Searches in scoping reviews are recommended to be as comprehensive as possible, in order to identify every possible study that is relevant to the field [39,42]. Original studies eligible for inclusion encompass descriptive studies, cohort studies, interventional studies, qualitative studies, mixed-design studies, and reports studying EBPs among primary HCPs. Studies should provide a measure or level of: (1) belief, (2) knowledge, (3) implementation, or (4) integration of EBPs, as defined by the authors.

Studies should be conducted among primary HCPs in primary health care settings, and among HCPs carrying out parallel activities in primary, secondary, and tertiary health care settings. Studies should also include regional and national surveys among general practitioners, community health care nurses and nurse practitioners, midwives, occupational therapists, physical therapists, speech and language therapists, podiatrists, dieticians, psychologists, social workers, radiological and medical imaging technologists, dentists, and pharmacists. Grey literature containing information on beliefs, knowledge, implementation, and integration of EBPs is eligible. Studies including expert opinions and editorials will be excluded from the original set of studies collected.

We will conduct a systematic scoping search of published articles in the following electronic databases, from their start dates until March 31, 2017: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) via PubMed (from 1946), Embase (from 1947), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; from 1937), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; from 1992), PsycINFO (from 1806), Web of Science (from 1900), Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) database (from 1998), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE; from 1996), Trip medical database (from 1997) and relevant professional scientific journals for the primary HCPs mentioned (from their start dates). We will use predefined search terms and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms such as, “evidence-based practice”, “evidence-based nursing”, “evidence-based approach”, “best practices”, “beliefs”, “knowledge”, “implementation”, “integration”, and “health personnel”. The “health personnel” MeSH term’s tree will be expanded using the MeSH terms and keywords “health care” and “allied health care professionals”. In addition to searching electronic databases, we will conduct a hand search of the bibliographies of all relevant articles and a search of unpublished studies using Google Scholar, ProQuest, Mednar, the WorldCat and Health Technology Assessment (Canadian Search Interface) databases, and OpenGrey. We will consider publications in English, French, Spanish, and Portuguese. If studies are identified in languages other than those mastered by the research team, we will contact their authors to complete the data extraction and quality assessment form. A draft MEDLINE search strategy is included in Multimedia Appendix 1. When the MEDLINE strategy has been finalized, subject headings and syntax will be adapted for the other databases. The search strategy’s results will be reported following the PRISMA statement guidelines (Multimedia Appendix 2) [43].

Review Manager software version 5.3 and Endnote 8.0 will be used for collecting and analyzing the bibliographic references retrieved using the search strategy [44].

We will include studies by using a two-step process with two independent reviewers for each step. First, each abstract initially selected will be evaluated. Then, each potentially relevant full article will be retrieved for consideration of inclusion. Second, data will be selected and extracted. In cases of a disagreement between the two reviewers, the other team members will contribute to the decision. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion among the team members or, if needed, a consensus will be reached following a further discussion with the authors. Article selection will be based on the methodological framework for scoping studies recommended by Arksey and O'Malley and Levac et al [38,39] and the systematic review by Leung et al [45].

We will use standardized data collection forms (Microsoft Excel sheets for the data on the studies and interventions, as well as a quality assessment of the studies included) developed by the research team. Data extraction will be conducted independently by two separate reviewers using a specially designed, standardized data extraction form based on a relevant, previously published extraction form [46]. Discrepancies will be resolved through discussion and consultation with the co-authors.

The following information will be extracted from each included study and put into an appropriate usable form: (1) study author, year of publication, and country in which the study was conducted; (2) study characteristics (including research questions, study setting and design, instruments used, duration of follow-up, and sample size); (3) participants’ characteristics (including sex, age, professional activity and experience, level of education, and setting); and (4) types of outcome measures [47].

The primary outcomes will be the nature, number, and comparison of studies examining beliefs, knowledge, implementation, and/or integration of EBPs among primary HCPs. These outcomes will allow us to generate an overview of the existing implementation and integration of EBPs in primary health care.

We hypothesize that significant differences will exist in the designs and instruments of EBPs, both in different primary health care settings and among different primary HCPs. Secondary outcomes will focus on: the beliefs, knowledge, implementation, and integration measures/levels of EBPs; the theoretical frameworks and instruments used for assessment; and the level of evidence provided in the included studies [48]. Overall, the outcomes of this scoping review will provide useful suggestions and recommendations for identifying possible gaps in the research [38].

We will summarize the results using a descriptive (noninterpretive) narrative synthesis [38,39,42] and content analysis [49]. All data on the beliefs, knowledge, implementation, and integration measures/levels for EBPs will be summarized in a table. By summarizing and critically appraising all studies, we will be able to identify gaps in the current evidence and avenues for future research.

As recommended by Daudt et al [42], we will assess the quality of the eligible observational and mixed-method studies by using the appropriate recommended tools: Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; and the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool [47,50]. Qualitative studies will be assessed using the Letts Qualitative Review Form [51]. The risk of bias in the retrieved studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool [44]. We will not, however, exclude studies based on a quality assessment, because we wish to provide a comprehensive overview of the available evidence and its extent. The quality of evidence will be assessed using the following items: risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision, indirectness, publication bias, and the confidence effect [44]. Using these tools, each of the following domains will be rated as: (1) very low quality, (2) low quality, (3) moderate quality, or (4) high quality [52]. Any disagreements regarding the quality assessment will be resolved through discussion among the team members.

All data in this project will be gathered through searches of literature databases, and recommendations and guidelines available online. No information on individuals will be collected within the framework of this project, thus approval from a research ethics committee is not required.

This systematic scoping research protocol’s strengths are: (1) obtaining a broad overview of the studies dealing with beliefs, knowledge, implementation, and integration of EBPs among primary HCPs; (2) the use of an appropriate search strategy designed in collaboration with two specialist librarians who are experienced in conducting such reviews; and (3) the inclusion criteria, which impose no restrictions on time period or geographic location.

Nevertheless, this protocol does include some limitations which may introduce bias: (1) the exclusion of articles written in languages other than English, French, Spanish, or Portuguese; and (2) the personal judgements of the reviewers’ study assessments.