realist review protocol [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :83 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15609.r48576 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-83/v1#referee-response-48576 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 05 May 2026 Hau Nguyen , University of Galway, Galway, Ireland 05 May 2026 Author Response Paisi’s Comment Address 1. Abstract: Strengths: The abstract succinctly captures the aims, rationale, and methodological approach. Recommendations: The complexity of lived experience could ... Continue reading Paisi’s Comment Address 1. Abstract: Strengths: The abstract succinctly captures the aims, rationale, and methodological approach. Recommendations: The complexity of lived experience could be introduced in the background section (it is appropriately discussed in detail later in the main text). Consider briefly defining “CMOC” or “realist review” for broader accessibility. Answer: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We have revised the background section of the abstract to acknowledge the complex lived experiences of people experiencing homelessness. In addition, we have included a brief clarification of realist review terminology and context–mechanism–outcome configurations (CMOCs) to improve accessibility for readers unfamiliar with realist methodology. 2.Rationale and Objective Strengths: Strong justification for adopting a realist approach. Clearly identifies the gaps in the evidence base regarding sexual health interventions 3. Methods Strengths: Adheres well to established realist methodology. Describes each stage of the synthesis clearly. Strong emphasis on theory development, iteration, and stakeholder input. Recommendations: Clarify how rigour and relevance will be assessed in included studies. Consider elaborating on whether additional software (e.g., NVivo) will be used for qualitative synthesis. Provide a short example or visualisation of how a CMOC might be constructed. Answer: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. The methods section has been expanded to provide a clearer explanation of how rigour will be assessed. An illustrative example of a context–mechanism–outcome configuration (CMOC) has been added to the Methods section to help readers unfamiliar with realist methodology understand how CMOCs will be constructed during synthesis. We have also clarified that qualitative data management software NVivo will be used to support coding and organisation of data during the synthesis process. 4.Initial Programme Theory Programme Theory Development Strengths: The use of an expert advisory group enhances credibility and grounding in practice. Transparency is ensured via registration on OSF and PROSPERO. Recommendations: Consider summarising or visualising the initial programme theory within the protocol. Answer: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have now visualise the initial programme theory within the protocol 5.Search Strategy and Inclusion Criteria Strengths: Inclusive of a broad range of study types and grey literature aligned with realist principles. Appropriate databases selected. Clear inclusion criteria using PICO-like structure adapted for realist review. Recommendations: To clarify whether the reference lists of included papers will be examined. Answer : Thank you for your suggestion to clarify whether we will conduct backward citation for our searches. We can confirm that we do, and the following line has now been added to the section: “In addition, the reference lists of included studies will be examined to identify additional relevant sources that may not have been captured in the database searches.” 6.Data extraction and synthesis Strengths: Plans for double screening and conflict resolution are clearly stated. Emphasis on CMOCs reflects strong realist methodology. Recommendations: Further clarification on how different types of data (qualitative vs quantitative) will be integrated into CMOCs would strengthen the section. A worked example of a CMOC could aid reader understanding. Answer : Thank you for your recommendation, we did add an example in section 4 of the manuscript. 7.Dissemination Strengths: Good dissemination plans targeting academic and practitioner audiences. Use of visual summaries and non-academic formats is excellent. Recommendations: Could consider discussing how findings might be made accessible to people experiencing homelessness themselves. Answer: Thank you for this suggestion. The dissemination section has been revised to clarify that outputs will be developed in accessible formats and shared through community organisations and outreach networks to ensure that findings are accessible not only to practitioners and policymakers but also to people experiencing homelessness themselves. Paisi’s Comment Address 1. Abstract: Strengths: The abstract succinctly captures the aims, rationale, and methodological approach. Recommendations: The complexity of lived experience could be introduced in the background section (it is appropriately discussed in detail later in the main text). Consider briefly defining “CMOC” or “realist review” for broader accessibility. Answer: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We have revised the background section of the abstract to acknowledge the complex lived experiences of people experiencing homelessness. In addition, we have included a brief clarification of realist review terminology and context–mechanism–outcome configurations (CMOCs) to improve accessibility for readers unfamiliar with realist methodology. 2.Rationale and Objective Strengths: Strong justification for adopting a realist approach. Clearly identifies the gaps in the evidence base regarding sexual health interventions 3. Methods Strengths: Adheres well to established realist methodology. Describes each stage of the synthesis clearly. Strong emphasis on theory development, iteration, and stakeholder input. Recommendations: Clarify how rigour and relevance will be assessed in included studies. Consider elaborating on whether additional software (e.g., NVivo) will be used for qualitative synthesis. Provide a short example or visualisation of how a CMOC might be constructed. Answer: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. The methods section has been expanded to provide a clearer explanation of how rigour will be assessed. An illustrative example of a context–mechanism–outcome configuration (CMOC) has been added to the Methods section to help readers unfamiliar with realist methodology understand how CMOCs will be constructed during synthesis. We have also clarified that qualitative data management software NVivo will be used to support coding and organisation of data during the synthesis process. 4.Initial Programme Theory Programme Theory Development Strengths: The use of an expert advisory group enhances credibility and grounding in practice. Transparency is ensured via registration on OSF and PROSPERO. Recommendations: Consider summarising or visualising the initial programme theory within the protocol. Answer: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have now visualise the initial programme theory within the protocol 5.Search Strategy and Inclusion Criteria Strengths: Inclusive of a broad range of study types and grey literature aligned with realist principles. Appropriate databases selected. Clear inclusion criteria using PICO-like structure adapted for realist review. Recommendations: To clarify whether the reference lists of included papers will be examined. Answer : Thank you for your suggestion to clarify whether we will conduct backward citation for our searches. We can confirm that we do, and the following line has now been added to the section: “In addition, the reference lists of included studies will be examined to identify additional relevant sources that may not have been captured in the database searches.” 6.Data extraction and synthesis Strengths: Plans for double screening and conflict resolution are clearly stated. Emphasis on CMOCs reflects strong realist methodology. Recommendations: Further clarification on how different types of data (qualitative vs quantitative) will be integrated into CMOCs would strengthen the section. A worked example of a CMOC could aid reader understanding. Answer : Thank you for your recommendation, we did add an example in section 4 of the manuscript. 7.Dissemination Strengths: Good dissemination plans targeting academic and practitioner audiences. Use of visual summaries and non-academic formats is excellent. Recommendations: Could consider discussing how findings might be made accessible to people experiencing homelessness themselves. Answer: Thank you for this suggestion. The dissemination section has been revised to clarify that outputs will be developed in accessible formats and shared through community organisations and outreach networks to ensure that findings are accessible not only to practitioners and policymakers but also to people experiencing homelessness themselves. Competing Interests: None Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 05 May 2026 Hau Nguyen , University of Galway, Galway, Ireland 05 May 2026 Author Response Paisi’s Comment Address 1. Abstract: Strengths: The abstract succinctly captures the aims, rationale, and methodological approach. Recommendations: The complexity of lived experience could ... Continue reading Paisi’s Comment Address 1. Abstract: Strengths: The abstract succinctly captures the aims, rationale, and methodological approach. Recommendations: The complexity of lived experience could be introduced in the background section (it is appropriately discussed in detail later in the main text). Consider briefly defining “CMOC” or “realist review” for broader accessibility. Answer: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We have revised the background section of the abstract to acknowledge the complex lived experiences of people experiencing homelessness. In addition, we have included a brief clarification of realist review terminology and context–mechanism–outcome configurations (CMOCs) to improve accessibility for readers unfamiliar with realist methodology. 2.Rationale and Objective Strengths: Strong justification for adopting a realist approach. Clearly identifies the gaps in the evidence base regarding sexual health interventions 3. Methods Strengths: Adheres well to established realist methodology. Describes each stage of the synthesis clearly. Strong emphasis on theory development, iteration, and stakeholder input. Recommendations: Clarify how rigour and relevance will be assessed in included studies. Consider elaborating on whether additional software (e.g., NVivo) will be used for qualitative synthesis. Provide a short example or visualisation of how a CMOC might be constructed. Answer: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. The methods section has been expanded to provide a clearer explanation of how rigour will be assessed. An illustrative example of a context–mechanism–outcome configuration (CMOC) has been added to the Methods section to help readers unfamiliar with realist methodology understand how CMOCs will be constructed during synthesis. We have also clarified that qualitative data management software NVivo will be used to support coding and organisation of data during the synthesis process. 4.Initial Programme Theory Programme Theory Development Strengths: The use of an expert advisory group enhances credibility and grounding in practice. Transparency is ensured via registration on OSF and PROSPERO. Recommendations: Consider summarising or visualising the initial programme theory within the protocol. Answer: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have now visualise the initial programme theory within the protocol 5.Search Strategy and Inclusion Criteria Strengths: Inclusive of a broad range of study types and grey literature aligned with realist principles. Appropriate databases selected. Clear inclusion criteria using PICO-like structure adapted for realist review. Recommendations: To clarify whether the reference lists of included papers will be examined. Answer : Thank you for your suggestion to clarify whether we will conduct backward citation for our searches. We can confirm that we do, and the following line has now been added to the section: “In addition, the reference lists of included studies will be examined to identify additional relevant sources that may not have been captured in the database searches.” 6.Data extraction and synthesis Strengths: Plans for double screening and conflict resolution are clearly stated. Emphasis on CMOCs reflects strong realist methodology. Recommendations: Further clarification on how different types of data (qualitative vs quantitative) will be integrated into CMOCs would strengthen the section. A worked example of a CMOC could aid reader understanding. Answer : Thank you for your recommendation, we did add an example in section 4 of the manuscript. 7.Dissemination Strengths: Good dissemination plans targeting academic and practitioner audiences. Use of visual summaries and non-academic formats is excellent. Recommendations: Could consider discussing how findings might be made accessible to people experiencing homelessness themselves. Answer: Thank you for this suggestion. The dissemination section has been revised to clarify that outputs will be developed in accessible formats and shared through community organisations and outreach networks to ensure that findings are accessible not only to practitioners and policymakers but also to people experiencing homelessness themselves. Paisi’s Comment Address 1. Abstract: Strengths: The abstract succinctly captures the aims, rationale, and methodological approach. Recommendations: The complexity of lived experience could be introduced in the background section (it is appropriately discussed in detail later in the main text). Consider briefly defining “CMOC” or “realist review” for broader accessibility. Answer: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We have revised the background section of the abstract to acknowledge the complex lived experiences of people experiencing homelessness. In addition, we have included a brief clarification of realist review terminology and context–mechanism–outcome configurations (CMOCs) to improve accessibility for readers unfamiliar with realist methodology. 2.Rationale and Objective Strengths: Strong justification for adopting a realist approach. Clearly identifies the gaps in the evidence base regarding sexual health interventions 3. Methods Strengths: Adheres well to established realist methodology. Describes each stage of the synthesis clearly. Strong emphasis on theory development, iteration, and stakeholder input. Recommendations: Clarify how rigour and relevance will be assessed in included studies. Consider elaborating on whether additional software (e.g., NVivo) will be used for qualitative synthesis. Provide a short example or visualisation of how a CMOC might be constructed. Answer: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. The methods section has been expanded to provide a clearer explanation of how rigour will be assessed. An illustrative example of a context–mechanism–outcome configuration (CMOC) has been added to the Methods section to help readers unfamiliar with realist methodology understand how CMOCs will be constructed during synthesis. We have also clarified that qualitative data management software NVivo will be used to support coding and organisation of data during the synthesis process. 4.Initial Programme Theory Programme Theory Development Strengths: The use of an expert advisory group enhances credibility and grounding in practice. Transparency is ensured via registration on OSF and PROSPERO. Recommendations: Consider summarising or visualising the initial programme theory within the protocol. Answer: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have now visualise the initial programme theory within the protocol 5.Search Strategy and Inclusion Criteria Strengths: Inclusive of a broad range of study types and grey literature aligned with realist principles. Appropriate databases selected. Clear inclusion criteria using PICO-like structure adapted for realist review. Recommendations: To clarify whether the reference lists of included papers will be examined. Answer : Thank you for your suggestion to clarify whether we will conduct backward citation for our searches. We can confirm that we do, and the following line has now been added to the section: “In addition, the reference lists of included studies will be examined to identify additional relevant sources that may not have been captured in the database searches.” 6.Data extraction and synthesis Strengths: Plans for double screening and conflict resolution are clearly stated. Emphasis on CMOCs reflects strong realist methodology. Recommendations: Further clarification on how different types of data (qualitative vs quantitative) will be integrated into CMOCs would strengthen the section. A worked example of a CMOC could aid reader understanding. Answer : Thank you for your recommendation, we did add an example in section 4 of the manuscript. 7.Dissemination Strengths: Good dissemination plans targeting academic and practitioner audiences. Use of visual summaries and non-academic formats is excellent. Recommendations: Could consider discussing how findings might be made accessible to people experiencing homelessness themselves. Answer: Thank you for this suggestion. The dissemination section has been revised to clarify that outputs will be developed in accessible formats and shared through community organisations and outreach networks to ensure that findings are accessible not only to practitioners and policymakers but also to people experiencing homelessness themselves. Competing Interests: None Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 23 Jul 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 2 (revision) 05 May 26 read read read Version 1 23 Jul 25 read read Martha Paisi , University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK Wendy Masterton , University of Stirling, Stirling, UK Jessica Sherman , The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA 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 © 2026 Sherman 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. 23 May 2026 | for Version 2 Jessica Sherman , The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA 0 Views copyright © 2026 Sherman 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 (0) 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 Thank you for the opportunity to review this protocol. I have reviewed the manuscript alongside the prior review and the authors’ responses. The protocol is clear, concise, and well written. The authors provide both a thorough description of the methods and a strong justification for their approach. They have also responded thoughtfully to prior reviewer comments, and the manuscript is strengthened as a result. The Introduction is clear and well developed. The authors effectively convey the complexity of homelessness, including variations in definitions across countries, and provide a succinct and appropriate synthesis of the existing literature. The Methods are well described, with sufficient detail to ensure clarity for readers who may be unfamiliar with realist methods. The authors also provide a strong rationale for using this approach to examine the sexual health of people experiencing homelessness. Overall, this is a well-written manuscript that applies a realist approach to an important topic. It has strong potential to advance understanding of what works (and what does not) in efforts to support the sexual health of people experiencing homelessness. 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 homelessness, sexual health, HIV, LGBGT+ health, mental health, substance use 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 (0) Sherman J. Peer Review Report For: Interventions to improve sexual health among the homeless community: a realist review protocol [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :83 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15906.r55199) 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/8-83/v2#referee-response-55199 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Paisi 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. 20 May 2026 | for Version 2 Martha Paisi , University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK 0 Views copyright © 2026 Paisi 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 (0) 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 Thank you for your email and patience. I have revised the newer version and I believe in its current form, it is suitable for indexing. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. 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 (0) Paisi M. Peer Review Report For: Interventions to improve sexual health among the homeless community: a realist review protocol [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :83 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15906.r55116) 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/8-83/v2#referee-response-55116 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Masterton W. 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. 09 May 2026 | for Version 2 Wendy Masterton , University of Stirling, Stirling, UK 0 Views copyright © 2026 Masterton W. 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 (0) 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 I think the authors have done a good job of addressing my comments and have edited the article accordingly. The additions in methods are particularly helpful for clarity relating to the methodological approach and the CMOCs/realist terminology. The additional considerations around the advisory groups and dissemination also strengthens the protocol. I look forward to reading the review in the future. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise substance use; harm reduction; mental health; realist methodology 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 (0) Masterton W. Peer Review Report For: Interventions to improve sexual health among the homeless community: a realist review protocol [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :83 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15906.r55115) 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/8-83/v2#referee-response-55115 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Masterton W. 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 2026 | for Version 1 Wendy Masterton , University of Stirling, Stirling, UK 0 Views copyright © 2026 Masterton W. 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 Thank you for the opportunity to review this protocol. It is an important topic, the protocol is considered and well written, and I am convinced by the realist approach. I have a few comments/suggestions that may strengthen it moving forward. Introduction I am glad to see the complexity of the homelessness definition discussed as this is important. I did find myself wondering what the geographical focus of the review was. The authors helpfully discuss the comparisons around homelessness definitions internationally, but the focus on Ireland becomes more apparent from paragraph 2. If the review is specific to Ireland and informing Irish policy/practice, I think this needs to be made explicit in the abstract, if not the title, as well as the aim of the current review. If it is designed to be internationally relevant, I think there needs to be a little bit of editing in the Introduction section to ensure it doesn’t read as Ireland-focused. Otherwise, the general evidence gap around the topic was clear to me, so with the above clarity, the rationale is strong. The authors shows good knowledge of realist methodology, but the introduction would benefit from some definition work around realist terms. The term ‘programme theory’ is only loosely defined, and it isn’t clear (with a realist lens) what context means. The authors may also want to add a little about context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOcs) as this is more implied than explicit. Realist terminology is notoriously jargony, and clarity is essential. Methods The review will be clearly mapped against Pawson’s guidelines which is good. It would further strengthen the methods to state that the review will be conducted and reported in line with the RAMESES realist review standards too as I would expect these to be followed/mentioned: [Ref 1] Helpful information provided about the IPT – this is so often missed/glossed over, so I applaud the authors for clearly explaining the IPT process and the importance of this. Extensive search strings which is also good to see, particularly given the complexity of the topic and many different potential terms used. It might be helpful to really emphasise that any and all types of studies/resources can be used in a realist review, this is one of the key differences from systematic reviews and is important if there is evidence in unpublished work (which I imagine there will be given the topic and organisational reports etc). I do always question why authors decide to not include studies that are not in English without any rationale provided. There are pretty accurate free translation online now that translates articles almost immediately and to a high quality. I don’t see what the rationale is for excluding these? The exclusion may be linked to relevance to Irish context? If so, make this relevance-related consideration clearer. There could be more clarity around synthesis. How will data be synthesised and tested against the IPTs? Will it be via NVivo or by hand? Inclusion of the advisory group is good, and the detail around how and when they contributed is clear. However, in the paper itself, the authors will need to provide more detail around the lived experience inclusion. Realist work can be quite difficult to gain consultation on, particularly with groups who haven’t worked in a research field before, so consideration of this, and how it will be reported, will be essential. This will also be relevant when thinking about dissemination and how this could look for non-academic audiences. This is briefly mentioned in the protocol, so I would urge the authors to give ample time to this. 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? Partly Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Not applicable References 1. Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Buckingham J, et al.: RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses. BMC Medicine . 2013; 11 (1). Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise substance use; harm reduction; mental health; realist methodology 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 05 May 2026 Hau Nguyen, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland Masterton’s Comment Address 1. Introduction I am glad to see the complexity of the homelessness definition discussed as this is important. I did find myself wondering what the geographical focus of the review was. The authors helpfully discuss the comparisons around homelessness definitions internationally, but the focus on Ireland becomes more apparent from paragraph 2. If the review is specific to Ireland and informing Irish policy/practice, I think this needs to be made explicit in the abstract, if not the title, as well as the aim of the current review. If it is designed to be internationally relevant, I think there needs to be a little bit of editing in the Introduction section to ensure it doesn’t read as Ireland-focused. Otherwise, the general evidence gap around the topic was clear to me, so with the above clarity, the rationale is strong.The authors shows good knowledge of realist methodology, but the introduction would benefit from some definition work around realist terms. The term ‘programme theory’ is only loosely defined, and it isn’t clear (with a realist lens) what context means. The authors may also want to add a little about context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOcs) as this is more implied than explicit. Realist terminology is notoriously jargony, and clarity is essential. Answer: Thank you for this helpful observation. The review aims to synthesise international evidence on sexual health interventions for people experiencing homelessness in order to develop programme theories that may be transferable across contexts. While the growing homelessness crisis in Ireland partly motivates the study, the review itself is not restricted to Irish evidence. We have revised the introduction by adding statistics from several other countries ensure the text does not appear overly Ireland-focused. Regarding the comment regarding the programme theory, we believe that it is in regard of the method section because that is where the term was first introduced. The method section hence has been revised to provide clearer definitions of key realist concepts, including programme theory, context, and context–mechanism–outcome configurations (CMOCs), to improve accessibility for readers unfamiliar with realist methodology. 2. Methods The review will be clearly mapped against Pawson’s guidelines which is good. It would further strengthen the methods to state that the review will be conducted and reported in line with the RAMESES realist review standards too as I would expect these to be followed/mentioned: [Ref 1] Helpful information provided about the IPT – this is so often missed/glossed over, so I applaud the authors for clearly explaining the IPT process and the importance of this. Extensive search strings which is also good to see, particularly given the complexity of the topic and many different potential terms used. It might be helpful to really emphasise that any and all types of studies/resources can be used in a realist review, this is one of the key differences from systematic reviews and is important if there is evidence in unpublished work (which I imagine there will be given the topic and organisational reports etc). I do always question why authors decide to not include studies that are not in English without any rationale provided. There are pretty accurate free translation online now that translates articles almost immediately and to a high quality. I don’t see what the rationale is for excluding these? The exclusion may be linked to relevance to Irish context? If so, make this relevance-related consideration clearer. Answer: Thank you for your helpful suggestions. We have reported that the review will be conducted and reported in line with the RAMESES realist review standards . We have reflected that any and all types of studies/resources can be used in a realist review in the method section. We have also clarified that qualitative data management software NVivo will be used to support coding and organisation of data during the synthesis process. While we acknowledge that machine translation tools have improved considerably, the interpretation of qualitative and contextual information remains particularly important in realist reviews, where nuanced descriptions of mechanisms, context, and programme implementation are central to theory development. Automated translation may not reliably capture these subtleties, which could affect the interpretation of context–mechanism–outcome relationships. In addition, the review team does not have the resources to conduct formal verification of machine-translated texts. For these reasons, the review will be limited to studies published in English. 3. Data extraction and synthesis There could be more clarity around synthesis. How will data be synthesised and tested against the IPTs? Will it be via NVivo or by hand? Answer: Thank you for this important comment. We have expanded the Methods section to provide greater clarity on how data will be synthesised and tested against the initial programme theory (IPT). Data synthesis will follow realist principles, involving iterative comparison of extracted data with the IPT to refine, confirm, or refute emerging context–mechanism–outcome configurations (CMOCs). This process will involve identifying patterns across studies, developing and testing explanatory propositions, and refining programme theories accordingly. We have also clarified that qualitative data management software (e.g., NVivo) may be used to support coding and organisation of data, although the analytic process will remain theory-driven and iterative rather than dependent on a specific software tool. 4.Expert Advisory Panel and Dissemination Inclusion of the advisory group is good, and the detail around how and when they contributed is clear. However, in the paper itself, the authors will need to provide more detail around the lived experience inclusion. Realist work can be quite difficult to gain consultation on, particularly with groups who haven’t worked in a research field before, so consideration of this, and how it will be reported, will be essential. This will also be relevant when thinking about dissemination and how this could look for non-academic audiences. This is briefly mentioned in the protocol, so I would urge the authors to give ample time to this. Answer: Thank you for this important observation. We recognise that realist methodology can be conceptually complex and that meaningful engagement with individuals who may not have prior research experience requires careful consideration. The protocol has been revised to provide further clarification on how individuals with lived experience of homelessness will be supported to engage with the review process. Lastly, the dissemination section has been revised to clarify that outputs will be developed in accessible formats and shared through community organisations and outreach networks to ensure that findings are accessible not only to practitioners and policymakers but also to people experiencing homelessness themselves. View more View less Competing Interests None reply Respond Report a concern Masterton W. Peer Review Report For: Interventions to improve sexual health among the homeless community: a realist review protocol [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :83 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15609.r53416) 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/8-83/v1#referee-response-53416 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Paisi 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. 22 Aug 2025 | for Version 1 Martha Paisi , University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK 0 Views copyright © 2025 Paisi 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 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 Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. This is a well-articulated and methodologically sound realist review protocol that seeks to explore how, why, and under what circumstances sexual health interventions work for people experiencing homelessness. The protocol is timely, relevant, and aligned with a growing need to understand complex health interventions in vulnerable populations. It adheres closely to established realist methodology and shows a clear commitment to rigour, stakeholder involvement, and practical impact. The topic addresses a significant gap in the literature by moving beyond effectiveness and toward contextual understanding and theory building. I would recommend 'Accept with minor revisions'. 1.Abstract Strengths : The abstract succinctly captures the aims, rationale, and methodological approach. Recommendations: The complexity of lived experience could be introduced in the background section (it is appropriately discussed in detail later in the main text). Consider briefly defining “CMOC” or “realist review” for broader accessibility. 2. Introduction Strengths: Provides strong contextual background with international framing (e.g., ETHOS typology). The complexity of both the definition and lived experience of homelessness is well captured. Articulates the relevance of sexual health as a neglected domain among people experiencing homelessness. Well-referenced and connects with policy and public health literature. Recommendations: Slight repetition of critique regarding previous reviews may be condensed. 3. Rationale and Objectives Strengths: Strong justification for adopting a realist approach. Clearly identifies the gaps in the evidence base regarding sexual health interventions. 4. Methods Strengths: Adheres well to established realist methodology. Describes each stage of the synthesis clearly. Strong emphasis on theory development, iteration, and stakeholder input. Recommendations: Clarify how rigour and relevance will be assessed in included studies. Consider elaborating on whether additional software (e.g., NVivo) will be used for qualitative synthesis. Provide a short example or visualisation of how a CMOC might be constructed. 5. Programme Theory Development Strengths: The use of an expert advisory group enhances credibility and grounding in practice. Transparency is ensured via registration on OSF and PROSPERO. Recommendations: Consider summarising or visualising the initial programme theory within the protocol. 6. Search Strategy and Inclusion Criteria Strengths : Inclusive of a broad range of study types and grey literature aligned with realist principles. Appropriate databases selected. Clear inclusion criteria using PICO-like structure adapted for realist review. Recommendations : To clarify whether the reference lists of included papers will be examined. 7. Data Extraction and Synthesis Strengths : Plans for double screening and conflict resolution are clearly stated. Emphasis on CMOCs reflects strong realist methodology. Recommendations : Further clarification on how different types of data (qualitative vs quantitative) will be integrated into CMOCs would strengthen the section. A worked example of a CMOC could aid reader understanding. 8. Stakeholder and PPI Engagement Strengths : Strong and ethical engagement strategy, including frontline providers and policymakers. Intention to include individuals with lived experience at later stages is commendable and would strongly recommend. Recommendations : Consider more concrete description of how PPI will shape dissemination or interpretation of findings. 9. Dissemination Strengths : Good dissemination plans targeting academic and practitioner audiences. Use of visual summaries and non-academic formats is excellent. Recommendations : Could consider discussing how findings might be made accessible to people experiencing homelessness themselves. 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 Health equity, access to services for people expericning homelessness 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 05 May 2026 Hau Nguyen, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland Paisi’s Comment Address 1. Abstract: Strengths: The abstract succinctly captures the aims, rationale, and methodological approach. Recommendations: The complexity of lived experience could be introduced in the background section (it is appropriately discussed in detail later in the main text). Consider briefly defining “CMOC” or “realist review” for broader accessibility. Answer: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We have revised the background section of the abstract to acknowledge the complex lived experiences of people experiencing homelessness. In addition, we have included a brief clarification of realist review terminology and context–mechanism–outcome configurations (CMOCs) to improve accessibility for readers unfamiliar with realist methodology. 2.Rationale and Objective Strengths: Strong justification for adopting a realist approach. Clearly identifies the gaps in the evidence base regarding sexual health interventions 3. Methods Strengths: Adheres well to established realist methodology. Describes each stage of the synthesis clearly. Strong emphasis on theory development, iteration, and stakeholder input. Recommendations: Clarify how rigour and relevance will be assessed in included studies. Consider elaborating on whether additional software (e.g., NVivo) will be used for qualitative synthesis. Provide a short example or visualisation of how a CMOC might be constructed. Answer: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. The methods section has been expanded to provide a clearer explanation of how rigour will be assessed. An illustrative example of a context–mechanism–outcome configuration (CMOC) has been added to the Methods section to help readers unfamiliar with realist methodology understand how CMOCs will be constructed during synthesis. We have also clarified that qualitative data management software NVivo will be used to support coding and organisation of data during the synthesis process. 4.Initial Programme Theory Programme Theory Development Strengths: The use of an expert advisory group enhances credibility and grounding in practice. Transparency is ensured via registration on OSF and PROSPERO. Recommendations: Consider summarising or visualising the initial programme theory within the protocol. Answer: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have now visualise the initial programme theory within the protocol 5.Search Strategy and Inclusion Criteria Strengths: Inclusive of a broad range of study types and grey literature aligned with realist principles. Appropriate databases selected. Clear inclusion criteria using PICO-like structure adapted for realist review. Recommendations: To clarify whether the reference lists of included papers will be examined. Answer : Thank you for your suggestion to clarify whether we will conduct backward citation for our searches. We can confirm that we do, and the following line has now been added to the section: “In addition, the reference lists of included studies will be examined to identify additional relevant sources that may not have been captured in the database searches.” 6.Data extraction and synthesis Strengths: Plans for double screening and conflict resolution are clearly stated. Emphasis on CMOCs reflects strong realist methodology. Recommendations: Further clarification on how different types of data (qualitative vs quantitative) will be integrated into CMOCs would strengthen the section. A worked example of a CMOC could aid reader understanding. Answer : Thank you for your recommendation, we did add an example in section 4 of the manuscript. 7.Dissemination Strengths: Good dissemination plans targeting academic and practitioner audiences. Use of visual summaries and non-academic formats is excellent. Recommendations: Could consider discussing how findings might be made accessible to people experiencing homelessness themselves. Answer: Thank you for this suggestion. The dissemination section has been revised to clarify that outputs will be developed in accessible formats and shared through community organisations and outreach networks to ensure that findings are accessible not only to practitioners and policymakers but also to people experiencing homelessness themselves. View more View less Competing Interests None reply Respond Report a concern Paisi M. Peer Review Report For: Interventions to improve sexual health among the homeless community: a realist review protocol [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 8 :83 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15609.r48576) 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/8-83/v1#referee-response-48576 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 = "Interventions to improve sexual health among...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-83/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-83/v1&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-83/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Nguyen H 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/8-83/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/8-83", templates : { twitter : "Interventions to improve sexual health among the homeless community:.... Nguyen H et al., published by " + "@HRBOpenRes" + ", https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-83/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/14193/15609") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "15609"); $(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 = { "51602": 0, "51603": 0, "51604": 0, "51605": 0, "51606": 0, "51607": 0, "55191": 0, "51608": 0, "55192": 0, "51609": 0, "55193": 0, "51610": 0, "55194": 0, "51611": 0, "48795": 0, "55195": 0, "48796": 0, "55196": 0, "48797": 0, "55197": 0, "48798": 0, "55198": 0, "48799": 0, "55199": 0, "48800": 0, "48801": 0, "48802": 0, "48803": 0, "48804": 0, "53413": 0, "53414": 0, "53415": 0, "53416": 26, "53417": 0, "49578": 0, "49579": 0, "49580": 0, "49581": 0, "49582": 0, "49583": 0, "49584": 0, "49585": 0, "49586": 0, "49330": 0, "49587": 0, "49331": 0, "49332": 0, "49333": 0, "49334": 0, "49335": 0, "49336": 0, "49337": 0, "49338": 0, "49339": 0, "48574": 0, "48575": 0, "48576": 25, "48577": 0, "48578": 0, "48579": 0, "48580": 0, "48581": 0, "48582": 0, "48583": 0, "55115": 8, "55116": 6, "49117": 0, "49118": 0, "49119": 0, "49120": 0, "49121": 0, "49122": 0, "49123": 0, "49124": 0, "49125": 0, "49126": 0, "55536": 0, "55537": 0, "55538": 0, "55539": 0, "55540": 0, "55541": 0, "55542": 0, "55543": 0, "55544": 0, "55545": 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 = "958b8b74-c626-4f54-8da7-2bcf9fb13317"; 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:'a00d6cc56a9f8650',t:'MTc3OTYzNzQ5OQ=='};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())}}}})();