Given the importance of the digital health and HBPC relationship, especially enhanced in the current pandemic period and its possibilities for its continuity even after the pandemic due to the significant benefits, it is of fundamental importance to retrieve and systematize the evidence of these experiences. Thus, the objective of this study is to map the uses and types of digital health strategies and analyze their impacts on the quality of HBPC for older adults around the world. 2.1. Step 1: Defining and aligning the objective and questions Objective: Identify and map the uses and types of digital health interventions and their impacts on the quality of primary home care for older people worldwide. The research questions were formulated through the PCC mnemonic conceptual model—(Population, Concept, Context), as: P: Older adults; C: Digital health interventions; C: Home-based primary care. The following research questions were prepared by the authors according to the PCC: 1. Which countries use digital health interventions in home-based primary care for older adults? 2. What sort of digital health interventions are used in home-based primary care for older adults? 3. What is the impact of digital health interventions on the quality of home-based primary care for older adults? 2.2. Step 2: Developing and aligning the inclusion criteria with the objective and questions Publications that address the use of digital health interventions in HBPC for older adults will be included, available in full, which answer the study questions. The following will be included: a) Primary studies, theoretical and brief communications. b) Gray literature, including government manuals, expert opinions and brief communications as well as dissertations and theses. Time filters will not be applied to the searches, as the search strategies will contain descriptors and terms referring to digital health. The search will not be limited by date or language. Duplicate publications, literature reviews, editorials, will be excluded. 2.3. Step 3: Describing the planned approach to evidence searching, selection, data extraction, and presentation of the evidence The following steps will be taken to enhance the identification of documents in white literature and gray literature: The initial search was conducted in MEDLINE/PubMed using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) in English to identify main descriptors, synonyms, and keywords included in titles, abstracts, and indexed terms of publications regarding the theme. A similar search was conducted in Portuguese using the Virtual Health Library (VHL) and Descritores em Ciências da Saúde (DeCS). Moreover, a librarian improved the search strategy using four controlled vocabularies (DeCS, MeSH terms, Emtree terms; Cinahl headings) to obtain a wide range of multidisciplinary results in different databases. Natural language (non-controlled vocabulary) was also used to increase the sensitivity of the strategy (37). The search strategy was constructed using the Extraction, Conversion, Combination, Construction, and Use model, which enables developing highly sensitive search strategies by following a set of complementary steps (37). 2.4. Step 4: Searching for the evidence English was used to structure the research strategy, considering that it is the main language used in the scientific environment (38). Table 2 organizes the main descriptors available in the DeCS that started the search strategy carried out by the authors based on the PCC, the standard search strategy is available in Appendix I. The detailed search strategy for all data sources (i.e., white and gray literature) will be attached to the final scoping review. 2.4.1. Data sources The data collection will be conducted in the following indicated portals and databases: LILACS; MEDLINE/PubMed; Scopus; Web of Science; Cinahl and Embase. Gray literature will be searched through Google Scholar, Open gray, “Gray Matters: a practical tool for searching health-related gray literature”, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global and Preprints for Health Sciences [medRXiv]. The appropriate strategy will be applied to each of them, and the title and abstract of all identified studies will be evaluated and the duplicates removed. The search strategy was pre-tested on MEDLINE/PubMed for white literature (Appendix II) and Google Scholar for gray literature (Appendix III) to check for the possibility of data collection limitations related to the search strategy. 2.4.2. Additional sources Reference lists of included studies will be consulted for verification of additional publications. If needed, corresponding authors will be contacted via e-mail for additional information. 2.4.3. Pilot test A pilot test will be carried out with two reviewers, before starting data collection in order to reduce bias, ensure alignment in the selection process and testing the form among some team members to refine it and ensure that all relevant data were captured. The two reviewers will be to evaluate the same random sample of 25 papers, evaluating titles and abstracts in a data source and then select them using eligibility criteria. Afterwards, the team will meet to discuss and to resolution the discrepancies, and make necessary changes to the criteria and definitions. Screening will only begin when 75% or more similarity is achieved. 2.5. Step 5: Selecting the evidence The study selection process will be guided by the steps proposed in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-ScR) for both white and gray literature, which are: (1) identification; (2) screening; (3) eligibility; and (4) inclusion, which will be presented in detail in the review selection diagram. The selection process of publications belonging to the gray literature will follow the guidelines recommended by Godin et al., with specific strategies for searches on Google Scholar and Preprints repositories. Combinations of the following groups of search terms will be used: Aged OR elderly OR “middle age” OR “old people” OR “very elderly” AND Digital Health OR Telemedicine OR teleconsultation OR “electronic consultation” OR “remote consultation” OR telehealth “home health care” OR “home care”. The search terms and the number of results retrieved for each gray literature search strategy will be recorded and will follow the other proposed selection steps. The results from Google Scholar will be sorted by relevance and the first hundred will be included in the screening (39). Identified studies will be grouped in the Endnote reference manager and duplicates removed. The Rayyan software program will be used in the evaluation of studies by titles and abstracts to assist in blinding the reviewers (40) and any differences between the two reviewers (IdSS and AJA) will be discussed with a third reviewer (SACU). Studies selected by title and abstract will be retrieved in full and exported to a database in the Microsoft Excel® program. After reading the full text and building the final review sample, data will be extracted by the two independent reviewers, highlighting all reasons for exclusion when necessary and the entire selection process, eligibility, inclusion and reasons for exclusions will be presented in a specific flowchart. 2.6. Step 6: Extracting the evidence Data will be extracted according to Appendix IV and included if they align with the objectives and research questions of the scoping review. Data related to the included studies will be extracted by two independent reviewers to reduce the chance of errors and biases using a data extraction form elaborated by authors. The following items will be extracted from the studies: Type of literature, Publication title, authors, Year of publication, Country, Language. To white literature it will be identified Study design, Study population, Study objective, Research question, Participants, Main results. For both white and gray literature will be extracted type and health situation of digital health interventions used, care actions and its agent and coordination ability to use digital tools, Availability of Digital health interventions and other impacts of using digital health interventions on the quality of home-based primary care. The instrument can receive updates during the research to obtain a deeper understanding of the theme, as, according to Peters et al. 2.7. Step 7: Analysis of the evidence Descriptive statistics (absolute and percentage frequencies) will be used to analyze quantitative data with the help of the Microsoft Excel® program. Qualitative data analysis will be guided by thematic analysis. This step will be divided into three others, according to Levac (29), namely: (1) data analysis; (2) exposure of results linked to research questions; and (3) interpreting the implications of the results for other research and services. A map of identified countries that use digital health interventions in HBPC for older adults will be developed using the GeoDa version 1.20 software program (Center for Spatial Data Science, Chicago, IL, USA). All results will be discussed with the relevant literature. The evidence synthesis will be presented in a descriptive format through tables, diagrams, and thematic maps to better visualize the results found. A narrative summary will follow the mapped data, and report how the results relate to the review objective and questions. 2.8. Step 8: Presentation of the results The final report guided by the PRISMA-ScR (31) will include the results in flowcharts, charts, or figures, and will be presented to a group of stakeholders with experience in digital health. The stakeholder analyses are used throughout the entire planning process of health innovations, more frequently for policies and services and delivery methods (42), and it will be useful for preliminary sharing and suggestion of dissemination of results. The objectives of this strategy, recommended by Levac et al., will be the preliminary sharing of study findings, being considered a mechanism for knowledge transfer and exchange, as well as to develop effective dissemination strategies and ideas for future studies and encourage the search for new evidence or field of research not present in the review (29). In this step, the identification of interested parties will be carried out; the differentiation or categorization of stakeholders based on some attributes, such as power, position, level of interest, possible contributions; and investigating stakeholder relationships with the topic of study (42, 43). In this protocol, the sample of stakeholders will be intentionally listed through the snowball technique with 9 (nine) stakeholders: researcher (3), health professional (3) and digital professional (3) all with experience in digital health aimed at home-based care. The first included will be identified by the study researchers, who will successively indicate the others. The procedure will include sending an individual invitation to candidates for research participants, explaining the purpose of their participation and, if they accept, they will sign the Free and Informed Consent Form. Preliminary results and informed consent will be included in an electronic form and sent to stakeholders via e-mail. Stakeholders will not be identified, and authors will request the appreciation of dissemination, sharing of results of the review and of the database of publications as well as about possible new fields or evidence for researchers, managers, caregivers and older adults. 2.9. Step 9: Summary of evidence, conclusions, implications of findings The main results will be summarized (including an overview of the concepts, themes and types of evidence available), the research questions and the objective should be answered based on the results found. Expectations about the implications of the findings on digital health interventions and their relevance to the home-based care of older adults will be presented Silva ÍdS, Silva CRDV, Lopes RH, Araújo AJd, Figueirêdo RCd, Bay OdG Jr, Lapão LV, Xavier PB and Uchôa SAdC (2023) Digital health interventions and quality of home-based primary care for older adults: A scoping review protocol. Front. Public Health 10:1022587. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1022587