Protocol for a scoping review of literature on digital sexual, reproductive, and gender health care for LGBTQI+ youth

Introduction Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, questioning, and other sexual and gender minority (LGBTQI+) youth are diverse populations who experience poor sexual health outcomes (e.g., high rates of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), unplanned pregnancy, and sexual violence) and multiple barriers to sexual and reproductive health care (SRHC) and gender health care (GHC). In high-income, developed countries, barriers include confidentiality concerns; stigma and discrimination; and health care providers’ lack of specific training. Digital SRHC and GHC have the potential to overcome key barriers for LGBTQI+ youth by offering anonymous and independent access to care. However, the literature on digital SRHC and GHC for LGBTQI+ youth is fragmented, often focussing on one sub-population at a time, despite shared barriers. The extent and nature of recent literature regarding digital SRHC and GHC for LGBTQI+ youth is unclear, as is acceptability of, and barriers/facilitators to, LGBTQI+ youth engaging with digital SRHC and GHC. Objective To identify, describe, and evaluate the methodological quality of, the existing literature on digital SRHC and GHC for LGBTQI+ youth in high-income, developed countries, synthesise study findings, and make recommendations for future research. Inclusion criteria Research studies from 2018 onward in published and grey literature on any aspect of digital (e.g., websites, mobile applications) SRHC and GHC (e.g., online information, support and advice, and clinical care for STIs and HIV, fertility, sexual violence, sexual wellbeing, and gender expression and transition) for LGBTQI+ youth (aged 10-35 years) in high-income, developed countries. Method This study will follow the Joanna-Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews. The databases to be searched include APA PsycInfo (ProQuest); APA PsycArticles (ProQuest); CINAHL Complete (EBSCO); MEDLINE (EBSCO); ERIC (EBSCO); British Education Index (EBSCO); Education Database (ProQuest); Computer Science Database (ProQuest); and Web of Science. Grey literature will be identified using Google Scholar. Studies will be screened against and selected for inclusion in line with the eligibility criteria. Key data from included studies will be extracted to a structured spreadsheet, adapted from the JBI extraction tool, then synthesised qualitatively using the JBI meta-aggregative approach for a systematic narrative account, accompanied by tables as appropriate. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. ### Funding Statement This scoping review protocol is funded by a GCU (School of Health and Life Sciences) PhD scholarship awarded to the first author (JML), within the Sexual Health and Blood Borne Viruses (SHBBV) research group and the Research Centre for Health (ReaCH). Supervisors for the PhD, CSE and JMD, are supported by GCU. PF, based at the University of Strathclyde, and JG, based at University College London, are supported by their host institutions, as supervisors of the PhD. ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: The study is a protocol for a scoping review of publicly available literature. I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable. Yes The study is a protocol for a scoping review of publicly available literature.