Kind of study This is a scoping review protocol, a type of study designed to answer broad research questions with less restrictive selection criteria. The inclusion of scientific articles and the gray literature aim to map key concepts, types of evidence, and research gaps, systematically synthesizing the existing knowledge on a topic. The study will be developed according to Arksey and O'Malley and Levac et al. steps (Formulation of research questions; Identification of relevant studies; Study selection; Data extraction and coding; Analysis and interpretation of results; Consultation with stakeholders). Will based on the Joanna Briggs Institute manual (JBI), and guided by the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Objective This study will map telemedicine use in Primary Health Care (PHC) during the COVID-19 pandemic and its impacts on quality of care. Questions 1) Which countries have used telemedicine in PHC due to the COVID-19 pandemic? 2) What types of ICT in telemedicine have been used in PHC in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic? 3) What are the impacts of telemedicine on quality of care in PHC in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic? Inclusion criteria The following full-text studies focusing on telemedicine in PHC during the COVID-19 pandemic, answering the study questions, and addressing at least one quality of care dimension, will be included: a) Primary studies, literature reviews, theoretical essays, or brief communications; b) Gray literature, including preprints, guidelines, manuals, reports, government documents, books, dissertations, theses, and congress proceedings or other events of the academic community. Filters related to time will not be applied to searches since search strategies will already contain descriptors and terms related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Language filters will also not be used and an external translator will perform necessary translations. Exclusion criteria This review presents a wide scope of research questions; therefore, only publications with inconsistent results or not answering the research questions will be excluded. Data sources For a broader scope search, multidisciplinary health sciences databases and gray literature will be used. The following databases will be accessed: VHL, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Embase. For the gray literature, searches will be conducted on Google Scholar (government guidelines, manuals, reports, documents, books, and congress proceedings), preprint repositories (SciElo Preprints, bioRxi, and medRxiv), and specific databases for COVID-19 studies (WHO Global research on coronavirus disease, Cochrane Library, COVID-19 Open Research Dataset Challenge, and Epistemonikos COVID-19). Search strategy A previous exploratory search was conducted on PubMed and Virtual Health Library (VHL) databases to identify the main Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and Descriptors in Health Sciences (DeCS) related to the topic. The search strategy was developed based on this preliminary search by combining descriptors and keywords using the Boolean operators AND and OR, and it will be adjusted according to each database. Study selection The study selection process for both the white and gray literature will be guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA-P)34 (identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion) and will be presented in detail in the selection flowchart of the review. These steps will be conducted by two independent reviewers (CRDVS and RHL), and, in case of disagreement, a third reviewer (SACU) will be consulted to reach a consensus. Identified studies will be grouped in the Mendeley reference manager and duplicates will be removed. The Rayyan software will be used during title and abstract analysis to assist blinding of reviewers. Potentially relevant studies will be retrieved in full and exported to a Microsoft Excel (2016) database. Full texts will be analyzed in detail according to eligibility criteria, and reasons for excluding studies will be recorded and reported in the review. Data extraction Data related to the included studies will be extracted by two independent reviewers (CRDVS and RHL) using a data extraction form created based on the JBI template and adapted by the authors. The following information of interest will be retained: study description (title, first author, institution, year, objectives, study design, sample/participants, funding) and data answering the research questions (country that used telemedicine, ICT type, impact on quality of care). Google Earth™ V.7.15 and TerraView V.4.2.2 softwares will be used to identify and geocode the studies. Analysis and interpretation of results Data will be summarized quantitatively or qualitatively, as appropriate. For quantitative analysis, descriptive statistics (absolute frequencies and percentages) will be performed using SPSS software, version 24 (IBM Corp.). Qualitative analysis will be conducted using thematic analysis All results will be discussed with the relevant literature. Evidence synthesis will be presented using tables, diagrams, thematic maps, and, if possible, a meta-analysis will be conducted. A narrative summary reporting how results are related to the review purpose and research questions will accompany the mapped data. Consultation with stakeholders After analyzing and interpreting, preliminary results will be presented to a group of three experts in ICTs in PHC. The procedure will include invitation via e-mail explaining the stakeholder participation and, if accepted, all materials will be sent to the panel of experts. Two web conferences will be scheduled to discuss results. This strategy aims to share preliminary study findings (knowledge transfer and exchange), obtain potentially relevant studies not included in the initial search, and develop effective dissemination strategies and directions for future studies. Ethical considerations In this study, only secondary sources of information (i.e., studies published in scientific journals and the gray literature) will be included. Ethical review will be conducted due to the step involving stakeholder consultation. References Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2005;8:19–32. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O'Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci 2010;5:69. Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, et al. Chapter 11: Scoping reviews. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis [Internet]. Adelaide: JBI; 2020. [date accessed 2021 Mar 2]. Available from: https:// synthesismanual.jbi.global. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018;169:467-73. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015;350:g7647.