The scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews [25,26] and reported in line with PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines [27]. We will also follow the 6-stage framework for a scoping review proposed by Arksey and O’Malley [28].

The first stage in the scoping review as outlined by Arksey and O’Malley [28] is to identify specific questions to help guide the search strategy and answer the general question posed above. Thus, we developed the following specific questions:

In addition to these questions, we set specific parameters around the research of interest such that each study needed to include (1) a connected sensor technology; (2) data transfer from the patient to the clinician; and (3) use of the data by the clinician to inform the rehabilitation intervention.

Based on recommendations from JBI, we used the Population, Concept, and Context (PCC) framework to develop initial search terms [26]. These keywords and synonyms will be used to iteratively develop a robust search strategy.

This scoping review will consider quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods study designs for inclusion. While reviews, editorials, and other opinion papers will be excluded, we will manually search such manuscripts for relevant articles. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are summarized in Table 2 according to the PCC framework.

Studies will be screened for inclusion in 2 stages, and each study will be screened by 2 independent reviewers during both stages. The first stage will involve screening of titles and abstracts; if there are no clear exclusion criteria, the study will advance to the second stage of screening, which is the full-text review. Full-text articles will be retrieved through the University of Colorado library and associated resources, through the Department of Veterans Affairs library, and by contacting corresponding authors. If the full text cannot be found through reasonable means, then the article will be excluded from the review. All inclusion criteria must be met during the full-text review for inclusion in the results, and specifically, each of the 3 steps relevant to the concept domain of the PCC framework must be present (Figure 1). If there are discrepancies at either screening stage, the articles will be discussed as a team. The results of the search will be reported in full in the final scoping review and presented in a PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram [31].

We will pilot a custom data extraction table within Covidence and/or Excel (Microsoft) before starting formal data extraction. Data extraction will include article characteristics (eg, authors, title, journal, and year of publication), study characteristics (study design, country where study was conducted, aim or aims, population studied, etc), and data pertinent to the scoping review questions. As we are interested in describing what is known about connected sensor technologies integrated into rehabilitation interventions, we will extract technology and data characteristics (eg, type of connected sensor technology, name and manufacturer, prior validation, and type of data collected from the connected sensor technology). In addition, we will describe the method(s) used for data transfer and how the data were used to inform the intervention. The data extraction table will be updated as we become more familiar with the literature and identify salient data to answer the research questions. Further details of planned data extraction are in Table 3.

Primary data extraction will be completed by MRR and checked by a second member of the team for completeness. Any discrepancies that arise will be discussed as a team for resolution. Authors of papers will be contacted when needed to request missing or additional data. Modifications to data extraction will be detailed in the full scoping review.

The scope of the literature will be described using counts (n), percentages, means, medians, and measures of variance as appropriate. For example, we will describe the number and type (randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental, etc) of studies that have been conducted. We will also describe the number of connected sensory technologies studied by category (accelerometer, magnetometer, etc) and the populations in which the products were studied (those musculoskeletal or neurological disorders, healthy adults, etc). These results will be presented in figures and tables. A narrative approach will be used to describe how connected sensor technologies were used during rehabilitation interventions and to summarize any qualitative data that may be included in the review.

Once results are synthesized, we will present them to various partner groups including patients and rehabilitation clinicians. Partner feedback will be incorporated into the results and discussion to afford a broader presentation and interpretation of the findings of the scoping review. We anticipate that partner input will help identify areas that have been understudied or not studied, situate the results in the context of priorities of various partner groups, and identify salient future directions for research.

The findings from this scoping review will identify how connected sensor technologies have been integrated into rehabilitation care and with which populations. We suspect that many of the interventions using connected sensor technologies will focus on behavior change and that the most common type of connected sensor technology will be consumer activity monitors. We also anticipate that connected sensor technologies will be commonly applied to cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation programs, because these programs are well established [32-34] and much work has been done to evaluate the effectiveness of telehealth delivery for these programs [32,35,36].

Previous reviews have evaluated similar concepts to the ones described in this manuscript. For example, Wei and Wu [37] conducted a review of preclinical studies that evaluated the ability of sensors to assess, recognize, and classify human movements in patient populations. Similarly, Kim et al [38] reviewed the use of sensors for upper-extremity assessment and intervention in a population with stroke. Only 5 of the reviewed studies used the sensor data to assist with an intervention, but none of the technologies used in the studies transferred data. As a result, the clinician was not actively involved in using the sensor data to inform treatments. Another review focused on the use of wearable technologies in oncology populations and found 10 studies that used wearables to effect health outcomes [39]; however, there were no details about the interventions and how or if sensor data were used by the clinician. The review described in this protocol will address these limitations.

The scoping review protocol has strengths that will improve the reliability of its findings. First, a strength of this review is the use of established and rigorous methodology [25,26,28]. Second, we are a diverse team with different research backgrounds and interests in technological applications; this diversity will enhance the findings by accounting for various perspectives. Additionally, we will use step 6 (partner engagement) of the Arksey and O’Malley [28] framework, which will improve the interpretation, communication, and dissemination of the findings.

The scoping review also has limitations. First, there is a lack of standard language to describe the data transfer process and how sensor data are used by a clinician; therefore, our search may miss articles that use terms not captured in our search strategy. This limitation also highlights the need for future work to generate consensus for such terminology. Another limitation is that the search strategy may miss eligible articles in which a connected sensor technology was used but was secondary to a different health technology (eg, virtual reality intervention that included connected sensor technologies). Similarly, our search may miss technologies that were studied privately or went directly to consumer markets.

Findings from this scoping review will be disseminated through various communication channels. First, we will share our findings with partners through presentations and discussions. Then, formal findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, presented at scientific conferences, and shared on social medial platforms such as LinkedIn.

We designed this scoping review to help map how connected sensor technologies have been studied to augment rehabilitation interventions. Results from the scoping review will identify the current state of this research while highlighting critical areas of inquiry to advance this field. Results will also support the development of a longitudinal care model to prioritize long-term health outcomes.