Non-pharmacological interventions to support return to education and work for adolescent and young adults (AYAs) following a cancer diagnosis: a scoping review protocol

Non-pharmacological interventions to support... | 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/8-44" }, "headline": "Non-pharmacological interventions to support return to education and work for adolescent and young adults...", "datePublished": "2025-03-24T12:58:46", "dateModified": "2026-01-16T14:02:10", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Naomi Algeo" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "David Mockler" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Stacey Braddish" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Matthew Barrington" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Niamh O'Sullivan" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Joy Lewis" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Scheryll Alken" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Peter McCarthy" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Joanne O'Mahony" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Kathleen Bennett" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Claire McCall" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Amy Nolan" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Catherine Buckley" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Sonya Collier" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Louise Mullen" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Nina Orfali" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Aoife O'Gorman" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Ruth McMenamin" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Denise Dockery" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Nickola Pallin" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Deirdre Connolly" } ], "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": " Objective This scoping review will explore and chart the evidence relating to non-pharmacological interventions that support education and/or employment for adolescent and young adults (AYAs) following a cancer diagnosis. Introduction The number of newly diagnosed AYAs with cancer is increasing and so too is the number of AYAs living with and beyond cancer. In line with missed schooling and long-term side-effects of treatment, it is unsurprising that this group may under-perform academically and be at higher risk of unemployment in comparison to their peers. Developing an overview of existing interventions to support education and/or employment for this cohort, is therefore important. Inclusion Criteria Studies that explore non-pharmacological interventions that support education and/or employment for AYAs (aged 15–39 years at cancer diagnosis) post-cancer diagnosis. Interventions can be group-based, individual, and/or online in format, and can be vocational, psychosocial, physical, educational or multidisciplinary in nature. Qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods studies, case studies, observational studies, reports and theses will be included. Methods This scoping review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews. Databases to be searched include EMBASE, Web of Science, Medline (OVID), CINAHL, and PsycInfo, with no limitation on publication date. Grey literature will be searched, limited to the first 100 searches on Google Scholar. Titles and abstracts will be screened and two independent reviewers will review identified fill-texts. A data extraction tool will be used for data extraction. " } { "@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/8-44/v2", "name": "Non-pharmacological interventions to support return to education and..." } } ] } Home Browse Non-pharmacological interventions to support return to education and... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Algeo N, Mockler D, Braddish S et al. Non-pharmacological interventions to support return to education and work for adolescent and young adults (AYAs) following a cancer diagnosis: a scoping review protocol [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . HRB Open Res 2026, 8 :44 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14096.2 ) 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 Revised Non-pharmacological interventions to support return to education and work for adolescent and young adults (AYAs) following a cancer diagnosis: a scoping review protocol [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] Naomi Algeo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0924-2252 1,2 , David Mockler https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6171-8751 3 , Stacey Braddish 4 , [...] Matthew Barrington 4 , Niamh O'Sullivan 2,5 , Joy Lewis 2,5 , Scheryll Alken 2,5 , Peter McCarthy 2,5 , Joanne O'Mahony 2,5 , Kathleen Bennett https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2861-7665 6 , Claire McCall 7 , Amy Nolan 7 , Catherine Buckley 2 , Sonya Collier 2 , Louise Mullen https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0079-2469 8 , Nina Orfali https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7203-7580 2 , Aoife O'Gorman 2 , Ruth McMenamin https://orcid.org/0009-0003-2529-2855 5 , Denise Dockery 5 , Nickola Pallin 1 , Deirdre Connolly https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8539-8123 1,2 Naomi Algeo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0924-2252 1,2 , David Mockler https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6171-8751 3 , [...] Stacey Braddish 4 , Matthew Barrington 4 , Niamh O'Sullivan 2,5 , Joy Lewis 2,5 , Scheryll Alken 2,5 , Peter McCarthy 2,5 , Joanne O'Mahony 2,5 , Kathleen Bennett https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2861-7665 6 , Claire McCall 7 , Amy Nolan 7 , Catherine Buckley 2 , Sonya Collier 2 , Louise Mullen https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0079-2469 8 , Nina Orfali https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7203-7580 2 , Aoife O'Gorman 2 , Ruth McMenamin https://orcid.org/0009-0003-2529-2855 5 , Denise Dockery 5 , Nickola Pallin 1 , Deirdre Connolly https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8539-8123 1,2 PUBLISHED 16 Jan 2026 Author details Author details 1 Discipline of Occupational Therapy, Trinity College Dublin School of Medicine, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland 2 Trinity St. James's Cancer Institute, St James's Hospital, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland 3 Trinity College Dublin School of Medicine, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland 4 Patient and Public Involvement Representative, Dublin, Ireland 5 CHI at Crumlin, Children's Health Ireland, Cooley Road, Crumlin, Dublin, Ireland 6 Data Science Centre, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Division of Population Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland 7 Children, Adolescents and Young Adults (CAYA), Irish Cancer Society, Dublin, Ireland 8 National Cancer Control Programme, Health Service Executive, Dublin, Ireland Naomi Algeo Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing David Mockler Roles: Investigation Stacey Braddish Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Matthew Barrington Roles: Conceptualization Niamh O'Sullivan Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology Joy Lewis Roles: Conceptualization Scheryll Alken Roles: Conceptualization Peter McCarthy Roles: Conceptualization Joanne O'Mahony Roles: Conceptualization Kathleen Bennett Roles: Conceptualization Claire McCall Roles: Conceptualization Amy Nolan Roles: Conceptualization Catherine Buckley Roles: Conceptualization Sonya Collier Roles: Conceptualization Louise Mullen Roles: Conceptualization Nina Orfali Roles: Conceptualization Aoife O'Gorman Roles: Conceptualization Ruth McMenamin Roles: Conceptualization Denise Dockery Roles: Conceptualization Nickola Pallin Roles: Investigation Deirdre Connolly Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS Abstract Objective This scoping review will explore and chart the evidence relating to non-pharmacological interventions that support education and/or employment for adolescent and young adults (AYAs) following a cancer diagnosis. Introduction The number of newly diagnosed AYAs with cancer is increasing and so too is the number of AYAs living with and beyond cancer. In line with missed schooling and long-term side-effects of treatment, it is unsurprising that this group may under-perform academically and be at higher risk of unemployment in comparison to their peers. Developing an overview of existing interventions to support education and/or employment for this cohort, is therefore important. Inclusion Criteria Studies that explore non-pharmacological interventions that support education and/or employment for AYAs (aged 15–39 years at cancer diagnosis) post-cancer diagnosis. Interventions can be group-based, individual, and/or online in format, and can be vocational, psychosocial, physical, educational or multidisciplinary in nature. Qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods studies, case studies, observational studies, reports and theses will be included. Methods This scoping review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews. Databases to be searched include EMBASE, Web of Science, Medline (OVID), CINAHL, and PsycInfo, with no limitation on publication date. Grey literature will be searched, limited to the first 100 searches on Google Scholar. Titles and abstracts will be screened and two independent reviewers will review identified fill-texts. A data extraction tool will be used for data extraction. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords cancer survivorship; employment; quality of life; reintegration; schooling Corresponding Author(s) Naomi Algeo ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Naomi Algeo Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: This work is funded by the Irish Cancer Society Research Grant AHP22ALG. The opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Irish Cancer Society. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright: © 2026 Algeo N 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: Algeo N, Mockler D, Braddish S et al. Non-pharmacological interventions to support return to education and work for adolescent and young adults (AYAs) following a cancer diagnosis: a scoping review protocol [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . HRB Open Res 2026, 8 :44 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14096.2 ) First published: 24 Mar 2025, 8 :44 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14096.1 ) Latest published: 16 Jan 2026, 8 :44 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14096.2 ) Revised Amendments from Version 1 Please find a revised manuscript for our scoping review protocol, 'Non-pharmacological interventions to support return to education and work for adolescent and young adults (AYAs) following a cancer diagnosis: a scoping review protocol' following reviewer feedback. Please find a revised manuscript for our scoping review protocol, 'Non-pharmacological interventions to support return to education and work for adolescent and young adults (AYAs) following a cancer diagnosis: a scoping review protocol' following reviewer feedback. See the authors' detailed response to the review by Suja Somanadhan See the authors' detailed response to the review by Jennifer Kelleher and Meghan E. McGrady READ REVIEWER RESPONSES Introduction Internationally, the considered age range of Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) cancer survivors is 15–39 years (at diagnosis) ( Desandes & Stark, 2016 ). The number of newly diagnosed AYA cancers is increasing and so too is the number of AYA living with and beyond cancer, resulting in heightened focus on survivorship needs. This recent paradigm shift in survivorship care has focused on optimising quality of life for those living with and beyond cancer, including reintegration into education and employment ( Vaz-Luis et al. , 2022 ). Physical and psychosocial sequalae experienced by AYA cancer survivors during and after cancer treatment include fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, anxiety, and depression ( Baker & Syrjala, 2018 ; Ikonomidou, 2018 ; LaRosa et al. , 2017 ; Lea et al. , 2020 ; Mittal et al. , 2022 ; van Deuren et al. , 2020 ; Zebrack, 2011 ). It is commonly reported that this cohort will face ‘overwhelming’ physical and cognitive demands on their re-entry to education and employment ( Brauer et al. , 2017 ). Challenges associated with education reintegration include expedited return to keep up with peers, limited training for educators on how to best support reintegration, and the impact of altered body image during this adolescent stage ( Brauer et al. , 2017 ; Fardell et al. , 2018 ; Thompson et al. , 2015 ). While there remains partial overlap of physical and psychosocial barriers to employment reintegration for AYAs, other factors can influence this transition including returning to dependency on parents, fear of potential workplace discrimination, and workplace accommodations ( Fardell et al. , 2018 ; Husson et al. , 2018 ; Ketterl et al. , 2019 ), although these can vary depending on societal context (e.g., country-specific legislation/entitlements). In line with missed schooling and long-term side-effects of treatment, it is unsurprising that this group may under-perform academically in comparison to their peers, which in turn can lead to employment and financial difficulties in later life ( Elsbernd et al. , 2018 ). Furthermore, an international report for survivors of children, adolescents and young adults (CAYA) cancer highlighted evidence that this cohort are at higher risk of lower educational achievement and unemployment in later life ( Devine et al. , 2022 ). Return to education and employment is therefore often cited as challenging by AYA cancer survivors ( Barrett et al. , 2018 ; Ikonomidou, 2018 ). The European Code of Cancer recently identified the right of all cancer survivors to fully resume educational, economic, and social roles ( Lawler et al. , 2021 ). However, a gap in current research includes education and employment reintegration, where AYAs self-identified research on return to education and work as a top priority in a UK research priority-setting exercise ( Aldiss et al. , 2019 ). This has also been recognised internationally where the need to focus on education and career development for AYA cancer survivors has been cited as a core priority ( Altherr et al. , 2023 ; National Cancer Control Programme, 2022 ). Therefore, supports to empower AYAs who have had cancer to stay or return to education and/or work is an important issue for both AYAs and society. With the view to developing education and work-related supports for AYAs with cancer in the Republic of Ireland, a scoping review of relevant interventions in relation to type, content, evaluation and impact, will be completed. Methods The proposed scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews ( Peters et al. , 2020 ). This scoping review protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF) database on 21 st February 2025 and reporting will be guided in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement ( Moher et al. , 2015 ). This protocol will be conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews to ensure a systematic methodology that can be replicated. In addition, the scoping review framework proposed by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) is used to structure this protocol, which suggests five steps: (i) identifying the research question, (ii) identifying relevant studies, (iii) selecting studies, (iv) charting the data, and (v) collating, summarising, analysing, and presenting results. The planned scoping review will be reported in accordance with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) ( Tricco et al. , 2018 ). Stage one: Identifying the research question The main research question, guided using the Population-Concept-Context framework ( Peters et al. , 2020 ), is: What is the available evidence regarding non-pharmacological interventions that support education and/or employment outcomes for AYAs? In this instance, population refers to AYAs who were diagnosed with cancer (diagnosed aged 15–39 years inclusive) who have had a cancer diagnosis, context refers to interventions that support education and/or employment outcomes for AYAs, and context refers to any setting (acute/primary care/workplace/school/etc.) in any geographical location. The scoping review protocol has been reviewed by a patient and public involvement representative (who is also a co-author) on the research steering committee who has also informed objectives of this review. The primary aim of this scoping review is to identify and summarise the core elements (i.e., content, delivery, resources, length, and format) of non-pharmacological interventions/supports for adolescents and young adults who have had a cancer diagnosis to support return to education and/or work. Secondary objectives include: 1. To identify and summarise measures used to test the impact of these type of interventions on education and/or work and other outcomes. 2. To identify the most commonly used theoretical frameworks underpinning programmes that support return to education and/or work for AYAs. 3. To identify and describe the range of outcomes reported for non-pharmacological interventions and support programmes/services that support return to education and/or employment for AYAs. The aim of this scoping review is to explore and chart the evidence relating to non-pharmacological interventions that support education and/or employment for AYAs. Eligibility criteria: Inclusion criteria will be limited to peer-reviewed and non-peer reviewed studies and programmes that focus on interventions/programmes that support education and/or employment (concept) for AYAs after a cancer diagnosis (population), across any setting (acute/primary care/workplace/school/etc.) (context) ( Table 1 ). This scoping review will consider both experimental and quasi-experimental study designs including randomised control trials, non-randomised control trials, before and after studies, and interrupted time series studies. In addition, analytical observational studies including prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case-control studies and analytical cross-sectional studies will be considered for inclusion. This review will also consider descriptive observational study designs, including case series, individual case reports, and descriptive cross-sectional studies for inclusion. Qualitative studies will also be considered that focus on qualitative data including, but not limited to, designs such as phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, qualitative description, and action research. Systematic reviews that meet the inclusion criteria will also be considered, depending on the research question. Text and opinion papers will also be considered for inclusion in this scoping review. While some study designs (e.g., cross-sectional, qualitative, etc.) do not allow assessment of intervention effectiveness over time, they may provide valuable information on the types of interventions offered to AYAs and the range of outcomes measured. Therefore, we will include these studies to capture descriptive data on interventions and outcomes. Table 1. Eligibility Criteria. Category Inclusion Criteria Population • Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) aged 15–39 years at time of cancer diagnosis • Age range selected to reflect internationally recognised definitions (e.g., Desandes & Stark, 2016 ). • Studies including AYAs during or after cancer treatment. Concept • Non-pharmacological interventions designed to support education and/or employment outcomes for AYAs. • Interventions may be group-based, individual, online, vocational, psychosocial, physical, educational, or multidisciplinary. • Outcomes may include school reintegration (e.g., e.g., binary yes/no for education status, academic performance, etc.), return-to-work (e.g., binary yes/no for working status; work satisfactions etc.), or employability. Context • Any setting, including acute care, primary care, community, workplace, or school. • Studies from any geographical region. Types of Evidence Sources Peer-reviewed and non–peer-reviewed sources , including: Experimental and quasi-experimental: • Randomised controlled trials • Non-randomised controlled trials • Before-and-after studies • Interrupted time series Analytical observational: • Prospective and retrospective cohort studies • Case–control studies • Analytical cross-sectional studies Descriptive observational: • Case series • Case reports • Descriptive cross-sectional studies Qualitative research: • Phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, qualitative description, action research, etc. Other sources: • Systematic reviews (where relevant) • Text and opinion papers • Programme descriptions or evaluations Population: This scoping review will consider studies of non-pharmacological interventions and support programmes that include AYAs who were diagnosed with a cancer diagnosis (aged 15–39 years inclusive). The age range considered for AYAs can vary from country to country. For example, in the Republic of Ireland, the recognised age range for this cohort is 16–24 years ( Alken et al. , 2020 ). However, for the purpose of this review and to yield a breadth of supports, the age range of 15–39 years which is recognised internationally will be considered ( Desandes & Stark, 2016 ). Intervention eligibility will only be considered if age range falls within 15–39 years (e.g. study focusing on ages 12–24 would be excluded). Concept: The proposed scoping review is designed to explore non-pharmacological interventions that support education and/or employment outcomes for AYAs. Interventions can be group-based, individual, and/or online in format, and can be vocational, psychosocial, physical, educational or multidisciplinary in nature. Pharmacological or medical interventions are excluded, as the focus of this review is on behavioural, psychosocial, vocational, educational, and rehabilitation-oriented strategies. From here on in, we will refer to these approaches simply as interventions. Context: The aim of this scoping review is to explore the breadth of current literature published on interventions that measure education and/or employment outcomes for AYAs. Therefore, studies conducted in any setting (acute/primary care/workplace/school/etc.) in any geographical location will be considered. Patient and Public Involvement: A patient and public involvement (PPI) contributor, who is also a co-author on this protocol (SB), was involved in the development of the review objectives, refinement of the research question, and identification of key concepts relevant to AYAs following a cancer diagnosis. The PPI member provided feedback on the scope of the review, the relevance of outcomes relating to education and employment, and contributed to ensuring that the planned review reflects patient priorities. No additional consultation stage is planned beyond their ongoing involvement in interpreting findings during the analysis and dissemination stages. Stage two: Identifying relevant studies The search strategy will aim to locate both published and unpublished sources. As recommended in the JBI guidelines, a three-step search strategy will be used. First, a broad search of databases (including EMBASE, Medline (OVID), and CINAHL), using keywords for cancer, education, employment, rehabilitation, adolescents and young adults will be completed. Second, words contained in the titles and abstracts of relevant manuscripts and index terms used to describe these will be used to inform a full search strategy. The medical librarian (DM) will develop a search strategy in collaboration with the lead author (NA) ( Appendix 1 ). The search strategy will be adapted for each database and information source. Databases that will be searched as part of this scoping review include EMBASE, Web of Science, Medline (OVID), CINAHL, and PsycInfo. Google Scholar will be searched for grey literature, limited to the first 100 searches (e.g., organisation and institutional reports, theses and dissertations, conference materials, programme descriptions/evaluations, etc.). Third, the reference list of all included sources of evidence will be screened for additional studies. The searches will be conducted by NA and DM. Studies published in English will be included, as the resources for translation are not available and no limitation will be set on date. In addition, the lead author will consult the research steering committee, of whom all are key AYA stakeholders, regarding their knowledge on any additional grey literature. The definitive search strategy and results will be reported in detail in the published scoping review. Stage three: Selecting studies Following the search, all identified citations will be collated and uploaded to Covidence and duplicates removed. Prior to screening, two independent reviewers will complete pilot testing of eligibility criteria. A sample of 25 titles/abstracts selected at random will be selected and screened. The team will meet to discuss any discrepancies and amend eligibility criteria as needed. Screening will commence when at least 75% agreement is achieved ( Peters et al. , 2020 ). Titles and abstracts will be screened by the first author for assessment against inclusion criteria. The full texts of selected studies will then be reviewed for inclusion by two reviewers. Where uncertainty occurs, a third reviewer will be consulted and resolved through discussion. Full text studies will be excluded if they do not meet the inclusion criteria and reasons for exclusion recorded. The search results will be reported in a PRISMA flow diagram ( Page et al. , 2021 ). Step four: Charting the data Data extraction will focus on identifying and charting data relating to interventions that support education and/or employment outcomes for AYAs following a cancer diagnosis. A data charting form will be developed using Microsoft Excel. This will be developed using the JBI data extraction tool and will be guided by the Intervention Development and Replication (TIDieR) checklist ( Hoffmann et al. , 2014 ) ( Appendix 2 ), which systematically describes interventions and their characteristics to support future replication. Two reviewers will pilot the data charting form by independently extracting data from the first ten included studies. They will then meet to confirm consistency in their approach in data extraction as well as establishing suitability of the data charting form. The form may be subject to amendment as familiarity with selected studies necessitates a need for capturing further information. Where uncertainty occurs, a third reviewer will be consulted and resolved through discussion. The data extraction tool will collect the following data related to included studies/resources: 1. Author 2. Title 3. Year of publication 4. Evidence source details 5. Country of origin 6. Study/programme aims/objectives/purpose 7. Research design (if applicable) 8. Inclusion/exclusion criteria 9. Demographic details of participants included (if applicable) (e.g., cancer type, age) 10. Sample size (if applicable) 11. Intervention format (online, in-person, written) 12. Frequency of intervention delivery (once-off, six-weeks, etc.) 13. Intervention duration (e.g., one-hour/session, 30 minutes etc.) 14. Intervention content 15. Intervention facilitator(s) (if applicable) 16. Theoretical framework (if applicable) 17. Outcomes measured (if applicable) 18. Comparator (if applicable) 19. Caregiver/Partner involvement (if applicable) Data will be extracted by the lead author and verified by a second. Our objective is to map the existing literature rather than assess the methodological quality of included studies. Therefore, we do not plan to conduct a formal quality appraisal. This approach is consistent with scoping review guidance, which considers quality assessment optional. Step five: Collating, summarising, analysing and presenting the data The PRISMA-ScR checklist will be used to guide the reporting of this review ( Tricco et al ., 2018 ). Literature search findings and the study screening process will be presented in a PRISMA flow diagram. Extracted data will be charted in tabular format using the TIDieR checklist to ensure comprehensive and consistent reporting of intervention characteristics. Following data charting, findings will be synthesised using both a descriptive narrative summary and the PAGER framework (Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for practice, and Research recommendations) ( Bradbury-Jones et al ., 2022 ). PAGER will provide a structured approach to analysing and presenting the results, enabling clearer identification of key themes, developments in the field, gaps in the evidence base, and implications for research and practice. This will ensure that the synthesis aligns with and supports the scoping review’s objectives and questions. Any deviation from the protocol will be clearly explained in the complete scoping review report. Discussion Globally the number of newly diagnosed AYA cancers is increasing and so too is the number of AYA living with and beyond cancer . Physical and psychosocial sequalae of cancer and its treatment can impact on AYAs reintegrating back to education and/or employment following cancer treatment. A gap in current research includes education and employment reintegration, where AYAs self-identified research on return to education and work as a top priority in a UK research priority-setting exercise ( Aldiss et al. , 2019 ). Therefore, the exploration of factors impacting on successful return to education and employment for AYA cancer survivors is warranted. To our knowledge, this scoping review will be the first to focus on interventions that support return to education and/or employment for AYAs following a cancer diagnosis. This protocol will include a comprehensive search of peer reviewed and grey literature and will identify, map and summarise existing literature describing supports programmes for AYAs that measure an education or employment outcome. Ethical considerations As scoping review methodology involves reviewing and collecting data from publicly accessible material, this study does not require ethical approval. Ethics and consent Ethical approval and consent were not required. Data availability Underlying data No data are associated with this article. Author’s contributions The protocol was designed by NA, DC and SB. The drafting of the manuscript was completed by NA, SB and DC. NA and DC approved the final manuscript. Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge and thank the Irish Cancer Society for their support of this project. Appendix 1: Search strategy Non-pharmacological interventions to support education and/or work outcomes for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer. EMBASE 'neoplasm'/exp OR 'cancer rehabilitation'/exp OR 'cancer patient'/exp (cancer* or neoplas* or tumor* or tumour* or malignan* or carcinoma* or metasta* or oncolog* or leukemi* or leukaemi* or lymphoma* or myeloma* or sarcoma*):ti,ab,kw #1 OR #2 'cancer survival'/exp OR 'cancer survivor'/exp OR 'childhood cancer survivor'/exp OR 'survivorship'/exp Surviv*:ti,ab,kw #4 OR #5 'juvenile'/de OR 'adolescent'/de OR 'adolescent health'/exp OR 'child'/exp OR 'young adult'/exp (Child OR childhood OR children OR infant* OR baby OR babies OR newborn OR preschool OR 'pre school' OR school OR ‘high school’ OR teenager* OR teen? OR adolescen* OR juvenile* OR ‘young adult*’ OR ‘young cancer patient*’ OR ‘young cancer survivor*’ OR ‘young patient*’):ti,ab,kw 'pediatrics'/exp p?ediatric*:ti,ab,kw,jt #7 OR #8 OR #9 OR #10 'outcome assessment'/exp AND ('employment'/exp OR 'unemployment'/exp) 'vocational guidance'/exp ((educat* OR work OR employ* OR vocation* OR school OR university OR occupational) NEAR/3 (outcome* OR support* OR intervention* OR needs OR program* OR lnclusion)):ti,ab,kw #12 OR #13 OR #14 #3 AND #6 AND #11 AND #15 Medline exp Neoplasms/ (cancer* or neoplas* or tumor* or tumour* or malignan* or carcinoma* or metasta* or oncolog* or leukemi* or leukaemi* or lymphoma* or myeloma* or sarcoma*).mp. 1 OR 2 Cancer Survivors/ OR Survivors/ Surviv*.mp. 4 OR 5 exp adolescent/ or exp child/ or exp infant/ or (infant disease* or childhood disease*).ti,ab,kf. or (adolescen* or babies or baby or boy? or boyfriend or boyhood or girlfriend or girlhood or child* or girl? or infan* or juvenil* or kid? or minors or minors* or neonat* or neo-nat* or newborn* or new-born* or paediatric* or peadiatric* or pediatric* or perinat* or preschool* or puber* or pubescen* or school* or teen* or toddler? or underage? or under-age? or youth*).ti,ab,kf. or (pediatric* paediatric* or infan* or child* or adolescen* or young).jn,jw. or (pediatric* or paediatric* or infan* or child* or adolescen* or young).in. (exp Rehabilitation, Vocational/ OR exp Employment/) AND Treatment Outcome/ ((educat* OR work OR employ* OR vocation* OR school OR university OR occupational) adj3 (outcome* OR support* OR intervention* OR needs OR program* OR inclusion)).mp. 8 OR 9 3 AND 6 AND 7 AND 10 CINAHL (MH "Childhood Neoplasms") OR (MH "Neoplasms") TI (cancer* or neoplas* or tumor* or tumour* or malignan* or carcinoma* or metasta* or oncolog* or leukemi* or leukaemi* or lymphoma* or myeloma* or sarcoma*) OR AB (cancer* or neoplas* or tumor* or tumour* or malignan* or carcinoma* or metasta* or oncolog* or leukemi* or leukaemi* or lymphoma* or myeloma* or sarcoma*) S1 OR S2 (MH "Cancer Survivors") OR (MH "Survivors") TI (survivor*) OR AB (survivor*) S4 OR S5 (MH "Young Adult") OR (MH "Adolescence+") OR (MH "Child+") OR (MH "Students, High School") OR (MH "Students, Middle School") OR (MH "Schools, Secondary") OR (MH "Schools, Middle") OR (MH "Schools, Elementary") TI (Child OR childhood OR children OR infant* OR baby OR babies OR newborn OR preschool OR “pre school” OR school OR “high school” OR teenager* OR teen* OR adolescen* OR juvenile* OR “young adult*” OR “young cancer patient*” OR “young cancer survivor*” OR “young patient*”) OR AB (Child OR childhood OR children OR infant* OR baby OR babies OR newborn OR preschool OR “pre school” OR school OR “high school” OR teenager* OR teen* OR adolescen* OR juvenile* OR “young adult*” OR “young cancer patient*” OR “young cancer survivor*” OR “young patient*”) (MH "Pediatrics+") TI (P#ediatrics) OR AB (P#ediatrics) S7 OR S8 OR S9 OR S10 (MH "Educational Status") OR (MH "Employment Status") OR (MH "Outcomes of Education") OR (MH "Unemployment") TI ((educat* OR work OR employ* OR vocation* OR school OR university OR occupational) N2 (outcome* OR support* OR intervention* OR needs OR program* OR inclusion)) OR AB ((educat* OR work OR employ* OR vocation* OR school OR university OR occupational) N2 (outcome* OR support* OR intervention* OR needs OR program* OR inclusion)) S12 OR S13 S3 AND S6 AND S11 AND S14 PsycINFO DE "Neoplasms" OR DE "Benign Neoplasms" OR DE "Breast Neoplasms" OR DE "Endocrine Neoplasms" OR DE "Leukemias" OR DE "Melanoma" OR DE "Metastasis" OR DE "Nervous System Neoplasms" OR DE "Terminal Cancer" TI (cancer* or neoplas* or tumor* or tumour* or malignan* or carcinoma* or metasta* or oncolog* or leukemi* or leukaemi* or lymphoma* or myeloma* or sarcoma*) OR AB (cancer* or neoplas* or tumor* or tumour* or malignan* or carcinoma* or metasta* or oncolog* or leukemi* or leukaemi* or lymphoma* or myeloma* or sarcoma*) S1 OR S2 DE "Survivors" TI (survivor*) OR AB (survivor*) S4 OR S5 TI (Child OR childhood OR children OR infant* OR baby OR babies OR newborn OR preschool OR “pre school” OR school OR “high school” OR teenager* OR teen* OR adolescen* OR juvenile* OR “young adult*” OR “young cancer patient*” OR “young cancer survivor*” OR “young patient*”) OR AB (Child OR childhood OR children OR infant* OR baby OR babies OR newborn OR preschool OR “pre school” OR school OR “high school” OR teenager* OR teen* OR adolescen* OR juvenile* OR “young adult*” OR “young cancer patient*” OR “young cancer survivor*” OR “young patient*”) TI (P#ediatrics) OR AB (P#ediatrics) S7 OR S8 TI ((educat* OR work OR employ* OR vocation* OR school OR university OR occupational) N2 (outcome* OR support* OR intervention* OR needs OR program* OR inclusion)) OR AB ((educat* OR work OR employ* OR vocation* OR school OR university OR occupational) N2 (outcome* OR support* OR intervention* OR needs OR program* OR inclusion)) S3 AND S6 AND S9 AND S10 Web of science core collection (cancer* or neoplas* or tumor* or tumour* or malignan* or carcinoma* or metasta* or oncolog* or leukemi* or leukaemi* or lymphoma* or myeloma* or sarcoma*) Surviv* (Child OR childhood OR children OR infant* OR baby OR babies OR newborn OR preschool OR "pre school" OR school* OR "high school" OR teenager* OR teen* OR adolescen* OR juvenile* OR "young adult*" OR "young cancer patient*" OR "young cancer survivor*" OR "young patient*" OR pediatric* OR paediatric*) ((educat* OR work OR employ* OR vocation* OR school OR university OR occupational) NEAR/3 (outcome* OR support* OR intervention* OR needs OR program* OR inclusion)) #1 AND #2 AND #3 AND #4 Google scholar Cancer|tumor|tumour|neoplasm survivor|survival adolescent|adolescents|”young adults”|AYA “education|educational|work|employment|vocational|school|university|occupational AROUND(3) outcome|support|intervention|needs|programme|programme” Appendix 2: TIDieR checklist for data extraction Item Number Item Where located? Primary paper (page or appendix number) Other details 1 Brief name (Name of phrase that describes the interventions) 2 Why (Rationale, theory, or goal of the elements essential to the intervention) 3 What (Describe any physical of informational materials used in the intervention and how they were provided) 4 Procedures (Describe each procedure, activity, and/or process used in the intervention) 5 Who provided (For each provider, describe their expertise, background, and any specific training given) 6 How (Describe modes of delivery) 7 Where (Describe type(s) of location(s) where the intervention occurred) 8 When and how much (Describe the number of times the intervention was delivered and over what period of time) 9 Tailoring (If the intervention was planned to be personalised, titrated, or adapted, then describe what, why, when, and how) 10 Modifications (Describe any changes during the course of the study/ intervention) 11 Planned (If intervention adherence or fidelity was assessed, describe how and by whom; if any strategies were used to maintain or improve fidelity, describe them.) 12 Actual (If intervention adherence or fidelity was assessed, describe the extent to which the intervention was delivered as planned.) Faculty Opinions recommended References Aldiss S, Fern LA, Phillips RS, et al. : Research priorities for young people with cancer: a UK priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance. BMJ Open. 2019; 9 (8): e028119. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Alken S, Owens C, Gilham C, et al. : Survival of childhood and Adolescent/Young Adult (AYA) cancer patients in Ireland during 1994-2013: comparisons by age. Ir J Med Sci. 2020; 189 (4): 1223–1236. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Altherr A, Bolliger C, Kaufmann M, et al. : Education, employment, and financial outcomes in Adolescent and Young Adult cancer survivors-a systematic review. Curr Oncol. 2023; 30 (10): 8720–8762. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Arksey H, O’Malley L: Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005; 8 (1): 19–32. Publisher Full Text Baker KS, Syrjala KL: Long-term complications in Adolescent and Young Adult Leukemia survivors. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2018; 2018 (1): 146–153. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Barrett P, Mullen L, McCarthy C: Survivorship after childhood cancer - health needs assessment, 2018. National Cancer Control Programme: Dublin, 2018. Reference Source Bradbury-Jones C, Aveyard H, Herber OR, et al. : Scoping reviews: the PAGER framework for improving the quality of reporting. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2022; 25 (4): 457–470 Publisher Full Text Brauer ER, Pieters HC, Ganz PA, et al. : "From snail mode to rocket ship mode": Adolescents and Young Adults' experiences of returning to work and school after Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol. 2017; 6 (4): 551–559. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Desandes E, Stark DP: Epidemiology of Adolescents and Young Adults with cancer in Europe. Prog Tumor Res. 2016; 43 : 1–15. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Devine KA, Christen S, Mulder RL, et al. : Recommendations for the surveillance of education and employment outcomes in survivors of Childhood, Adolescent, and Young Adult cancer: a report from the International late effects of childhood cancer guideline harmonization group. Cancer. 2022; 128 (13): 2405–2419. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Elsbernd A, Pedersen KJ, Boisen KA, et al. : "On your own": Adolescent and Young Adult cancer survivors' experience of managing return to secondary or higher education in Denmark. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol. 2018; 7 (5): 618–625. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Fardell JE, Wakefield CE, Patterson P, et al. : Narrative review of the educational, vocational, and financial needs of Adolescents and Young Adults with cancer: recommendations for support and research. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol. 2018; 7 (2): 143–147. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, et al. : Better reporting of interventions: Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014; 348 : g1687. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Husson O, Huijgens PC, van der Graaf WTA: Psychosocial challenges and health-related quality of life of Adolescents and Young Adults with hematologic malignancies. Blood. 2018; 132 (4): 385–392. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Ikonomidou C: Chemotherapy and the pediatric brain. Mol Cell Pediatr. 2018; 5 (1): 8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Ketterl TG, Syrjala KL, Casillas J, et al. : Lasting effects of cancer and its treatment on employment and finances in Adolescent and Young Adult cancer survivors. Cancer. 2019; 125 (11): 1908–1917. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text LaRosa KN, Stern M, Bleck J, et al. : Adolescent and Young Adult patients with cancer: perceptions of care. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol. 2017; 6 (4): 512–518. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Lawler M, Oliver K, Gijssels S, et al. : The European code of cancer practice. J Cancer Policy. 2021; 28 : 100282. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Lea S, Martins A, Fern LA, et al. : The support and information needs of Adolescents and Young Adults with cancer when active treatment ends. BMC Cancer. 2020; 20 (1): 697. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Mittal N, Saha A, Avutu V, et al. : Shared barriers and facilitators to enrollment of Adolescents and Young Adults on cancer clinical trials. Sci Rep. 2022; 12 (1): 3875. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. : Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015; 4 (1): 1. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text National Cancer Control Programme (NCCP), HSE: Framework for the care and support of Adolescents and Young Adults (AYA) with cancer in Ireland: 2021–2026. 2022. Reference Source Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. : The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372 : n71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, et al. : Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020; 18 (10): 2119–2126. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Thompson AL, Christiansen HL, Elam M, et al. : Academic continuity and school reentry support as a standard of care in pediatric oncology. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2015; 62 Suppl 5 (Suppl 5): S805–S817. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. : PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018; 169 (7): 467–473. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text van Deuren S, Boonstra A, van Dulmen-den Broeder E, et al. : Severe fatigue after treatment for childhood cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020; 3 (3): CD012681. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Vaz-Luis I, Masiero M, Cavaletti G, et al. : ESMO expert consensus statements on cancer survivorship: promoting high-quality survivorship care and research in Europe. Ann Oncol. 2022; 33 (11): 1119–1133. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Zebrack BJ: Psychological, social, and behavioral issues for young adults with cancer. Cancer. 2011; 117 (10 Suppl): 2289–2294. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 24 Mar 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Discipline of Occupational Therapy, Trinity College Dublin School of Medicine, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland 2 Trinity St. James's Cancer Institute, St James's Hospital, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland 3 Trinity College Dublin School of Medicine, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland 4 Patient and Public Involvement Representative, Dublin, Ireland 5 CHI at Crumlin, Children's Health Ireland, Cooley Road, Crumlin, Dublin, Ireland 6 Data Science Centre, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Division of Population Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland 7 Children, Adolescents and Young Adults (CAYA), Irish Cancer Society, Dublin, Ireland 8 National Cancer Control Programme, Health Service Executive, Dublin, Ireland Naomi Algeo Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing David Mockler Roles: Investigation Stacey Braddish Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Matthew Barrington Roles: Conceptualization Niamh O'Sullivan Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology Joy Lewis Roles: Conceptualization Scheryll Alken Roles: Conceptualization Peter McCarthy Roles: Conceptualization Joanne O'Mahony Roles: Conceptualization Kathleen Bennett Roles: Conceptualization Claire McCall Roles: Conceptualization Amy Nolan Roles: Conceptualization Catherine Buckley Roles: Conceptualization Sonya Collier Roles: Conceptualization Louise Mullen Roles: Conceptualization Nina Orfali Roles: Conceptualization Aoife O'Gorman Roles: Conceptualization Ruth McMenamin Roles: Conceptualization Denise Dockery Roles: Conceptualization Nickola Pallin Roles: Investigation Deirdre Connolly Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information This work is funded by the Irish Cancer Society Research Grant AHP22ALG. The opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Irish Cancer Society. 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: 16 Jan 2026, 8:44 https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14096.2 version 1 Published: 24 Mar 2025, 8:44 https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14096.1 Copyright © 2026 Algeo N 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 Algeo N, Mockler D, Braddish S et al. Non-pharmacological interventions to support return to education and work for adolescent and young adults (AYAs) following a cancer diagnosis: a scoping review protocol [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . HRB Open Res 2026, 8 :44 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14096.2 ) 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 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 16 Jan 2026 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: McGrady ME. Reviewer Report For: Non-pharmacological interventions to support return to education and work for adolescent and young adults (AYAs) following a cancer diagnosis: a scoping review protocol [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . HRB Open Res 2026, 8 :44 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15768.r52902 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-44/v2#referee-response-52902 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 27 Jan 2026 Meghan E. McGrady , Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, USA Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15768.r52902 The authors have provided clear and thoughtful responses to ... Continue reading READ ALL The authors have provided clear and thoughtful responses to my prior comments and I have no remaining questions. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: adolescent and young adult psycho-oncology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT McGrady ME. Reviewer Report For: Non-pharmacological interventions to support return to education and work for adolescent and young adults (AYAs) following a cancer diagnosis: a scoping review protocol [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . HRB Open Res 2026, 8 :44 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15768.r52902 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-44/v2#referee-response-52902 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 Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Somanadhan S. Reviewer Report For: Non-pharmacological interventions to support return to education and work for adolescent and young adults (AYAs) following a cancer diagnosis: a scoping review protocol [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . HRB Open Res 2026, 8 :44 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15768.r52901 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-44/v2#referee-response-52901 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 19 Jan 2026 Suja Somanadhan , University College Dublin, Dublin, Leinster, Ireland Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15768.r52901 Thank you for the opportunity to review the updated version of this review protocol. The protocol reads very well, and I thank the authors for addressing all of my comments. I have only a minor edit regarding ... Continue reading READ ALL Thank you for the opportunity to review the updated version of this review protocol. The protocol reads very well, and I thank the authors for addressing all of my comments. I have only a minor edit regarding the keywords mentioned in the response, which do not appear to have been updated in Version 2. Best Wishes Suja Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Child and family health, Rare diseases, Transition, Psychosocial Research, Outcome Measures I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Somanadhan S. Reviewer Report For: Non-pharmacological interventions to support return to education and work for adolescent and young adults (AYAs) following a cancer diagnosis: a scoping review protocol [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . HRB Open Res 2026, 8 :44 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15768.r52901 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-44/v2#referee-response-52901 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 Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 24 Mar 2025 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Kelleher J and McGrady ME. Reviewer Report For: Non-pharmacological interventions to support return to education and work for adolescent and young adults (AYAs) following a cancer diagnosis: a scoping review protocol [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . HRB Open Res 2026, 8 :44 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15487.r50280 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-44/v1#referee-response-50280 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 10 Oct 2025 Jennifer Kelleher , Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Meghan E. McGrady , Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, USA Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15487.r50280 Study Rationale and Objectives The authors clearly outline the impacts of cancer and its treatment on educational and occupational outcomes, highlighting the need to identify interventions with the potential to support AYAs in these domains. While the rationale for ... Continue reading READ ALL Study Rationale and Objectives The authors clearly outline the impacts of cancer and its treatment on educational and occupational outcomes, highlighting the need to identify interventions with the potential to support AYAs in these domains. While the rationale for the larger study is clear, there is an opportunity to clarify the types of interventions being targeted in this review. Specifically, the authors use multiple terms to describe the types of interventions including “non-pharmacological,” “rehabilitation”, and “support programmes.” While the definition in the “concept” section is clear, the interchangeable use of the aforementioned terms leads to some confusion. For example, the phrase “rehabilitation interventions and support programmes” is used in the “population” section, raising a question as to whether other intervention types (e.g., psychoeducation intervention supporting return to work) will be included. In addition, the use of the term “non-pharmacological” introduces a question as to whether there are pharmacological interventions that target these outcomes and if so, why they are excluded. The authors may wish to consider whether it could be helpful to include the definition in the “concept” section earlier in the manuscript and thereafter simply refer to them as “interventions” thereafter to promote consistency. Study Design The study design and methods are appropriate to the research question and rigor is enhanced by adherence to standardized guidelines. The research questions, however, do cover a broad range of topics, and the authors may wish to consider clarifying primary (versus secondary) aims. In addition, the authors may wish to consider the following points: 1. It is somewhat unclear why cross-sectional studies could be included in this review. The authors may wish to consider if/why/how data from these studies would be appropriate for answering the stated research questions. 2. The authors may wish to consider whether it would be helpful to expand their planned data extraction to include the following elements: comparator condition, caregiver/care partner involvement (e.g., is this an AYA-focused intervention or is a caregiver also involved and if so, in what capacity), target outcome of the intervention (as studies may measure multiple outcomes in addition to the intervention target) 3. Since many studies include multiple outcomes, the authors may wish to consider a framework for identifying the “primary” outcome of each study, or the outcome which will be used as the authors “summarized the reported impact” of these interventions. Methods The methods section is generally clear. The authors may wish to consider the following points to ensure sufficient detail is provided to allow for replication: 1. While an age range of 15-39 years is stated, it is unclear if this refers to the age at diagnosis or age at enrollment in the intervention. 2. As mentioned by the authors, as there are multiple definitions of the AYA age range, the authors may wish to consider and articulate if they will include interventions that include AYAs spanning part of this age range. For example, will they only include interventions whose eligible age range falls within 15-39 years (thus excluding a study that could focus on ages 12-24) or will they include interventions in which the majority of the sample or mean age of the sample falls within 15-39 years (and thus could include the prior example)? Or will they use some other criteria? 3. As the review seems to focus on a broad range of interventions as long as they target education and/or employment outcomes, it may be helpful to include details on what measures would be considered markers of these outcomes. 4. Could the authors provide a definition of types of “grey literature” that could be included? Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described? Partly Is the study design appropriate for the research question? Partly 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 Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: AYA psycho-oncology We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however we have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Kelleher J and McGrady ME. Reviewer Report For: Non-pharmacological interventions to support return to education and work for adolescent and young adults (AYAs) following a cancer diagnosis: a scoping review protocol [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . HRB Open Res 2026, 8 :44 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15487.r50280 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-44/v1#referee-response-50280 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 16 Jan 2026 Naomi Algeo , Discipline of Occupational Therapy, Trinity College Dublin School of Medicine, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, Ireland 16 Jan 2026 Author Response Dear Reviewers, Many thanks for your feedback on our scoping review protocol. Please find below our responses in how we have addressed your helpful feedback: (1) The authors ... Continue reading Dear Reviewers, Many thanks for your feedback on our scoping review protocol. Please find below our responses in how we have addressed your helpful feedback: (1) The authors clearly outline the impacts of cancer and its treatment on educational and occupational outcomes, highlighting the need to identify interventions with the potential to support AYAs in these domains. While the rationale for the larger study is clear, there is an opportunity to clarify the types of interventions being targeted in this review. Specifically, the authors use multiple terms to describe the types of interventions including “non-pharmacological,” “rehabilitation”, and “support programmes.” While the definition in the “concept” section is clear, the interchangeable use of the aforementioned terms leads to some confusion. For example, the phrase “rehabilitation interventions and support programmes” is used in the “population” section, raising a question as to whether other intervention types (e.g., psychoeducation intervention supporting return to work) will be included. In addition, the use of the term “non-pharmacological” introduces a question as to whether there are pharmacological interventions that target these outcomes and if so, why they are excluded. The authors may wish to consider whether it could be helpful to include the definition in the “concept” section earlier in the manuscript and thereafter simply refer to them as “interventions” thereafter to promote consistency. RESPONSE: Thank you for this comment. We acknowledge that the use of multiple terms to describe interventions may have caused confusion. To clarify, we intentionally use the term “non-pharmacological interventions” because there is existing literature, including medical and pharmacological studies (e.g., de Boer et al., 2015 Cochrane review), that examine the effects of pharmacological approaches on employment outcomes in cancer. By specifying “non-pharmacological” we clearly delineate the scope of our review to behavioural, psychosocial, vocational, educational, and rehabilitation-oriented strategies. To improve clarity and consistency, we will introduce this definition early in the manuscript and, thereafter, refer to these approaches simply as “interventions”, ensuring consistent terminology while maintaining the precision needed to define the scope of included studies. We have clarified this in the Methods section: Concept: The proposed scoping review is designed to explore non-pharmacological interventions that support education and/or employment outcomes for AYAs. Interventions can be group-based, individual, and/or online in format, and can be vocational, psychosocial, physical, educational, or multidisciplinary in nature. Pharmacological or medical interventions are excluded, as the focus of this review is on behavioural, psychosocial, vocational, educational, and rehabilitation-oriented strategies. From here on in, we will refer to these approaches simply as interventions. (2) The study design and methods are appropriate to the research question and rigor is enhanced by adherence to standardized guidelines. The research questions, however, do cover a broad range of topics, and the authors may wish to consider clarifying primary (versus secondary) aims. RESPONSE: Thank you – we have made a slight amendment to clarify the primary aims and then secondary objectives: The primary aim of this scoping review is to identify and summarise the core elements (i.e., content, delivery, resources, length, and format) of non-pharmacological interventions/supports for adolescents and young adults who have had a cancer diagnosis to support return to education and/or work. Secondary objectives include:… (3) In addition, the authors may wish to consider the following points: 1. It is somewhat unclear why cross-sectional studies could be included in this review. The authors may wish to consider if/why/how data from these studies would be appropriate for answering the stated research questions. RESPONSE: Thank you for this comment. We agree that the inclusion of cross-sectional studies requires clarification. Cross-sectional studies will be included in this scoping review because they can provide valuable descriptive information on the types of interventions and outcomes being assessed, even if they do not evaluate change over time. These data will contribute to mapping the landscape of available interventions and reported outcomes, complementing longitudinal and experimental studies that assess intervention impact. We will clearly indicate study design in our data extraction and reporting to ensure transparency. We have added: While some study designs (e.g., cross-sectional, qualitative, etc.) do not allow assessment of intervention effectiveness over time, they may provide valuable information on the types of interventions offered to AYAs and the range of outcomes measured. Therefore, we will include these studies to capture descriptive data on interventions and outcomes. (4) The authors may wish to consider whether it would be helpful to expand their planned data extraction to include the following elements: comparator condition, caregiver/care partner involvement (e.g., is this an AYA-focused intervention or is a caregiver also involved and if so, in what capacity), target outcome of the intervention (as studies may measure multiple outcomes in addition to the intervention target) RESPONSE: Thank you – we have added the below to the data extraction: The data extraction tool will collect the following data related to included studies/resources: Author Title Year of publication Evidence source details Country of origin Study/programme aims/objectives/purpose Research design (if applicable) Inclusion/exclusion criteria Demographic details of participants included (if applicable) (e.g., cancer type, age) Sample size (if applicable) Intervention format (online, in-person, written) Frequency of intervention delivery (once-off, six-weeks, etc.) Intervention duration (e.g., one-hour/session, 30 minutes etc.) Intervention content Intervention facilitator(s) (if applicable) Theoretical framework (if applicable) Outcomes measured (if applicable) Comparator (if applicable) Caregiver/Partner involvement (if applicable) (5) Since many studies include multiple outcomes, the authors may wish to consider a framework for identifying the “primary” outcome of each study, or the outcome which will be used as the authors “summarized the reported impact” of these interventions. RESPONSE Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We recognize that many studies report multiple outcomes. In this scoping review, we will extract all outcomes relevant to education and/or employment and summarise the impact of interventions based on those outcomes. When multiple outcomes are reported, we will describe the range of impacts and highlight those most directly aligned with the review objectives. This approach is consistent with scoping review methodology, which focuses on mapping and describing the breadth of evidence rather than identifying a single primary outcome. We appreciate that a rewording of the objective may be useful for clarity, and have added: ‘To identify and describe the range of outcomes reported for non-pharmacological interventions and support programmes/services that support return to education and/or employment for AYAs.’ (6) The methods section is generally clear. The authors may wish to consider the following points to ensure sufficient detail is provided to allow for replication: 1. While an age range of 15-39 years is stated, it is unclear if this refers to the age at diagnosis or age at enrolment in the intervention. RESPONSE: Thank you – this has been clarified throughout the text to confirm that we are considering AYAs who were diagnosed with cancer between 15-39 years. (7) As mentioned by the authors, as there are multiple definitions of the AYA age range, the authors may wish to consider and articulate if they will include interventions that include AYAs spanning part of this age range. For example, will they only include interventions whose eligible age range falls within 15-39 years (thus excluding a study that could focus on ages 12-24) or will they include interventions in which the majority of the sample or mean age of the sample falls within 15-39 years (and thus could include the prior example)? Or will they use some other criteria? RESPONSE: Thank you – we have clarified this in the text under Stage One section: ‘Intervention eligibility will only be considered if age range falls within 15-39 years (e.g. study focusing on ages 12-24 would be excluded).’ (8) As the review seems to focus on a broad range of interventions as long as they target education and/or employment outcomes, it may be helpful to include details on what measures would be considered markers of these outcomes. RESPONSE Thank you – we have included some examples of how these outcomes could be interpreted. For example, in Table 1 we have added: ‘Outcomes may include school reintegration (e.g., e.g., binary yes/no for education status, academic performance, etc.), return-to-work (e.g., binary yes/no for working status; work satisfactions etc.), or employability.’ (9) Could the authors provide a definition of types of “grey literature” that could be included? RESPONSE Thank you – we have included examples of grey literature to be considered: ‘(e.g., organisation and institutional reports, theses and dissertations, conference materials, programme descriptions/evaluations, etc.).’. Dear Reviewers, Many thanks for your feedback on our scoping review protocol. Please find below our responses in how we have addressed your helpful feedback: (1) The authors clearly outline the impacts of cancer and its treatment on educational and occupational outcomes, highlighting the need to identify interventions with the potential to support AYAs in these domains. While the rationale for the larger study is clear, there is an opportunity to clarify the types of interventions being targeted in this review. Specifically, the authors use multiple terms to describe the types of interventions including “non-pharmacological,” “rehabilitation”, and “support programmes.” While the definition in the “concept” section is clear, the interchangeable use of the aforementioned terms leads to some confusion. For example, the phrase “rehabilitation interventions and support programmes” is used in the “population” section, raising a question as to whether other intervention types (e.g., psychoeducation intervention supporting return to work) will be included. In addition, the use of the term “non-pharmacological” introduces a question as to whether there are pharmacological interventions that target these outcomes and if so, why they are excluded. The authors may wish to consider whether it could be helpful to include the definition in the “concept” section earlier in the manuscript and thereafter simply refer to them as “interventions” thereafter to promote consistency. RESPONSE: Thank you for this comment. We acknowledge that the use of multiple terms to describe interventions may have caused confusion. To clarify, we intentionally use the term “non-pharmacological interventions” because there is existing literature, including medical and pharmacological studies (e.g., de Boer et al., 2015 Cochrane review), that examine the effects of pharmacological approaches on employment outcomes in cancer. By specifying “non-pharmacological” we clearly delineate the scope of our review to behavioural, psychosocial, vocational, educational, and rehabilitation-oriented strategies. To improve clarity and consistency, we will introduce this definition early in the manuscript and, thereafter, refer to these approaches simply as “interventions”, ensuring consistent terminology while maintaining the precision needed to define the scope of included studies. We have clarified this in the Methods section: Concept: The proposed scoping review is designed to explore non-pharmacological interventions that support education and/or employment outcomes for AYAs. Interventions can be group-based, individual, and/or online in format, and can be vocational, psychosocial, physical, educational, or multidisciplinary in nature. Pharmacological or medical interventions are excluded, as the focus of this review is on behavioural, psychosocial, vocational, educational, and rehabilitation-oriented strategies. From here on in, we will refer to these approaches simply as interventions. (2) The study design and methods are appropriate to the research question and rigor is enhanced by adherence to standardized guidelines. The research questions, however, do cover a broad range of topics, and the authors may wish to consider clarifying primary (versus secondary) aims. RESPONSE: Thank you – we have made a slight amendment to clarify the primary aims and then secondary objectives: The primary aim of this scoping review is to identify and summarise the core elements (i.e., content, delivery, resources, length, and format) of non-pharmacological interventions/supports for adolescents and young adults who have had a cancer diagnosis to support return to education and/or work. Secondary objectives include:… (3) In addition, the authors may wish to consider the following points: 1. It is somewhat unclear why cross-sectional studies could be included in this review. The authors may wish to consider if/why/how data from these studies would be appropriate for answering the stated research questions. RESPONSE: Thank you for this comment. We agree that the inclusion of cross-sectional studies requires clarification. Cross-sectional studies will be included in this scoping review because they can provide valuable descriptive information on the types of interventions and outcomes being assessed, even if they do not evaluate change over time. These data will contribute to mapping the landscape of available interventions and reported outcomes, complementing longitudinal and experimental studies that assess intervention impact. We will clearly indicate study design in our data extraction and reporting to ensure transparency. We have added: While some study designs (e.g., cross-sectional, qualitative, etc.) do not allow assessment of intervention effectiveness over time, they may provide valuable information on the types of interventions offered to AYAs and the range of outcomes measured. Therefore, we will include these studies to capture descriptive data on interventions and outcomes. (4) The authors may wish to consider whether it would be helpful to expand their planned data extraction to include the following elements: comparator condition, caregiver/care partner involvement (e.g., is this an AYA-focused intervention or is a caregiver also involved and if so, in what capacity), target outcome of the intervention (as studies may measure multiple outcomes in addition to the intervention target) RESPONSE: Thank you – we have added the below to the data extraction: The data extraction tool will collect the following data related to included studies/resources: Author Title Year of publication Evidence source details Country of origin Study/programme aims/objectives/purpose Research design (if applicable) Inclusion/exclusion criteria Demographic details of participants included (if applicable) (e.g., cancer type, age) Sample size (if applicable) Intervention format (online, in-person, written) Frequency of intervention delivery (once-off, six-weeks, etc.) Intervention duration (e.g., one-hour/session, 30 minutes etc.) Intervention content Intervention facilitator(s) (if applicable) Theoretical framework (if applicable) Outcomes measured (if applicable) Comparator (if applicable) Caregiver/Partner involvement (if applicable) (5) Since many studies include multiple outcomes, the authors may wish to consider a framework for identifying the “primary” outcome of each study, or the outcome which will be used as the authors “summarized the reported impact” of these interventions. RESPONSE Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We recognize that many studies report multiple outcomes. In this scoping review, we will extract all outcomes relevant to education and/or employment and summarise the impact of interventions based on those outcomes. When multiple outcomes are reported, we will describe the range of impacts and highlight those most directly aligned with the review objectives. This approach is consistent with scoping review methodology, which focuses on mapping and describing the breadth of evidence rather than identifying a single primary outcome. We appreciate that a rewording of the objective may be useful for clarity, and have added: ‘To identify and describe the range of outcomes reported for non-pharmacological interventions and support programmes/services that support return to education and/or employment for AYAs.’ (6) The methods section is generally clear. The authors may wish to consider the following points to ensure sufficient detail is provided to allow for replication: 1. While an age range of 15-39 years is stated, it is unclear if this refers to the age at diagnosis or age at enrolment in the intervention. RESPONSE: Thank you – this has been clarified throughout the text to confirm that we are considering AYAs who were diagnosed with cancer between 15-39 years. (7) As mentioned by the authors, as there are multiple definitions of the AYA age range, the authors may wish to consider and articulate if they will include interventions that include AYAs spanning part of this age range. For example, will they only include interventions whose eligible age range falls within 15-39 years (thus excluding a study that could focus on ages 12-24) or will they include interventions in which the majority of the sample or mean age of the sample falls within 15-39 years (and thus could include the prior example)? Or will they use some other criteria? RESPONSE: Thank you – we have clarified this in the text under Stage One section: ‘Intervention eligibility will only be considered if age range falls within 15-39 years (e.g. study focusing on ages 12-24 would be excluded).’ (8) As the review seems to focus on a broad range of interventions as long as they target education and/or employment outcomes, it may be helpful to include details on what measures would be considered markers of these outcomes. RESPONSE Thank you – we have included some examples of how these outcomes could be interpreted. For example, in Table 1 we have added: ‘Outcomes may include school reintegration (e.g., e.g., binary yes/no for education status, academic performance, etc.), return-to-work (e.g., binary yes/no for working status; work satisfactions etc.), or employability.’ (9) Could the authors provide a definition of types of “grey literature” that could be included? RESPONSE Thank you – we have included examples of grey literature to be considered: ‘(e.g., organisation and institutional reports, theses and dissertations, conference materials, programme descriptions/evaluations, etc.).’. Competing Interests: Nil competing interests Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 16 Jan 2026 Naomi Algeo , Discipline of Occupational Therapy, Trinity College Dublin School of Medicine, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, Ireland 16 Jan 2026 Author Response Dear Reviewers, Many thanks for your feedback on our scoping review protocol. Please find below our responses in how we have addressed your helpful feedback: (1) The authors ... Continue reading Dear Reviewers, Many thanks for your feedback on our scoping review protocol. Please find below our responses in how we have addressed your helpful feedback: (1) The authors clearly outline the impacts of cancer and its treatment on educational and occupational outcomes, highlighting the need to identify interventions with the potential to support AYAs in these domains. While the rationale for the larger study is clear, there is an opportunity to clarify the types of interventions being targeted in this review. Specifically, the authors use multiple terms to describe the types of interventions including “non-pharmacological,” “rehabilitation”, and “support programmes.” While the definition in the “concept” section is clear, the interchangeable use of the aforementioned terms leads to some confusion. For example, the phrase “rehabilitation interventions and support programmes” is used in the “population” section, raising a question as to whether other intervention types (e.g., psychoeducation intervention supporting return to work) will be included. In addition, the use of the term “non-pharmacological” introduces a question as to whether there are pharmacological interventions that target these outcomes and if so, why they are excluded. The authors may wish to consider whether it could be helpful to include the definition in the “concept” section earlier in the manuscript and thereafter simply refer to them as “interventions” thereafter to promote consistency. RESPONSE: Thank you for this comment. We acknowledge that the use of multiple terms to describe interventions may have caused confusion. To clarify, we intentionally use the term “non-pharmacological interventions” because there is existing literature, including medical and pharmacological studies (e.g., de Boer et al., 2015 Cochrane review), that examine the effects of pharmacological approaches on employment outcomes in cancer. By specifying “non-pharmacological” we clearly delineate the scope of our review to behavioural, psychosocial, vocational, educational, and rehabilitation-oriented strategies. To improve clarity and consistency, we will introduce this definition early in the manuscript and, thereafter, refer to these approaches simply as “interventions”, ensuring consistent terminology while maintaining the precision needed to define the scope of included studies. We have clarified this in the Methods section: Concept: The proposed scoping review is designed to explore non-pharmacological interventions that support education and/or employment outcomes for AYAs. Interventions can be group-based, individual, and/or online in format, and can be vocational, psychosocial, physical, educational, or multidisciplinary in nature. Pharmacological or medical interventions are excluded, as the focus of this review is on behavioural, psychosocial, vocational, educational, and rehabilitation-oriented strategies. From here on in, we will refer to these approaches simply as interventions. (2) The study design and methods are appropriate to the research question and rigor is enhanced by adherence to standardized guidelines. The research questions, however, do cover a broad range of topics, and the authors may wish to consider clarifying primary (versus secondary) aims. RESPONSE: Thank you – we have made a slight amendment to clarify the primary aims and then secondary objectives: The primary aim of this scoping review is to identify and summarise the core elements (i.e., content, delivery, resources, length, and format) of non-pharmacological interventions/supports for adolescents and young adults who have had a cancer diagnosis to support return to education and/or work. Secondary objectives include:… (3) In addition, the authors may wish to consider the following points: 1. It is somewhat unclear why cross-sectional studies could be included in this review. The authors may wish to consider if/why/how data from these studies would be appropriate for answering the stated research questions. RESPONSE: Thank you for this comment. We agree that the inclusion of cross-sectional studies requires clarification. Cross-sectional studies will be included in this scoping review because they can provide valuable descriptive information on the types of interventions and outcomes being assessed, even if they do not evaluate change over time. These data will contribute to mapping the landscape of available interventions and reported outcomes, complementing longitudinal and experimental studies that assess intervention impact. We will clearly indicate study design in our data extraction and reporting to ensure transparency. We have added: While some study designs (e.g., cross-sectional, qualitative, etc.) do not allow assessment of intervention effectiveness over time, they may provide valuable information on the types of interventions offered to AYAs and the range of outcomes measured. Therefore, we will include these studies to capture descriptive data on interventions and outcomes. (4) The authors may wish to consider whether it would be helpful to expand their planned data extraction to include the following elements: comparator condition, caregiver/care partner involvement (e.g., is this an AYA-focused intervention or is a caregiver also involved and if so, in what capacity), target outcome of the intervention (as studies may measure multiple outcomes in addition to the intervention target) RESPONSE: Thank you – we have added the below to the data extraction: The data extraction tool will collect the following data related to included studies/resources: Author Title Year of publication Evidence source details Country of origin Study/programme aims/objectives/purpose Research design (if applicable) Inclusion/exclusion criteria Demographic details of participants included (if applicable) (e.g., cancer type, age) Sample size (if applicable) Intervention format (online, in-person, written) Frequency of intervention delivery (once-off, six-weeks, etc.) Intervention duration (e.g., one-hour/session, 30 minutes etc.) Intervention content Intervention facilitator(s) (if applicable) Theoretical framework (if applicable) Outcomes measured (if applicable) Comparator (if applicable) Caregiver/Partner involvement (if applicable) (5) Since many studies include multiple outcomes, the authors may wish to consider a framework for identifying the “primary” outcome of each study, or the outcome which will be used as the authors “summarized the reported impact” of these interventions. RESPONSE Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We recognize that many studies report multiple outcomes. In this scoping review, we will extract all outcomes relevant to education and/or employment and summarise the impact of interventions based on those outcomes. When multiple outcomes are reported, we will describe the range of impacts and highlight those most directly aligned with the review objectives. This approach is consistent with scoping review methodology, which focuses on mapping and describing the breadth of evidence rather than identifying a single primary outcome. We appreciate that a rewording of the objective may be useful for clarity, and have added: ‘To identify and describe the range of outcomes reported for non-pharmacological interventions and support programmes/services that support return to education and/or employment for AYAs.’ (6) The methods section is generally clear. The authors may wish to consider the following points to ensure sufficient detail is provided to allow for replication: 1. While an age range of 15-39 years is stated, it is unclear if this refers to the age at diagnosis or age at enrolment in the intervention. RESPONSE: Thank you – this has been clarified throughout the text to confirm that we are considering AYAs who were diagnosed with cancer between 15-39 years. (7) As mentioned by the authors, as there are multiple definitions of the AYA age range, the authors may wish to consider and articulate if they will include interventions that include AYAs spanning part of this age range. For example, will they only include interventions whose eligible age range falls within 15-39 years (thus excluding a study that could focus on ages 12-24) or will they include interventions in which the majority of the sample or mean age of the sample falls within 15-39 years (and thus could include the prior example)? Or will they use some other criteria? RESPONSE: Thank you – we have clarified this in the text under Stage One section: ‘Intervention eligibility will only be considered if age range falls within 15-39 years (e.g. study focusing on ages 12-24 would be excluded).’ (8) As the review seems to focus on a broad range of interventions as long as they target education and/or employment outcomes, it may be helpful to include details on what measures would be considered markers of these outcomes. RESPONSE Thank you – we have included some examples of how these outcomes could be interpreted. For example, in Table 1 we have added: ‘Outcomes may include school reintegration (e.g., e.g., binary yes/no for education status, academic performance, etc.), return-to-work (e.g., binary yes/no for working status; work satisfactions etc.), or employability.’ (9) Could the authors provide a definition of types of “grey literature” that could be included? RESPONSE Thank you – we have included examples of grey literature to be considered: ‘(e.g., organisation and institutional reports, theses and dissertations, conference materials, programme descriptions/evaluations, etc.).’. Dear Reviewers, Many thanks for your feedback on our scoping review protocol. Please find below our responses in how we have addressed your helpful feedback: (1) The authors clearly outline the impacts of cancer and its treatment on educational and occupational outcomes, highlighting the need to identify interventions with the potential to support AYAs in these domains. While the rationale for the larger study is clear, there is an opportunity to clarify the types of interventions being targeted in this review. Specifically, the authors use multiple terms to describe the types of interventions including “non-pharmacological,” “rehabilitation”, and “support programmes.” While the definition in the “concept” section is clear, the interchangeable use of the aforementioned terms leads to some confusion. For example, the phrase “rehabilitation interventions and support programmes” is used in the “population” section, raising a question as to whether other intervention types (e.g., psychoeducation intervention supporting return to work) will be included. In addition, the use of the term “non-pharmacological” introduces a question as to whether there are pharmacological interventions that target these outcomes and if so, why they are excluded. The authors may wish to consider whether it could be helpful to include the definition in the “concept” section earlier in the manuscript and thereafter simply refer to them as “interventions” thereafter to promote consistency. RESPONSE: Thank you for this comment. We acknowledge that the use of multiple terms to describe interventions may have caused confusion. To clarify, we intentionally use the term “non-pharmacological interventions” because there is existing literature, including medical and pharmacological studies (e.g., de Boer et al., 2015 Cochrane review), that examine the effects of pharmacological approaches on employment outcomes in cancer. By specifying “non-pharmacological” we clearly delineate the scope of our review to behavioural, psychosocial, vocational, educational, and rehabilitation-oriented strategies. To improve clarity and consistency, we will introduce this definition early in the manuscript and, thereafter, refer to these approaches simply as “interventions”, ensuring consistent terminology while maintaining the precision needed to define the scope of included studies. We have clarified this in the Methods section: Concept: The proposed scoping review is designed to explore non-pharmacological interventions that support education and/or employment outcomes for AYAs. Interventions can be group-based, individual, and/or online in format, and can be vocational, psychosocial, physical, educational, or multidisciplinary in nature. Pharmacological or medical interventions are excluded, as the focus of this review is on behavioural, psychosocial, vocational, educational, and rehabilitation-oriented strategies. From here on in, we will refer to these approaches simply as interventions. (2) The study design and methods are appropriate to the research question and rigor is enhanced by adherence to standardized guidelines. The research questions, however, do cover a broad range of topics, and the authors may wish to consider clarifying primary (versus secondary) aims. RESPONSE: Thank you – we have made a slight amendment to clarify the primary aims and then secondary objectives: The primary aim of this scoping review is to identify and summarise the core elements (i.e., content, delivery, resources, length, and format) of non-pharmacological interventions/supports for adolescents and young adults who have had a cancer diagnosis to support return to education and/or work. Secondary objectives include:… (3) In addition, the authors may wish to consider the following points: 1. It is somewhat unclear why cross-sectional studies could be included in this review. The authors may wish to consider if/why/how data from these studies would be appropriate for answering the stated research questions. RESPONSE: Thank you for this comment. We agree that the inclusion of cross-sectional studies requires clarification. Cross-sectional studies will be included in this scoping review because they can provide valuable descriptive information on the types of interventions and outcomes being assessed, even if they do not evaluate change over time. These data will contribute to mapping the landscape of available interventions and reported outcomes, complementing longitudinal and experimental studies that assess intervention impact. We will clearly indicate study design in our data extraction and reporting to ensure transparency. We have added: While some study designs (e.g., cross-sectional, qualitative, etc.) do not allow assessment of intervention effectiveness over time, they may provide valuable information on the types of interventions offered to AYAs and the range of outcomes measured. Therefore, we will include these studies to capture descriptive data on interventions and outcomes. (4) The authors may wish to consider whether it would be helpful to expand their planned data extraction to include the following elements: comparator condition, caregiver/care partner involvement (e.g., is this an AYA-focused intervention or is a caregiver also involved and if so, in what capacity), target outcome of the intervention (as studies may measure multiple outcomes in addition to the intervention target) RESPONSE: Thank you – we have added the below to the data extraction: The data extraction tool will collect the following data related to included studies/resources: Author Title Year of publication Evidence source details Country of origin Study/programme aims/objectives/purpose Research design (if applicable) Inclusion/exclusion criteria Demographic details of participants included (if applicable) (e.g., cancer type, age) Sample size (if applicable) Intervention format (online, in-person, written) Frequency of intervention delivery (once-off, six-weeks, etc.) Intervention duration (e.g., one-hour/session, 30 minutes etc.) Intervention content Intervention facilitator(s) (if applicable) Theoretical framework (if applicable) Outcomes measured (if applicable) Comparator (if applicable) Caregiver/Partner involvement (if applicable) (5) Since many studies include multiple outcomes, the authors may wish to consider a framework for identifying the “primary” outcome of each study, or the outcome which will be used as the authors “summarized the reported impact” of these interventions. RESPONSE Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We recognize that many studies report multiple outcomes. In this scoping review, we will extract all outcomes relevant to education and/or employment and summarise the impact of interventions based on those outcomes. When multiple outcomes are reported, we will describe the range of impacts and highlight those most directly aligned with the review objectives. This approach is consistent with scoping review methodology, which focuses on mapping and describing the breadth of evidence rather than identifying a single primary outcome. We appreciate that a rewording of the objective may be useful for clarity, and have added: ‘To identify and describe the range of outcomes reported for non-pharmacological interventions and support programmes/services that support return to education and/or employment for AYAs.’ (6) The methods section is generally clear. The authors may wish to consider the following points to ensure sufficient detail is provided to allow for replication: 1. While an age range of 15-39 years is stated, it is unclear if this refers to the age at diagnosis or age at enrolment in the intervention. RESPONSE: Thank you – this has been clarified throughout the text to confirm that we are considering AYAs who were diagnosed with cancer between 15-39 years. (7) As mentioned by the authors, as there are multiple definitions of the AYA age range, the authors may wish to consider and articulate if they will include interventions that include AYAs spanning part of this age range. For example, will they only include interventions whose eligible age range falls within 15-39 years (thus excluding a study that could focus on ages 12-24) or will they include interventions in which the majority of the sample or mean age of the sample falls within 15-39 years (and thus could include the prior example)? Or will they use some other criteria? RESPONSE: Thank you – we have clarified this in the text under Stage One section: ‘Intervention eligibility will only be considered if age range falls within 15-39 years (e.g. study focusing on ages 12-24 would be excluded).’ (8) As the review seems to focus on a broad range of interventions as long as they target education and/or employment outcomes, it may be helpful to include details on what measures would be considered markers of these outcomes. RESPONSE Thank you – we have included some examples of how these outcomes could be interpreted. For example, in Table 1 we have added: ‘Outcomes may include school reintegration (e.g., e.g., binary yes/no for education status, academic performance, etc.), return-to-work (e.g., binary yes/no for working status; work satisfactions etc.), or employability.’ (9) Could the authors provide a definition of types of “grey literature” that could be included? RESPONSE Thank you – we have included examples of grey literature to be considered: ‘(e.g., organisation and institutional reports, theses and dissertations, conference materials, programme descriptions/evaluations, etc.).’. Competing Interests: Nil competing interests Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Somanadhan S. Reviewer Report For: Non-pharmacological interventions to support return to education and work for adolescent and young adults (AYAs) following a cancer diagnosis: a scoping review protocol [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . HRB Open Res 2026, 8 :44 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15487.r47030 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-44/v1#referee-response-47030 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 27 May 2025 Suja Somanadhan , University College Dublin, Dublin, Leinster, Ireland Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15487.r47030 Thank you for the opportunity to review this scoping review protocol. This is a strong and well-structured paper with clear relevance to the field. However, I have highlighted several areas where further clarification or refinement could strengthen the overall quality ... Continue reading READ ALL Thank you for the opportunity to review this scoping review protocol. This is a strong and well-structured paper with clear relevance to the field. However, I have highlighted several areas where further clarification or refinement could strengthen the overall quality and rigour of the protocol. Addressing these points will enhance your work's transparency, methodological robustness, and impact. The listed keywords—cancer survivorship, employment, quality of life, reintegration, schooling—require revision to reflect the review's scope and content. For instance, the table of contents includes themes such as adolescents and young adults and non-pharmacological interventions, which are not currently captured in the keywords. Please consider aligning keywords with major review concepts to enhance discoverability. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria lack clarity in their current narrative form. Presenting these in a tabular format would improve transparency and make it easier for readers to understand the eligibility parameters. Search Strategy: Please provide a sample search strategy in a table format, including databases, search terms, and limits used. This is important for reproducibility and methodological rigour. Quality Appraisal: It is unclear whether a quality appraisal will be conducted as part of this scoping review. Please clarify this. If it is not planned, provide a rationale explaining why, it is in line with scoping review methodology. PPI and Knowledge User Engagement: Please specify whether the review will involve consultation or engagement with Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) representatives or other knowledge users. This is increasingly considered a valuable aspect of comprehensive and relevant reviews. Stage 5—Reporting of Data: The approach to data reporting needs greater clarity. Specifically, will the PAGER framework (Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for practice, and Research recommendations) be used? This framework (Bradbury-Jones et al., 2022) provides a systematic method for presenting scoping review findings, thereby enhancing the interpretability and utility of the results. 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 Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Child and family health, Rare diseases, Transition, Psychosocial Research, Outcome Measures 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 Somanadhan S. Reviewer Report For: Non-pharmacological interventions to support return to education and work for adolescent and young adults (AYAs) following a cancer diagnosis: a scoping review protocol [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . HRB Open Res 2026, 8 :44 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15487.r47030 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-44/v1#referee-response-47030 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 16 Jan 2026 Naomi Algeo , Discipline of Occupational Therapy, Trinity College Dublin School of Medicine, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, Ireland 16 Jan 2026 Author Response Dear Reviewer One, Many thanks for your manuscript feedback. Please see below for clarity in how we have addressed each point of feedback: (1) 'The listed keywords—cancer survivorship, employment, ... Continue reading Dear Reviewer One, Many thanks for your manuscript feedback. Please see below for clarity in how we have addressed each point of feedback: (1) 'The listed keywords—cancer survivorship, employment, quality of life, reintegration, schooling—require revision to reflect the review's scope and content. For instance, the table of contents includes themes such as adolescents and young adults and non-pharmacological interventions, which are not currently captured in the keywords. Please consider aligning keywords with major review concepts to enhance discoverability.' RESPONSE: Thank you for this suggestion. While we recognise that key concepts appear in the title, we agree that including these terms in the keyword list will enhance discoverability and ensure that all major components of the review, particularly adolescents and young adults (AYAs), non-pharmacological interventions, and return to education and work, are clearly indexed. We have therefore updated the keyword list to better reflect the scope and content of the review, while acknowledging that there will be terms within the title that also enhance discoverability. Keywords: cancer survivorship; employment; psychosocial support; reintegration; young adult oncology; vocational rehabilitation. (2) Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria lack clarity in their current narrative form. Presenting these in a tabular format would improve transparency and make it easier for readers to understand the eligibility parameters. RESPONSE: Thank you for your comment. We have added a table to clearly label and categorise eligibility criteria that aligns with JBI scoping review standards/PCC framework. (3) Search Strategy: Please provide a sample search strategy in a table format, including databases, search terms, and limits used. This is important for reproducibility and methodological rigour. RESPONSE: Thank you. We have added a sample search strategy as an appendix. (4) Quality Appraisal: It is unclear whether a quality appraisal will be conducted as part of this scoping review. Please clarify this. If it is not planned, provide a rationale explaining why, it is in line with scoping review methodology. RESPONSE: Following established scoping review methodology (JBI), our objective is to map the existing literature rather than assess the methodological quality of included studies. Therefore, we do not plan to conduct a formal quality appraisal. This approach is consistent with scoping review guidance, which considers quality assessment optional. We have outlined this in the manuscript. ‘Our objective is to map the existing literature rather than assess the methodological quality of included studies. Therefore, we do not plan to conduct a formal quality appraisal. This approach is consistent with scoping review guidance, which considers quality assessment optional.’ (5) PPI and Knowledge User Engagement: Please specify whether the review will involve consultation or engagement with Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) representatives or other knowledge users. This is increasingly considered a valuable aspect of comprehensive and relevant reviews. RESPONSE Thank you – Yes, we are delighted that we had one PPI member of our research team who directly influenced the conception of this protocol. We have added: ‘Patient and Public Involvement: A patient and public involvement (PPI) contributor, who is also a co-author on this protocol (SB), was involved in the development of the review objectives, refinement of the research question, and identification of key concepts relevant to AYAs following a cancer diagnosis. The PPI member provided feedback on the scope of the review, the relevance of outcomes relating to education and employment, and contributed to ensuring that the planned review reflects patient priorities. No additional consultation stage is planned beyond their ongoing involvement in interpreting findings during the analysis and dissemination stages.’ (6) Stage 5—Reporting of Data: The approach to data reporting needs greater clarity. Specifically, will the PAGER framework (Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for practice, and Research recommendations) be used? This framework (Bradbury-Jones et al., 2022) provides a systematic method for presenting scoping review findings, thereby enhancing the interpretability and utility of the results. RESPONSE: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We agree that greater clarity around our approach to reporting the data is needed. We will extract intervention-related information using the TIDieR checklist, which provides a comprehensive and structured method for capturing key characteristics and components of the interventions included in the review. To support transparent and meaningful synthesis at Stage 5, we will also use the PAGER framework as outlined by Bradbury-Jones et al. (2022). Together, TIDieR and PAGER will provide both the structured extraction of intervention details and a coherent approach to synthesising and reporting the review results. We have amended as follows: Step Five: Collating, summarising, analysing and presenting the data The PRISMA-ScR checklist will be used to guide the reporting of this review (Tricco et al., 2018). Literature search findings and the study screening process will be presented in a PRISMA flow diagram. Extracted data will be charted in tabular format using the TIDieR checklist to ensure comprehensive and consistent reporting of intervention characteristics. Following data charting, findings will be synthesised using both a descriptive narrative summary and the PAGER framework (Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for practice, and Research recommendations) (Bradbury-Jones et al., 2022). PAGER will provide a structured approach to analysing and presenting the results, enabling clearer identification of key themes, developments in the field, gaps in the evidence base, and implications for research and practice. This will ensure that the synthesis aligns with and supports the scoping review’s objectives and questions. Any deviation from the protocol will be clearly explained in the complete scoping review report. Dear Reviewer One, Many thanks for your manuscript feedback. Please see below for clarity in how we have addressed each point of feedback: (1) 'The listed keywords—cancer survivorship, employment, quality of life, reintegration, schooling—require revision to reflect the review's scope and content. For instance, the table of contents includes themes such as adolescents and young adults and non-pharmacological interventions, which are not currently captured in the keywords. Please consider aligning keywords with major review concepts to enhance discoverability.' RESPONSE: Thank you for this suggestion. While we recognise that key concepts appear in the title, we agree that including these terms in the keyword list will enhance discoverability and ensure that all major components of the review, particularly adolescents and young adults (AYAs), non-pharmacological interventions, and return to education and work, are clearly indexed. We have therefore updated the keyword list to better reflect the scope and content of the review, while acknowledging that there will be terms within the title that also enhance discoverability. Keywords: cancer survivorship; employment; psychosocial support; reintegration; young adult oncology; vocational rehabilitation. (2) Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria lack clarity in their current narrative form. Presenting these in a tabular format would improve transparency and make it easier for readers to understand the eligibility parameters. RESPONSE: Thank you for your comment. We have added a table to clearly label and categorise eligibility criteria that aligns with JBI scoping review standards/PCC framework. (3) Search Strategy: Please provide a sample search strategy in a table format, including databases, search terms, and limits used. This is important for reproducibility and methodological rigour. RESPONSE: Thank you. We have added a sample search strategy as an appendix. (4) Quality Appraisal: It is unclear whether a quality appraisal will be conducted as part of this scoping review. Please clarify this. If it is not planned, provide a rationale explaining why, it is in line with scoping review methodology. RESPONSE: Following established scoping review methodology (JBI), our objective is to map the existing literature rather than assess the methodological quality of included studies. Therefore, we do not plan to conduct a formal quality appraisal. This approach is consistent with scoping review guidance, which considers quality assessment optional. We have outlined this in the manuscript. ‘Our objective is to map the existing literature rather than assess the methodological quality of included studies. Therefore, we do not plan to conduct a formal quality appraisal. This approach is consistent with scoping review guidance, which considers quality assessment optional.’ (5) PPI and Knowledge User Engagement: Please specify whether the review will involve consultation or engagement with Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) representatives or other knowledge users. This is increasingly considered a valuable aspect of comprehensive and relevant reviews. RESPONSE Thank you – Yes, we are delighted that we had one PPI member of our research team who directly influenced the conception of this protocol. We have added: ‘Patient and Public Involvement: A patient and public involvement (PPI) contributor, who is also a co-author on this protocol (SB), was involved in the development of the review objectives, refinement of the research question, and identification of key concepts relevant to AYAs following a cancer diagnosis. The PPI member provided feedback on the scope of the review, the relevance of outcomes relating to education and employment, and contributed to ensuring that the planned review reflects patient priorities. No additional consultation stage is planned beyond their ongoing involvement in interpreting findings during the analysis and dissemination stages.’ (6) Stage 5—Reporting of Data: The approach to data reporting needs greater clarity. Specifically, will the PAGER framework (Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for practice, and Research recommendations) be used? This framework (Bradbury-Jones et al., 2022) provides a systematic method for presenting scoping review findings, thereby enhancing the interpretability and utility of the results. RESPONSE: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We agree that greater clarity around our approach to reporting the data is needed. We will extract intervention-related information using the TIDieR checklist, which provides a comprehensive and structured method for capturing key characteristics and components of the interventions included in the review. To support transparent and meaningful synthesis at Stage 5, we will also use the PAGER framework as outlined by Bradbury-Jones et al. (2022). Together, TIDieR and PAGER will provide both the structured extraction of intervention details and a coherent approach to synthesising and reporting the review results. We have amended as follows: Step Five: Collating, summarising, analysing and presenting the data The PRISMA-ScR checklist will be used to guide the reporting of this review (Tricco et al., 2018). Literature search findings and the study screening process will be presented in a PRISMA flow diagram. Extracted data will be charted in tabular format using the TIDieR checklist to ensure comprehensive and consistent reporting of intervention characteristics. Following data charting, findings will be synthesised using both a descriptive narrative summary and the PAGER framework (Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for practice, and Research recommendations) (Bradbury-Jones et al., 2022). PAGER will provide a structured approach to analysing and presenting the results, enabling clearer identification of key themes, developments in the field, gaps in the evidence base, and implications for research and practice. This will ensure that the synthesis aligns with and supports the scoping review’s objectives and questions. Any deviation from the protocol will be clearly explained in the complete scoping review report. Competing Interests: Nil competing interests. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 16 Jan 2026 Naomi Algeo , Discipline of Occupational Therapy, Trinity College Dublin School of Medicine, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, Ireland 16 Jan 2026 Author Response Dear Reviewer One, Many thanks for your manuscript feedback. Please see below for clarity in how we have addressed each point of feedback: (1) 'The listed keywords—cancer survivorship, employment, ... Continue reading Dear Reviewer One, Many thanks for your manuscript feedback. Please see below for clarity in how we have addressed each point of feedback: (1) 'The listed keywords—cancer survivorship, employment, quality of life, reintegration, schooling—require revision to reflect the review's scope and content. For instance, the table of contents includes themes such as adolescents and young adults and non-pharmacological interventions, which are not currently captured in the keywords. Please consider aligning keywords with major review concepts to enhance discoverability.' RESPONSE: Thank you for this suggestion. While we recognise that key concepts appear in the title, we agree that including these terms in the keyword list will enhance discoverability and ensure that all major components of the review, particularly adolescents and young adults (AYAs), non-pharmacological interventions, and return to education and work, are clearly indexed. We have therefore updated the keyword list to better reflect the scope and content of the review, while acknowledging that there will be terms within the title that also enhance discoverability. Keywords: cancer survivorship; employment; psychosocial support; reintegration; young adult oncology; vocational rehabilitation. (2) Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria lack clarity in their current narrative form. Presenting these in a tabular format would improve transparency and make it easier for readers to understand the eligibility parameters. RESPONSE: Thank you for your comment. We have added a table to clearly label and categorise eligibility criteria that aligns with JBI scoping review standards/PCC framework. (3) Search Strategy: Please provide a sample search strategy in a table format, including databases, search terms, and limits used. This is important for reproducibility and methodological rigour. RESPONSE: Thank you. We have added a sample search strategy as an appendix. (4) Quality Appraisal: It is unclear whether a quality appraisal will be conducted as part of this scoping review. Please clarify this. If it is not planned, provide a rationale explaining why, it is in line with scoping review methodology. RESPONSE: Following established scoping review methodology (JBI), our objective is to map the existing literature rather than assess the methodological quality of included studies. Therefore, we do not plan to conduct a formal quality appraisal. This approach is consistent with scoping review guidance, which considers quality assessment optional. We have outlined this in the manuscript. ‘Our objective is to map the existing literature rather than assess the methodological quality of included studies. Therefore, we do not plan to conduct a formal quality appraisal. This approach is consistent with scoping review guidance, which considers quality assessment optional.’ (5) PPI and Knowledge User Engagement: Please specify whether the review will involve consultation or engagement with Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) representatives or other knowledge users. This is increasingly considered a valuable aspect of comprehensive and relevant reviews. RESPONSE Thank you – Yes, we are delighted that we had one PPI member of our research team who directly influenced the conception of this protocol. We have added: ‘Patient and Public Involvement: A patient and public involvement (PPI) contributor, who is also a co-author on this protocol (SB), was involved in the development of the review objectives, refinement of the research question, and identification of key concepts relevant to AYAs following a cancer diagnosis. The PPI member provided feedback on the scope of the review, the relevance of outcomes relating to education and employment, and contributed to ensuring that the planned review reflects patient priorities. No additional consultation stage is planned beyond their ongoing involvement in interpreting findings during the analysis and dissemination stages.’ (6) Stage 5—Reporting of Data: The approach to data reporting needs greater clarity. Specifically, will the PAGER framework (Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for practice, and Research recommendations) be used? This framework (Bradbury-Jones et al., 2022) provides a systematic method for presenting scoping review findings, thereby enhancing the interpretability and utility of the results. RESPONSE: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We agree that greater clarity around our approach to reporting the data is needed. We will extract intervention-related information using the TIDieR checklist, which provides a comprehensive and structured method for capturing key characteristics and components of the interventions included in the review. To support transparent and meaningful synthesis at Stage 5, we will also use the PAGER framework as outlined by Bradbury-Jones et al. (2022). Together, TIDieR and PAGER will provide both the structured extraction of intervention details and a coherent approach to synthesising and reporting the review results. We have amended as follows: Step Five: Collating, summarising, analysing and presenting the data The PRISMA-ScR checklist will be used to guide the reporting of this review (Tricco et al., 2018). Literature search findings and the study screening process will be presented in a PRISMA flow diagram. Extracted data will be charted in tabular format using the TIDieR checklist to ensure comprehensive and consistent reporting of intervention characteristics. Following data charting, findings will be synthesised using both a descriptive narrative summary and the PAGER framework (Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for practice, and Research recommendations) (Bradbury-Jones et al., 2022). PAGER will provide a structured approach to analysing and presenting the results, enabling clearer identification of key themes, developments in the field, gaps in the evidence base, and implications for research and practice. This will ensure that the synthesis aligns with and supports the scoping review’s objectives and questions. Any deviation from the protocol will be clearly explained in the complete scoping review report. Dear Reviewer One, Many thanks for your manuscript feedback. Please see below for clarity in how we have addressed each point of feedback: (1) 'The listed keywords—cancer survivorship, employment, quality of life, reintegration, schooling—require revision to reflect the review's scope and content. For instance, the table of contents includes themes such as adolescents and young adults and non-pharmacological interventions, which are not currently captured in the keywords. Please consider aligning keywords with major review concepts to enhance discoverability.' RESPONSE: Thank you for this suggestion. While we recognise that key concepts appear in the title, we agree that including these terms in the keyword list will enhance discoverability and ensure that all major components of the review, particularly adolescents and young adults (AYAs), non-pharmacological interventions, and return to education and work, are clearly indexed. We have therefore updated the keyword list to better reflect the scope and content of the review, while acknowledging that there will be terms within the title that also enhance discoverability. Keywords: cancer survivorship; employment; psychosocial support; reintegration; young adult oncology; vocational rehabilitation. (2) Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria lack clarity in their current narrative form. Presenting these in a tabular format would improve transparency and make it easier for readers to understand the eligibility parameters. RESPONSE: Thank you for your comment. We have added a table to clearly label and categorise eligibility criteria that aligns with JBI scoping review standards/PCC framework. (3) Search Strategy: Please provide a sample search strategy in a table format, including databases, search terms, and limits used. This is important for reproducibility and methodological rigour. RESPONSE: Thank you. We have added a sample search strategy as an appendix. (4) Quality Appraisal: It is unclear whether a quality appraisal will be conducted as part of this scoping review. Please clarify this. If it is not planned, provide a rationale explaining why, it is in line with scoping review methodology. RESPONSE: Following established scoping review methodology (JBI), our objective is to map the existing literature rather than assess the methodological quality of included studies. Therefore, we do not plan to conduct a formal quality appraisal. This approach is consistent with scoping review guidance, which considers quality assessment optional. We have outlined this in the manuscript. ‘Our objective is to map the existing literature rather than assess the methodological quality of included studies. Therefore, we do not plan to conduct a formal quality appraisal. This approach is consistent with scoping review guidance, which considers quality assessment optional.’ (5) PPI and Knowledge User Engagement: Please specify whether the review will involve consultation or engagement with Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) representatives or other knowledge users. This is increasingly considered a valuable aspect of comprehensive and relevant reviews. RESPONSE Thank you – Yes, we are delighted that we had one PPI member of our research team who directly influenced the conception of this protocol. We have added: ‘Patient and Public Involvement: A patient and public involvement (PPI) contributor, who is also a co-author on this protocol (SB), was involved in the development of the review objectives, refinement of the research question, and identification of key concepts relevant to AYAs following a cancer diagnosis. The PPI member provided feedback on the scope of the review, the relevance of outcomes relating to education and employment, and contributed to ensuring that the planned review reflects patient priorities. No additional consultation stage is planned beyond their ongoing involvement in interpreting findings during the analysis and dissemination stages.’ (6) Stage 5—Reporting of Data: The approach to data reporting needs greater clarity. Specifically, will the PAGER framework (Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for practice, and Research recommendations) be used? This framework (Bradbury-Jones et al., 2022) provides a systematic method for presenting scoping review findings, thereby enhancing the interpretability and utility of the results. RESPONSE: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We agree that greater clarity around our approach to reporting the data is needed. We will extract intervention-related information using the TIDieR checklist, which provides a comprehensive and structured method for capturing key characteristics and components of the interventions included in the review. To support transparent and meaningful synthesis at Stage 5, we will also use the PAGER framework as outlined by Bradbury-Jones et al. (2022). Together, TIDieR and PAGER will provide both the structured extraction of intervention details and a coherent approach to synthesising and reporting the review results. We have amended as follows: Step Five: Collating, summarising, analysing and presenting the data The PRISMA-ScR checklist will be used to guide the reporting of this review (Tricco et al., 2018). Literature search findings and the study screening process will be presented in a PRISMA flow diagram. Extracted data will be charted in tabular format using the TIDieR checklist to ensure comprehensive and consistent reporting of intervention characteristics. Following data charting, findings will be synthesised using both a descriptive narrative summary and the PAGER framework (Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for practice, and Research recommendations) (Bradbury-Jones et al., 2022). PAGER will provide a structured approach to analysing and presenting the results, enabling clearer identification of key themes, developments in the field, gaps in the evidence base, and implications for research and practice. This will ensure that the synthesis aligns with and supports the scoping review’s objectives and questions. Any deviation from the protocol will be clearly explained in the complete scoping review report. Competing Interests: Nil competing interests. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 24 Mar 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 Version 2 (revision) 16 Jan 26 read read Version 1 24 Mar 25 read read Suja Somanadhan , University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland Jennifer Kelleher , Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, USA Meghan E. McGrady , Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, 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 McGrady 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. 27 Jan 2026 | for Version 2 Meghan E. McGrady , Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, USA 0 Views copyright © 2026 McGrady 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 The authors have provided clear and thoughtful responses to my prior comments and I have no remaining questions. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise adolescent and young adult psycho-oncology 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) McGrady ME. Peer Review Report For: Non-pharmacological interventions to support return to education and work for adolescent and young adults (AYAs) following a cancer diagnosis: a scoping review protocol [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . HRB Open Res 2026, 8 :44 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15768.r52902) 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/8-44/v2#referee-response-52902 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Somanadhan S. 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. 19 Jan 2026 | for Version 2 Suja Somanadhan , University College Dublin, Dublin, Leinster, Ireland 0 Views copyright © 2026 Somanadhan S. 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 the updated version of this review protocol. The protocol reads very well, and I thank the authors for addressing all of my comments. I have only a minor edit regarding the keywords mentioned in the response, which do not appear to have been updated in Version 2. Best Wishes Suja Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Child and family health, Rare diseases, Transition, Psychosocial Research, Outcome Measures 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) Somanadhan S. Peer Review Report For: Non-pharmacological interventions to support return to education and work for adolescent and young adults (AYAs) following a cancer diagnosis: a scoping review protocol [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . HRB Open Res 2026, 8 :44 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15768.r52901) 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/8-44/v2#referee-response-52901 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 McGrady M et al. 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. 10 Oct 2025 | for Version 1 Jennifer Kelleher , Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Meghan E. McGrady , Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, USA 0 Views copyright © 2025 McGrady M et al. 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 Study Rationale and Objectives The authors clearly outline the impacts of cancer and its treatment on educational and occupational outcomes, highlighting the need to identify interventions with the potential to support AYAs in these domains. While the rationale for the larger study is clear, there is an opportunity to clarify the types of interventions being targeted in this review. Specifically, the authors use multiple terms to describe the types of interventions including “non-pharmacological,” “rehabilitation”, and “support programmes.” While the definition in the “concept” section is clear, the interchangeable use of the aforementioned terms leads to some confusion. For example, the phrase “rehabilitation interventions and support programmes” is used in the “population” section, raising a question as to whether other intervention types (e.g., psychoeducation intervention supporting return to work) will be included. In addition, the use of the term “non-pharmacological” introduces a question as to whether there are pharmacological interventions that target these outcomes and if so, why they are excluded. The authors may wish to consider whether it could be helpful to include the definition in the “concept” section earlier in the manuscript and thereafter simply refer to them as “interventions” thereafter to promote consistency. Study Design The study design and methods are appropriate to the research question and rigor is enhanced by adherence to standardized guidelines. The research questions, however, do cover a broad range of topics, and the authors may wish to consider clarifying primary (versus secondary) aims. In addition, the authors may wish to consider the following points: 1. It is somewhat unclear why cross-sectional studies could be included in this review. The authors may wish to consider if/why/how data from these studies would be appropriate for answering the stated research questions. 2. The authors may wish to consider whether it would be helpful to expand their planned data extraction to include the following elements: comparator condition, caregiver/care partner involvement (e.g., is this an AYA-focused intervention or is a caregiver also involved and if so, in what capacity), target outcome of the intervention (as studies may measure multiple outcomes in addition to the intervention target) 3. Since many studies include multiple outcomes, the authors may wish to consider a framework for identifying the “primary” outcome of each study, or the outcome which will be used as the authors “summarized the reported impact” of these interventions. Methods The methods section is generally clear. The authors may wish to consider the following points to ensure sufficient detail is provided to allow for replication: 1. While an age range of 15-39 years is stated, it is unclear if this refers to the age at diagnosis or age at enrollment in the intervention. 2. As mentioned by the authors, as there are multiple definitions of the AYA age range, the authors may wish to consider and articulate if they will include interventions that include AYAs spanning part of this age range. For example, will they only include interventions whose eligible age range falls within 15-39 years (thus excluding a study that could focus on ages 12-24) or will they include interventions in which the majority of the sample or mean age of the sample falls within 15-39 years (and thus could include the prior example)? Or will they use some other criteria? 3. As the review seems to focus on a broad range of interventions as long as they target education and/or employment outcomes, it may be helpful to include details on what measures would be considered markers of these outcomes. 4. Could the authors provide a definition of types of “grey literature” that could be included? Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described? Partly Is the study design appropriate for the research question? Partly 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 Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise AYA psycho-oncology We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however we have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 16 Jan 2026 Naomi Algeo, Discipline of Occupational Therapy, Trinity College Dublin School of Medicine, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, Ireland Dear Reviewers, Many thanks for your feedback on our scoping review protocol. Please find below our responses in how we have addressed your helpful feedback: (1) The authors clearly outline the impacts of cancer and its treatment on educational and occupational outcomes, highlighting the need to identify interventions with the potential to support AYAs in these domains. While the rationale for the larger study is clear, there is an opportunity to clarify the types of interventions being targeted in this review. Specifically, the authors use multiple terms to describe the types of interventions including “non-pharmacological,” “rehabilitation”, and “support programmes.” While the definition in the “concept” section is clear, the interchangeable use of the aforementioned terms leads to some confusion. For example, the phrase “rehabilitation interventions and support programmes” is used in the “population” section, raising a question as to whether other intervention types (e.g., psychoeducation intervention supporting return to work) will be included. In addition, the use of the term “non-pharmacological” introduces a question as to whether there are pharmacological interventions that target these outcomes and if so, why they are excluded. The authors may wish to consider whether it could be helpful to include the definition in the “concept” section earlier in the manuscript and thereafter simply refer to them as “interventions” thereafter to promote consistency. RESPONSE: Thank you for this comment. We acknowledge that the use of multiple terms to describe interventions may have caused confusion. To clarify, we intentionally use the term “non-pharmacological interventions” because there is existing literature, including medical and pharmacological studies (e.g., de Boer et al., 2015 Cochrane review), that examine the effects of pharmacological approaches on employment outcomes in cancer. By specifying “non-pharmacological” we clearly delineate the scope of our review to behavioural, psychosocial, vocational, educational, and rehabilitation-oriented strategies. To improve clarity and consistency, we will introduce this definition early in the manuscript and, thereafter, refer to these approaches simply as “interventions”, ensuring consistent terminology while maintaining the precision needed to define the scope of included studies. We have clarified this in the Methods section: Concept: The proposed scoping review is designed to explore non-pharmacological interventions that support education and/or employment outcomes for AYAs. Interventions can be group-based, individual, and/or online in format, and can be vocational, psychosocial, physical, educational, or multidisciplinary in nature. Pharmacological or medical interventions are excluded, as the focus of this review is on behavioural, psychosocial, vocational, educational, and rehabilitation-oriented strategies. From here on in, we will refer to these approaches simply as interventions. (2) The study design and methods are appropriate to the research question and rigor is enhanced by adherence to standardized guidelines. The research questions, however, do cover a broad range of topics, and the authors may wish to consider clarifying primary (versus secondary) aims. RESPONSE: Thank you – we have made a slight amendment to clarify the primary aims and then secondary objectives: The primary aim of this scoping review is to identify and summarise the core elements (i.e., content, delivery, resources, length, and format) of non-pharmacological interventions/supports for adolescents and young adults who have had a cancer diagnosis to support return to education and/or work. Secondary objectives include:… (3) In addition, the authors may wish to consider the following points: 1. It is somewhat unclear why cross-sectional studies could be included in this review. The authors may wish to consider if/why/how data from these studies would be appropriate for answering the stated research questions. RESPONSE: Thank you for this comment. We agree that the inclusion of cross-sectional studies requires clarification. Cross-sectional studies will be included in this scoping review because they can provide valuable descriptive information on the types of interventions and outcomes being assessed, even if they do not evaluate change over time. These data will contribute to mapping the landscape of available interventions and reported outcomes, complementing longitudinal and experimental studies that assess intervention impact. We will clearly indicate study design in our data extraction and reporting to ensure transparency. We have added: While some study designs (e.g., cross-sectional, qualitative, etc.) do not allow assessment of intervention effectiveness over time, they may provide valuable information on the types of interventions offered to AYAs and the range of outcomes measured. Therefore, we will include these studies to capture descriptive data on interventions and outcomes. (4) The authors may wish to consider whether it would be helpful to expand their planned data extraction to include the following elements: comparator condition, caregiver/care partner involvement (e.g., is this an AYA-focused intervention or is a caregiver also involved and if so, in what capacity), target outcome of the intervention (as studies may measure multiple outcomes in addition to the intervention target) RESPONSE: Thank you – we have added the below to the data extraction: The data extraction tool will collect the following data related to included studies/resources: Author Title Year of publication Evidence source details Country of origin Study/programme aims/objectives/purpose Research design (if applicable) Inclusion/exclusion criteria Demographic details of participants included (if applicable) (e.g., cancer type, age) Sample size (if applicable) Intervention format (online, in-person, written) Frequency of intervention delivery (once-off, six-weeks, etc.) Intervention duration (e.g., one-hour/session, 30 minutes etc.) Intervention content Intervention facilitator(s) (if applicable) Theoretical framework (if applicable) Outcomes measured (if applicable) Comparator (if applicable) Caregiver/Partner involvement (if applicable) (5) Since many studies include multiple outcomes, the authors may wish to consider a framework for identifying the “primary” outcome of each study, or the outcome which will be used as the authors “summarized the reported impact” of these interventions. RESPONSE Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We recognize that many studies report multiple outcomes. In this scoping review, we will extract all outcomes relevant to education and/or employment and summarise the impact of interventions based on those outcomes. When multiple outcomes are reported, we will describe the range of impacts and highlight those most directly aligned with the review objectives. This approach is consistent with scoping review methodology, which focuses on mapping and describing the breadth of evidence rather than identifying a single primary outcome. We appreciate that a rewording of the objective may be useful for clarity, and have added: ‘To identify and describe the range of outcomes reported for non-pharmacological interventions and support programmes/services that support return to education and/or employment for AYAs.’ (6) The methods section is generally clear. The authors may wish to consider the following points to ensure sufficient detail is provided to allow for replication: 1. While an age range of 15-39 years is stated, it is unclear if this refers to the age at diagnosis or age at enrolment in the intervention. RESPONSE: Thank you – this has been clarified throughout the text to confirm that we are considering AYAs who were diagnosed with cancer between 15-39 years. (7) As mentioned by the authors, as there are multiple definitions of the AYA age range, the authors may wish to consider and articulate if they will include interventions that include AYAs spanning part of this age range. For example, will they only include interventions whose eligible age range falls within 15-39 years (thus excluding a study that could focus on ages 12-24) or will they include interventions in which the majority of the sample or mean age of the sample falls within 15-39 years (and thus could include the prior example)? Or will they use some other criteria? RESPONSE: Thank you – we have clarified this in the text under Stage One section: ‘Intervention eligibility will only be considered if age range falls within 15-39 years (e.g. study focusing on ages 12-24 would be excluded).’ (8) As the review seems to focus on a broad range of interventions as long as they target education and/or employment outcomes, it may be helpful to include details on what measures would be considered markers of these outcomes. RESPONSE Thank you – we have included some examples of how these outcomes could be interpreted. For example, in Table 1 we have added: ‘Outcomes may include school reintegration (e.g., e.g., binary yes/no for education status, academic performance, etc.), return-to-work (e.g., binary yes/no for working status; work satisfactions etc.), or employability.’ (9) Could the authors provide a definition of types of “grey literature” that could be included? RESPONSE Thank you – we have included examples of grey literature to be considered: ‘(e.g., organisation and institutional reports, theses and dissertations, conference materials, programme descriptions/evaluations, etc.).’. View more View less Competing Interests Nil competing interests reply Respond Report a concern Kelleher J and McGrady ME. Peer Review Report For: Non-pharmacological interventions to support return to education and work for adolescent and young adults (AYAs) following a cancer diagnosis: a scoping review protocol [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . HRB Open Res 2026, 8 :44 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15487.r50280) 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/8-44/v1#referee-response-50280 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Somanadhan S. 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. 27 May 2025 | for Version 1 Suja Somanadhan , University College Dublin, Dublin, Leinster, Ireland 0 Views copyright © 2025 Somanadhan S. 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 scoping review protocol. This is a strong and well-structured paper with clear relevance to the field. However, I have highlighted several areas where further clarification or refinement could strengthen the overall quality and rigour of the protocol. Addressing these points will enhance your work's transparency, methodological robustness, and impact. The listed keywords—cancer survivorship, employment, quality of life, reintegration, schooling—require revision to reflect the review's scope and content. For instance, the table of contents includes themes such as adolescents and young adults and non-pharmacological interventions, which are not currently captured in the keywords. Please consider aligning keywords with major review concepts to enhance discoverability. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria lack clarity in their current narrative form. Presenting these in a tabular format would improve transparency and make it easier for readers to understand the eligibility parameters. Search Strategy: Please provide a sample search strategy in a table format, including databases, search terms, and limits used. This is important for reproducibility and methodological rigour. Quality Appraisal: It is unclear whether a quality appraisal will be conducted as part of this scoping review. Please clarify this. If it is not planned, provide a rationale explaining why, it is in line with scoping review methodology. PPI and Knowledge User Engagement: Please specify whether the review will involve consultation or engagement with Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) representatives or other knowledge users. This is increasingly considered a valuable aspect of comprehensive and relevant reviews. Stage 5—Reporting of Data: The approach to data reporting needs greater clarity. Specifically, will the PAGER framework (Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for practice, and Research recommendations) be used? This framework (Bradbury-Jones et al., 2022) provides a systematic method for presenting scoping review findings, thereby enhancing the interpretability and utility of the results. 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 Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Child and family health, Rare diseases, Transition, Psychosocial Research, Outcome Measures 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 16 Jan 2026 Naomi Algeo, Discipline of Occupational Therapy, Trinity College Dublin School of Medicine, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, Ireland Dear Reviewer One, Many thanks for your manuscript feedback. Please see below for clarity in how we have addressed each point of feedback: (1) 'The listed keywords—cancer survivorship, employment, quality of life, reintegration, schooling—require revision to reflect the review's scope and content. For instance, the table of contents includes themes such as adolescents and young adults and non-pharmacological interventions, which are not currently captured in the keywords. Please consider aligning keywords with major review concepts to enhance discoverability.' RESPONSE: Thank you for this suggestion. While we recognise that key concepts appear in the title, we agree that including these terms in the keyword list will enhance discoverability and ensure that all major components of the review, particularly adolescents and young adults (AYAs), non-pharmacological interventions, and return to education and work, are clearly indexed. We have therefore updated the keyword list to better reflect the scope and content of the review, while acknowledging that there will be terms within the title that also enhance discoverability. Keywords: cancer survivorship; employment; psychosocial support; reintegration; young adult oncology; vocational rehabilitation. (2) Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria lack clarity in their current narrative form. Presenting these in a tabular format would improve transparency and make it easier for readers to understand the eligibility parameters. RESPONSE: Thank you for your comment. We have added a table to clearly label and categorise eligibility criteria that aligns with JBI scoping review standards/PCC framework. (3) Search Strategy: Please provide a sample search strategy in a table format, including databases, search terms, and limits used. This is important for reproducibility and methodological rigour. RESPONSE: Thank you. We have added a sample search strategy as an appendix. (4) Quality Appraisal: It is unclear whether a quality appraisal will be conducted as part of this scoping review. Please clarify this. If it is not planned, provide a rationale explaining why, it is in line with scoping review methodology. RESPONSE: Following established scoping review methodology (JBI), our objective is to map the existing literature rather than assess the methodological quality of included studies. Therefore, we do not plan to conduct a formal quality appraisal. This approach is consistent with scoping review guidance, which considers quality assessment optional. We have outlined this in the manuscript. ‘Our objective is to map the existing literature rather than assess the methodological quality of included studies. Therefore, we do not plan to conduct a formal quality appraisal. This approach is consistent with scoping review guidance, which considers quality assessment optional.’ (5) PPI and Knowledge User Engagement: Please specify whether the review will involve consultation or engagement with Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) representatives or other knowledge users. This is increasingly considered a valuable aspect of comprehensive and relevant reviews. RESPONSE Thank you – Yes, we are delighted that we had one PPI member of our research team who directly influenced the conception of this protocol. We have added: ‘Patient and Public Involvement: A patient and public involvement (PPI) contributor, who is also a co-author on this protocol (SB), was involved in the development of the review objectives, refinement of the research question, and identification of key concepts relevant to AYAs following a cancer diagnosis. The PPI member provided feedback on the scope of the review, the relevance of outcomes relating to education and employment, and contributed to ensuring that the planned review reflects patient priorities. No additional consultation stage is planned beyond their ongoing involvement in interpreting findings during the analysis and dissemination stages.’ (6) Stage 5—Reporting of Data: The approach to data reporting needs greater clarity. Specifically, will the PAGER framework (Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for practice, and Research recommendations) be used? This framework (Bradbury-Jones et al., 2022) provides a systematic method for presenting scoping review findings, thereby enhancing the interpretability and utility of the results. RESPONSE: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We agree that greater clarity around our approach to reporting the data is needed. We will extract intervention-related information using the TIDieR checklist, which provides a comprehensive and structured method for capturing key characteristics and components of the interventions included in the review. To support transparent and meaningful synthesis at Stage 5, we will also use the PAGER framework as outlined by Bradbury-Jones et al. (2022). Together, TIDieR and PAGER will provide both the structured extraction of intervention details and a coherent approach to synthesising and reporting the review results. We have amended as follows: Step Five: Collating, summarising, analysing and presenting the data The PRISMA-ScR checklist will be used to guide the reporting of this review (Tricco et al., 2018). Literature search findings and the study screening process will be presented in a PRISMA flow diagram. Extracted data will be charted in tabular format using the TIDieR checklist to ensure comprehensive and consistent reporting of intervention characteristics. Following data charting, findings will be synthesised using both a descriptive narrative summary and the PAGER framework (Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for practice, and Research recommendations) (Bradbury-Jones et al., 2022). PAGER will provide a structured approach to analysing and presenting the results, enabling clearer identification of key themes, developments in the field, gaps in the evidence base, and implications for research and practice. This will ensure that the synthesis aligns with and supports the scoping review’s objectives and questions. Any deviation from the protocol will be clearly explained in the complete scoping review report. View more View less Competing Interests Nil competing interests. reply Respond Report a concern Somanadhan S. Peer Review Report For: Non-pharmacological interventions to support return to education and work for adolescent and young adults (AYAs) following a cancer diagnosis: a scoping review protocol [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . HRB Open Res 2026, 8 :44 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15487.r47030) 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/8-44/v1#referee-response-47030 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 = "Non-pharmacological interventions to support...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-44/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-44/v2&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-44/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Algeo N 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/8-44/v2/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/8-44", templates : { twitter : "Non-pharmacological interventions to support return to education.... Algeo N et al., published by " + "@HRBOpenRes" + ", https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/8-44/v2" } }; 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/14096/15768") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "15768"); $(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 = { "47133": 0, "46622": 0, "47134": 0, "46623": 0, "47135": 0, "46624": 0, "47136": 0, "46625": 0, "47137": 0, "46626": 0, "47138": 0, "46627": 0, "47139": 0, "46628": 0, "47140": 0, "52901": 12, "46629": 0, "47141": 0, "52902": 9, "46630": 0, "47142": 0, "46631": 0, "46509": 0, "46510": 0, "46511": 0, "46512": 0, "46513": 0, "47025": 0, "46514": 0, "47026": 0, "46515": 0, "47027": 0, "46516": 0, "47028": 0, "46517": 0, "47029": 0, "46518": 0, "47030": 26, "47031": 0, "47032": 0, "47033": 0, "50273": 0, "50274": 0, "50275": 0, "50276": 0, "46821": 0, "50277": 0, "46822": 0, "50278": 0, "46823": 0, "50279": 0, "50280": 24, "46824": 0, "46825": 0, "50281": 0, "46826": 0, "50282": 0, "46827": 0, "46828": 0, "46829": 0, "46830": 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 = "28959a0c-9c8a-436e-96e5-4ca6ebe7d38c"; 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:'9fe1d4f2ac130700',t:'MTc3OTE4MDM5Mw=='};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())}}}})();