Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Search Log in Dashboard Publications Account settings Log out Search… Search NCBI Primary site navigation Search Logged in as: Dashboard Publications Account settings Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide PERMALINK Copy As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice Syst Rev . 2026 Mar 4;15:126. doi: 10.1186/s13643-026-03135-8 Search in PMC Search in PubMed View in NLM Catalog Add to search Implementation of people-centred, integrated, and hybrid service delivery approaches in place-based initiatives: a scoping review protocol Ferdinand C Mukumbang Ferdinand C Mukumbang 1 Department of Global Health, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA USA Find articles by Ferdinand C Mukumbang 1, ✉ , Gabriela Uribe Gabriela Uribe 2 Menzies Centre for Health Policy and Economics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia Find articles by Gabriela Uribe 2 , John G Eastwood John G Eastwood 3 Department of Clinical Services Integration and Population Health, Sydney Local Health District, Camperdown, Australia Find articles by John G Eastwood 3 , Ilan Katz Ilan Katz 4 Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia Find articles by Ilan Katz 4 , Carmen Huckel Schneider Carmen Huckel Schneider 2 Menzies Centre for Health Policy and Economics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia Find articles by Carmen Huckel Schneider 2 Author information Article notes Copyright and License information 1 Department of Global Health, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA USA 2 Menzies Centre for Health Policy and Economics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia 3 Department of Clinical Services Integration and Population Health, Sydney Local Health District, Camperdown, Australia 4 Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia ✉ Corresponding author. Received 2024 Jul 6; Accepted 2026 Feb 17; Collection date 2026. © The Author(s) 2026 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ . PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13067497 PMID: 41776595 Abstract Background Place-based initiatives (PBIs) are increasingly being used to address complex and multi-faceted issues that cannot be resolved using conventional policy and service delivery approaches. PBIs are interventions designed and delivered to address the unique circumstances of a place that cannot be resolved using conventional, one-size-fits-all policy approaches. Based on the premise that health and social needs coexist within a community, PBIs adopt people-centred and integrated health and social care approaches. With the emergence of hybrid in-person and remote service delivery approaches, there is an increasing policy mandate to incorporate hybrid service delivery in PBIs. The WHO’s integrated and people-centred approach to delivering complex inter-related health and social issues encourages the adoption of these approaches during the implementation of PBI. Nevertheless, there is a limited appreciation of whether and how these approaches are integrated. This research, therefore, takes a novel approach by exploring the implementation of people-centred, integrated, hybrid service delivery approaches in PBIs. The review protocol outlines a plan for exploring community-led, integrated health and social, and hybrid in-person and face-to-face service delivery models in PBIs. Methods The proposed scoping review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute approach for conducting scoping reviews and report it according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping review—PRISMA-ScR. A search of electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, Social Work Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, AJOL, and African Medicus Index). Articles will be included if they discuss PBIs that have two or all three service delivery approaches: (1) community-led, (2) health and social care integrated approach, and (3) hybrid in-person and remote service delivery. The READ (readying material, extracting data, analyzing data, and distilling findings) approach will be used to analyse the selected data sources. A framework thematic approach will be applied to identify the adoption of the relevant approaches to implementing PBIs. Significance We anticipate this review will help researchers, programme designers, and implementers understand how existing tools better address health equity considerations in intersectoral partnerships and pave the way for developing new, comprehensive tools suitable for designing PBIs. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-026-03135-8. Keywords: Community-led, Place-based initiatives, Integrated health and social care, Hybrid in-person Introduction Historically, programmes and policies have been implemented to improve the quality of life and economic opportunities for people experiencing adversity in concentrated areas. Focusing on an area engendered the recognition of “place” as a practical approach to addressing the adversities facing communities through initiatives or approaches [ 1 ] tailored to the needs of individual communities. Initiatives targeted at specific neighbourhoods or areas are thus described as place-based initiatives (PBIs). PBIs are, therefore, designed and delivered to address the unique circumstances of a place to tackle complex and multi-faceted issues that cannot be resolved using conventional, one-size-fits-all policy approaches. PBIs have been designed to improve the quality of life and access opportunities for residents in disadvantaged communities. Place-based public health initiatives have been adopted to reduce social and health inequalities [ 2 ]. They have also been employed to promote economic and community development within defined geographical areas, allowing policymakers to tailor services to address each community’s unique challenges and underlying causes. Over time, the concept of PBIs has evolved concerning the conceptualization of “place”. The term “place” was initially used to refer to a specific geographic area where people live, learn, work, and recreate [ 3 ]. Fincher [ 4 ] suggests that this initial consideration of place—sites of locational (dis)advantage—should be extended to include an understanding that “place” is the product of practices conducted through encounters between people. Nowadays, the term “place” in the context of PBIs does not have a universal definition. Owing to the lack of a definitive definition of “place”, it is advised that the definition used by any initiative should be meaningful and resonate with the relevant government entity and local community [ 3 ]. Understanding “place” should involve building a picture of the community through mapping its assets and needs to engage credibly and understand opportunities to leverage existing resources [ 3 ]. PBIs have gone beyond wanting to improve conditions in low-income neighbourhoods or poor rural communities. Indeed, they have become mainstream global, national, and local health and social policies [ 5 ]. They play a crucial role in addressing equity in our society and ensuring that every neighbourhood and community has access to economic opportunities in larger urban areas or regions [ 2 ]. To tackle this challenge effectively, the scope of action and the institutions involved must extend beyond the neighbourhood. Therefore, PBIs must also engage with broader policies, as some issues cannot be addressed locally [ 6 ]. Apart from engaging with broader policies, the extant literature suggests that PBIs should have the following qualities: (1) guarantee community participation or be community-led; (2) integrate health and social services; and (3) consider in-person and remote hybrid services [ 7 – 10 ]. Place-based initiatives and community participation The Victorian Government [ 3 ] describes PBIs as “initiatives which target the specific circumstances of a place and engage the community and a broad range of local organizations from different sectors as active participants in developing and implementing solutions”. The implementation of PBIs should, therefore, involve making decisions that are local, collaborative, and informed by evidence to tackle social issues within a specific area effectively. For community engagement to be collaborative, community engagement is strongly emphasized and includes organizing and activism, particularly in efforts to empower low-income communities [ 1 ]. In PBIs, decisions should be made by those who deeply understand the local circumstances. In this way, community members should be at the centre when planning to address social issues and improve the well-being of their community. PBIs are designed to strengthen a community’s physical, social, structural, and economic conditions and improve the well-being of those living there [ 6 ]. These strategies, therefore, seek to empower communities by giving them the tools to determine where their investments will have the most significant impact—community engagement. In this way, place-based strategies promote public participation in policy decision-making and empower communities to have more control over their lives [ 5 ]. For example, the Healthy Homes and Neighbourhoods (HHAN) initiative is an intersectoral partnership involving health, education, housing, legal, and financial service providers. Regarding community participation, the HHAN initiative emphasizes partnerships with the community and professionals when healthcare, housing, and education staff work together towards a common goal [ 11 ]. Operating out of place-based hubs, these service providers work collaboratively to address the unmet health and social needs of families in Sydney who experience a disproportionate amount of social and health disadvantage. A service integration approach was adopted to transform care delivery locally to improve patient health (and well-being) outcomes and reduce costs emanating from the inappropriate implementation of care across hospital and primary care services [ 12 ]. Place-based initiatives and hybrid service delivery Most place-based initiatives are delivered as integrated health and social care for comprehensive service delivery. This approach is based on the premise that health and social needs coexist within a community. According to Katz [ 13 ], “Most of the problems encountered by children and families are multi-faceted and cannot be addressed by one intervention or agency alone… multiple interventions need to be ‘joined up’ and coordinated to be effective.” Communities with high levels of unmet healthcare needs often also face other challenges, such as poverty, violence, crime, lack of education, and limited employment [ 11 , 14 ]. These social challenges impact the health capabilities of these communities and tend to persist across generations. Integrated health and social care models through PBIs aim to support vulnerable communities and address social and health multimorbidity and other social and structural determinants of health [ 15 ]. Implementing a PBI to address members’ clinical, behavioural, social, and emotional needs offers numerous benefits for the members and providers, such as complementary care and a potentially expanded workforce. Paraprofessionals, including community health workers, care navigators, coordinators, social prescribers, and peer support specialists, are crucial in providing integrated care for community members. These individuals offer care management, social support, and skill-building services, which have been proven to enhance access to behavioural health services and improve outcomes for people of all ages and with various diagnoses [ 16 , 17 ]. Considerations for in-person and remote hybrid services in PBIs During the 2020 pandemic, remote work became widely adopted for public health reasons. Preliminary studies and surveys supported the idea that remote service delivery could rival or surpass traditional in-person service delivery, leading to a paradigm shift. Emerging evidence from the COVID-19 era indicates that remote service delivery can increase access to services and promote a sense of empowerment for clients, decrease stress, and increase opportunities for practice enhancement for service providers [ 18 , 19 ]. Despite these advantages, it has also been observed that remote service delivery through technology disrupts relationship building and social worker self-care [ 20 , 21 ] and that efficiency would be prioritized over future face-to-face contact with service users [ 20 ]. Some patient-related drawbacks to adopting remote service delivery include a lack of access to technology, a lack of technical literacy, the cost of telehealth for low-income people, and privacy concerns [ 10 ]. The COVID-19 pandemic showed the potential for combining remote (virtual) and in-person service delivery modalities—hybrid service delivery [ 8 ]. As a result, hybrid service delivery models have gained popularity and offered the flexibility of remote work while still harnessing in-person advantages for service delivery [ 19 ]. With the growing importance of remote approaches in healthcare and social services, there is an opportunity to adopt virtual service delivery approaches to improve the delivery of PBIs [ 7 ]. Remote service delivery is not considered the opposite of place-based initiatives. Nevertheless, a potentially contradictory perspective exists when considering PBIs and remote service delivery. Hybrid service delivery should not be seen as simply adding some form of technology to in-person service delivery. It requires thoughtful planning, considering the nature and type of virtual services to complement in-person services. Anecdotal evidence suggests that during the COVID-19 pandemic, some of the health-related services provided through the HHAN initiatives were provided remotely. These remote deliveries were achieved through virtual service delivery, involving interactive video conferencing technology and phone calls. Problem statement The co-existence of health and social needs within a community encourages considerations for governments to design and deliver hybrid (i.e. in-person and virtual) services and hybrid PBIs—specifically, those relating to social services [ 7 ]. Given the potential for increased adoption of hybrid PBIs, there is limited exploration of the extent to which virtual services are being adopted in implementing PBIs. Furthermore, as PBIs emphasize the involvement of local communities in decision-making and service delivery, it is crucial to consider the extent to which local communities and knowledge are considered when planning, delivering, and implementing virtual services within PBIs. This information can impact the delivery of PBIs and their defining features of co-location, collaboration, and co-design. Conceptual framework: WHO’s integrated and people-centred approach The principles outlined in WHO’s integrated and people-centred approach to service delivery for reaching underserved and marginalized populations [ 9 ] will guide this study (Table 1 ). Table 1. WHO’s integrated and people-centred approach [ 9 ] Construct Principles Equity in access Everyone, everywhere, needs to have access to the quality health services they need, when and where they need them Quality Safe, effective, timely care that responds to people’s comprehensive needs is of the highest possible standards Responsiveness and participation Care is coordinated around people’s needs, respects their preferences, and allows people to participate in health affairs Efficiency Ensure services are provided in the most cost-effective setting, balancing health promotion, prevention, and in-and-out patient care while avoiding duplication and resource waste Resilience Strengthening the capacity of health actors, institutions and populations to prepare for and effectively respond to public health crises Open in a new tab We have developed the following conceptual model, based on WHO’s principles of an integrated and people-centred approach and the concepts of integrating health and social services and in-person and face-to-face services, to guide and inform our exploration of implementing PBIs (Fig. 1 ). Fig. 1. Open in a new tab Conceptualizing place-based initiatives, service integration, and hybrid service delivery We used the PCC (Population (or participants)/Concept/Context) framework recommended by Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) to identify the main concepts in our review and to formulate review questions [ 22 ] (Table 2 ). Table 2. PCC framework formulation of the study concepts Element Conceptualization Population Underserved and marginalized populations; disinvested communities Concepts Integrated health and social services: Health and social services integration efforts coordinate access to services across multiple delivery systems and disciplinary boundaries, such as housing, nutrition, disability, physical health, mental health, child welfare, transportation, and workforce services. Common features of health and social service integration include having common goals and a shared understanding of roles and responsibilities among organizational partners and sharing information about clients, funding, care, administration, and staff and professional interactions at all levels of organizations Community participation: PBIs should be ideally characterized by partnering with the local community. Collaborative efforts should include shared design, stewardship, and accountability for outcomes and impacts. Working in partnership requires the sharing of power and influence. The goal standard for community participation is that PBIs should be community-led. For example, community members define what professionals they need, their scope of practice, etc. Hybrid in-person + virtual services: The hybrid in-person and virtual services model is a mix of both worlds, where the convenience of virtual (remote) service meets the hands-on expertise of in-person care. Face-to-face and in-person services entail hands-on services with face-to-face interaction between the service providers and the receivers. Virtual services are provided via video conferencing or phone calls, bringing services to clients’ homes Context Global Open in a new tab The study’s aims and objectives This study aims to unpack services that integrate health and social care and deliver as a hybrid of place-based involvement (community involvement and co-production). This scoping review will seek to answer the following questions: What are the approaches to integrating health and social care services and providing hybrid services (integrating in-person and remote services) in implementing PBIs? To what extent do local communities contribute to the planning, delivering, and implementing hybrid services within PBIs? Identify the policy settings and resources that will support the adoption of hybrid PBIs. Methods The proposed scoping review will follow the JBI methodology for scoping reviews [ 23 ] and will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews and scoping review protocols—PRISMA-ScR [ 24 , 25 ] . Search strategy With the help of a librarian from the University of Washington, we developed key terms from the three focus areas based on the team’s experience and expertise in consultation with the extant literature (Table 3 ). The extant literature provides possible synonyms of terms that could capture the characteristics of the areas of interest. Table 3 represents the key areas of interest and possible variants in the literature. Table 3. Possible search terms and strategy String Search term Community-based (“Place-based” OR “Community-based” OR “Community-led” OR “Local”) AND (“Approaches” OR “Services” OR “Program*) [AND] Hybrid: in-person + virtual services (“In-person” OR “Remote” OR “Walk-in” OR “Hub”) AND (“Telemedicine” OR “Telehealth” OR “Web-based” OR “Online” OR “Computer-based” OR “phone-based” OR “mHealth”) [AND] Integrated health and social services (“Integrated health” OR “Holistic care” OR “Care coordination” OR “Human service”) AND (“Social care” OR “Social health” OR “Social services”) (place-based[tiab] OR community-based[tiab] OR community-centered*[tiab] OR community-centred*[tiab] OR community-led[tiab] OR “community ownership”[tiab] OR “community engag*”[tiab] OR “trib* based”[tiab] OR “trib* cent*”[tiab] OR “trib* led”[tiab] OR “trib* ownership”[tiab] OR “trib* engag*”[tiab] OR “neighbo* based”[tiab] OR “neighbo* centered*”[tiab] OR “neighbo* centred*”[tiab] OR “neighbo* led”[tiab] OR “neighborhood ownership”[tiab:~0] OR “neighbourhood ownership”[tiab:~0] OR local*-based[tiab] OR local*-led[tiab] OR “local* ownership”[tiab] OR “local* engag*”[tiab] OR “community inclusion”[tiab:~2] OR community-centric[tiab] OR “tribal centric”[tiab:~0] OR “tribe centric”[tiab:~0] OR neighborhood-centric[tiab] OR co-design*[tiab] OR co-creat*[tiab] OR “participatory design”[tiab:~2]) AND (“Office Visits”[Mesh:NoExp] OR “In-person” OR “face-to-face” OR “Walk-in” OR “Hub” OR “office visit*” OR “clinic visit*”) AND (“Telemedicine”[Mesh:NoExp] OR “Digital Health”[Mesh] OR “Distance Counseling”[Mesh] OR “Mental Health Teletherapy”[Mesh] OR “Remote Consultation”[Mesh] OR “Computers”[Mesh] OR “Internet”[Mesh] OR “Online Systems”[Mesh:noexp] OR “Videoconferencing”[Mesh] OR “Electronic Mail”[Mesh] OR “Mobile Applications”[Mesh] OR “Telephone”[Mesh] OR telemedicine[tiab] OR tele-medicine[tiab] OR “mobile health”[tiab] OR mhealth[tiab] OR m-health[tiab] OR “mobile intervention”[tiab:~3] OR “mobile interventions”[tiab:~3] OR ehealth[tiab] OR e-health[tiab] OR telerehab*[tiab] OR telehealth[tiab] OR tele-health[tiab] OR teletherapy[tiab] OR “distance counseling”[tiab] OR “distance consult*”[tiab] OR “remote consult*”[tiab] OR IACT[tiab] OR computer*[tiab] OR internet[tiab] OR web[tiab] OR online[tiab] OR digital*[tiab] OR virtual*[tiab] OR remote*[tiab] OR videoconferenc*[tiab] OR Zoom[tiab] OR Skype[tiab] OR Facetime[tiab] OR WhatsApp[tiab] OR WeChat[tiab] OR “Google Meet*”[tiab] OR email*[tiab] OR e-mail*[tiab] OR “instant messag*”[tiab] OR text*[tiab] OR SMS[tiab] OR app[tiab] OR apps[tiab] OR “mobile application”[tiab:~3] OR “mobile applications”[tiab:~3] OR telephone*[tiab] OR phone*[tiab] OR “cell phone*”[tiab] OR cellphone*[tiab] OR “smart phone”[tiab] OR smartphone[tiab] OR iphone*[tiab] OR “smart watch*”[tiab] OR smartwatch*[tiab] OR “mobile based”[tiab:~3] OR “mobile device”[tiab:~3] OR “mobile devices”[tiab:~3] OR “mobile technology”[tiab:~3] OR “mobile technologies”[tiab:~3]) Open in a new tab A limited search of Google Scholar was undertaken to identify articles on the topic. After selecting articles that met our inclusion criteria, we identified keywords and index terms from the titles and abstracts and developed a complete search strategy (see Appendix 1). We will test and refine this (Ovid) and CINAHL (via EBSCO), including our initial articles from Google Scholar. In addition, we will screen the reference list of all sources of evidence included for additional studies. Given the limited budget for translation purposes, only studies published in the English language from the inception of the database to the 15th of June 2025 (date of study onset) will be included. Types of sources We will consider all study designs reporting on the design and implementation of PBIs. We will focus on studies that include services that integrate health and social care and are delivered as a place-based model (community involvement and co-production) with remote and face-to-face components. We will also include studies with experimental and quasi-experimental designs, such as randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, before-and-after studies, and interrupted time-series studies. We will also consider studies with analytical observational approaches, such as prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case-control studies, analytical cross-sectional studies, and case studies. Additionally, we will include them if they incorporate multiple methods, mixed methods, and qualitative studies (elicitation, descriptive, explanatory, and exploratory). Inclusion and exclusion criteria Any data source considered for this review must have components of our three main areas of interest: community ownership and engagement, reports on hybrid in-person + virtual services, and integrated health and social services. In addition to these three key areas, the following criteria will guide the inclusion and exclusion of sources for the study. Inclusion criteria Studies with a global setting (from any part of the world) Reports on PBIs in communities Opinion pieces Case studies and evaluative reports Published between inception and 2025 Published in any English version will be included Exclusion criteria Studies that do not conceptualize place-based initiatives based on our definition Do not have a hybrid in-person + virtual service Do not capture integrated health and social services Are not a peer-reviewed article or an evaluative report Study selection and data management The READ (readying material, extracting data, analyzing data, and distilling findings) approach will be used to analyse the selected data sources. Following the completion of the search, citations will be uploaded directly into the Covidence Systematic Review Software—an online software tool designed to streamline the process of conducting a systematic review [ 26 ]. Two independent reviewers (FCM and IK) will then assess the titles and abstracts against the inclusion criteria following a pilot test. Full-text articles deemed relevant will be retrieved and reviewed against the inclusion criteria by the same independent reviewers. Reasons for excluding full-text sources of evidence that do not meet the inclusion criteria will be documented and reported. Disagreements between reviewers will be resolved through discussion or with the participation of an additional reviewer at each stage of the selection process. The search and study inclusion procedure will be fully reported in the final scoping review and displayed in a flow diagram based on the PRISMA-ScR [ 23 , 24 ] . To this end, we have included a PRISMA-ScR checklist as Supplementary file 1 reporting on the different steps in this protocol. Quality appraisal Appraising the methodological quality of studies included in a scoping review is a crucial step that enhances the reliability and validity of the review’s findings. Unlike systematic reviews, scoping reviews aim to map the existing literature on a particular topic, identifying key concepts, theories, sources, and gaps in the research. While scoping reviews do not typically assess the quality of evidence to the same extent as systematic reviews, evaluating methodological quality can still provide valuable insights into the robustness of the included studies. We will use the JBI critical appraisal tools [ 27 ]. JBI’s critical appraisal tools will assist us in assessing the trustworthiness, relevance, and results of published papers. These tools will guide the reviewers to systematically evaluate various aspects of study design, such as sample size, data collection methods, and analysis techniques. For this scoping review, the following questions will guide our rigour and trustworthiness (Table 4 ). Table 4. Constructs and relevant questions for assessing rigour and trustworthiness Rigour construct Relevant questions Relevance • Is the research method/study design appropriate for answering the research question? • Are specific inclusion/exclusion criteria used? Reliability • Is the effect size practically relevant? How precise is the estimate of the effect? Were confidence intervals given? Validity • Were there enough subjects in the study to establish that the findings did not occur by chance? • Were subjects randomly allocated? Were the groups comparable? If not, could this have introduced bias? • Are the measurements/tools validated by other studies? • Could there be confounding factors? Applicability • Can the results be applied to my organization and my patient? Open in a new tab Data extraction Supplementary file 2 includes an extraction form based on the four research questions. The form will be adjusted as needed throughout the study, and these adjustments will be documented in the scoping review. Any disagreements with the reviewer will be resolved through discussion or with the help of an additional reviewer. If necessary, the authors of the papers will be contacted to request any missing or additional data. The primary data elements related to the research questions are defined (Table 1 ) and discussed below. Scope and consideration of hybridization (integrating in-person and virtual services) Each reviewer will search for data on the extent and quality of integrating in-person and remote services within the partnership evaluation tools described in each eligible study. Data on the scope of hybrid service considerations will include (1) the nature of hybrid services: how tasks were allocated between in-person and virtual modalities, and the workflow hybridization approaches; (2) contextual rationale: why hybridization was pursued (e.g. expanding rural access, reducing provider burnout); and (3) barriers and facilitators: structural, technical, or societal factors influencing adoption. In assessing the approaches of integrating in-person and remote integrated health and social care models, we will look for relevant data on how the structural arrangements and partnership processes were deemed appropriate for addressing health disparities in the communities involved. We envisage this exercise to lead to the development of a framework that can help understand how in-person and virtual service hybridization can be achieved in PBIs. Scope and consideration of community participation in planning, delivery, and implementation Each reviewer will search for data on the extent and quality of local community engagement in place-based initiatives. This engagement should relate to their contribution in planning, implementing, and evaluating services delivered as described in each eligible study. Data on this engagement should include descriptions of the structural arrangements (such as the division of responsibilities, tasks, and roles between participating organizations) and the processes of local community engagement (how the partnerships function within these structural arrangements). We will also consider to what extent local communities contribute to the planning, delivering, and implementation of hybrid services within PBIs. We will use Bullock et al.’s [ 28 ] theoretical framework to foster an improved understanding of the community contributions to implementation, to identify and characterize individual policy actors and their influence on implementing place-based initiatives. We will, therefore, be interested in understanding the integration dynamics of service delivery and the approaches by engaging the community to identify priorities and potential solutions, such as a focus group community leader’s representation at meetings, on boards, and other relevant activities. To this end, we will use the International Association for Public Participation’s (IAP2) spectrum of public participation framework to categorize community engagement, and the co-production framework (co-planning, co-design, co-delivery, co-evaluation) to assess the level of involvement. Scope and consideration of integrated health and social services The literature describes two main effective forms of integration in social and healthcare systems to meet the community’s needs. These forms are horizontal integration and vertical integration. While horizontal integration involves consolidating multiple healthcare providers or facilities under a single organization, a vertically integrated healthcare system is an arrangement whereby a healthcare organization offers, directly or through others, a broad range of patient care and support services [ 29 ]. We will focus on the vertical integration of community and health services, which unites the hospital, clinical, and community health services with community-based services. We will also examine the patterns of interaction between clients and service providers, as well as the relationships, norms, rules, and expectations within and outside the participating organizations. Additionally, we will consider broader societal factors, such as economic, cultural, social, or political influences, that may restrict or enhance the programme’s success. Social services considered within PBIs will include primary health, mental health, early childhood/preschool, hospital, housing, police/justice, child protection/family support, disability, aged care, education, and youth services. Data analysis and presentation Descriptive statistics will summarize quantitative variables, such as publication year and the population served by the place-based intervention. We will also quantify the social and medical services provided using the place-based initiative and the aspects provided remotely and through face-to-face delivery. These results will be presented in a table and followed by a narrative summary. The quantitative data will be analysed using a deductive content analysis approach—the framework analysis approach [ 30 ]. We will randomly select 20% of the eligible studies and assign labels to the quantitative measures representing constructs of community engagement, integration of in-person and remote services, and integrated health and social care models. In the remaining 80% of studies, these labels will be used to code the quantitative data, and similar codes will be grouped. We will then conduct a frequency count on the resulting categories. For the synthesis of the qualitative data, we will use a framework analysis approach [ 30 ]. We will organize the data using a framework matrix based on (1) community engagement in the planning, delivery, and implementation of PBIs, (2) integrating in-person and remote services, and (3) consideration of integrated health and social services (Fig. 1 ). This framework analysis will be achieved through the International Association for Public Participation’s spectrum of public participation (IAP2) and the co-production frameworks. While the IAP2’s spectrum of public participation was created to help determine the appropriate level of public involvement in any participation process, the co-production framework proposes that implementing PBIs should be achieved through co-planning, co-design, co-delivery, and co-evaluation. The studies that meet the inclusion criteria will be analysed using an analytic framework based on our study framework (Fig. 1 ) and the research questions. Whenever possible, we will map population representation, describing how different populations are represented in the literature and the distribution of the different health conditions targeted in PBIs. Finally, we will combine the broad quantitative and qualitative analysis findings using a narrative summary (Fig. 2 ). Fig. 2. Open in a new tab A proposed process for conducting qualitative data analyses within the scoping review A narrative approach will be used to present the quantitative results based on the IAP2 and the co-production frameworks. The review findings will be presented using appropriate data visualization techniques; tables, figures, gap maps, and narratives depending on which one best captures and represents the ideas. The tables will be used for results involving comparisons, linking concepts to the research question, and classification. Gap maps will be used to trace the adoption of the different aspects of place-based initiatives over time. The figure will be used to capture the representations of the different aspects of place-based initiatives, and the narratives will be used to explain the representations in the tables and figures. Significance of the study This study aims to review the current literature on services that integrate health and social care and are delivered as a place-based model (community involvement and co-production) with remote and face-to-face components. It will help researchers, programme designers, and implementers understand how existing tools better address health equity considerations in intersectoral partnerships and pave the way for developing new, comprehensive tools suitable for the purpose. Our findings are expected to underscore the critical role of community participation as integral to the design, implementation, and evaluation of PBIs. By applying the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) spectrum of public participation to categorize engagement strategies and integrate co-production frameworks to assess involvement levels, we will systematically analyse the nature and depth of community collaboration. This dual approach will clarify how participatory processes align with established best practices and enable a more nuanced understanding of how inclusive governance structures can be optimized to amplify community agency and ensure equitable outcomes. Our analysis of hybrid in-person and virtual service models in place-based initiatives (PBIs) will advance a decision-making framework to help designers and implementers strategically integrate care modalities. This framework will emphasize three priority considerations: (1) service suitability: identifying which medical and social care services (e.g. chronic disease management, mental health counselling, community outreach) require in-person delivery to maximize efficacy, trust, and equity; (2) technological pragmatism: determining which components of integrated care (e.g. telehealth consultations, digital resource navigation, remote monitoring) can be delivered virtually without compromising quality or accessibility; and (3) modality alignment: evaluating virtual platforms (e.g. synchronous video, asynchronous messaging, AI-driven tools) to match specific health and social care needs while addressing digital literacy and infrastructure gaps. By applying a socio-technical systems lens, the framework will enable stakeholders to balance human-centred priorities (e.g. relational care, cultural responsiveness) with technical feasibility. This approach will prioritize hybrid models that enhance service reach without perpetuating exclusion, particularly for marginalized communities with limited digital access. Our review of health and social care integration within place-based initiatives (PBIs) will provide actionable insights into two critical dimensions: (1) Service mapping: We will systematically identify high-impact health services (e.g. preventive care, chronic disease management, mental health support) and complementary social services (e.g. housing assistance, food security programmes, employment training) that demonstrate synergistic potential when integrated. This mapping will prioritize interventions where cross-sector collaboration amplifies outcomes, such as combining clinical screenings with community-based social needs assessments. (2) Drivers of integration: We will analyse catalytic factors motivating PBI implementers to adopt integrated models, such as evidence linking social determinants (e.g. poverty, education) to health disparities; policy incentives (e.g. value-based care mandates, funding for wraparound services); and community demand for holistic, person-centred care. Concurrently, we will assess implementation barriers, including fragmented funding streams, data-sharing limitations, and workforce capacity gaps. By synthesizing these findings into an integration roadmap, our work will equip PBI designers with evidence-based guidance to align health and social care priorities with community-identified needs, leverage policy and technological enablers (e.g. interoperable data systems, cross-sector partnerships), and mitigate risks of service duplication or misaligned incentives. Supplementary Information Supplementary Material 1 (14.7KB, docx) Supplementary Material 2 (84.5KB, docx) Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the University of Washington Librarian, Teresa E Jewell, for helping develop the search strategy for the scoping review protocol. Abbreviations COVID-19 Coronavirus disease of 2019 HHAN Healthy Homes and Neighbourhood JBI Joanna Briggs Institute PBIs Place-based initiatives PCC Population (or participants)/Concept/Context) PRISMA-ScR Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping review READ Readying material, extracting data, analyzing data, and distilling findings Authors’ contributions FCM, MGUG, IK, and CHS conceived the study and developed the research question. FCM developed the search strategy and drafted the protocol under the guidance of the other authors. MGUG, IK, JE, and CHS reviewed and edited the protocol. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript. Funding FCM and MGUG are funded by the National Health Medical Research Centre Integrated Health and Social Health Centre for Research Excellence (No: APP1198477). JE is this grant’s principal investigator, and CHS is the chief investigator. Data availability The data available is secondary data and is available as part of the study. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate Ethical approval is not required to review existing literature, as we considered only secondary literature. Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Footnotes Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. References 1. Ferris JM, Hopkins E. Place-based initiatives: lessons from five decades of place-based initiatives. Found Rev. 2015;7:4. [ Google Scholar ] 2. McGowan VJ, Buckner S, Mead R, et al. Examining the effectiveness of place-based interventions to improve public health and reduce health inequalities: an umbrella review. BMC Public Health. 2021;21:1–17. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 3. Lata, Lutfun Nahar and Reddel, Tim (2022). Place-based approaches – a guide for the Victorian Public Service. Brisbane, QLD, Australia: Institute for Social Science Research (2022). 4. Fincher R. Interpretations of. SSRN Electronic Journal. Epub ahead of print 22 March 2021. 10.2139/SSRN.3809411. 5. Popay J, Halliday E, Mead R, et al. Place-based approaches to address social and health inequalities: concepts, policy and evidence, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK597408/ (2023, accessed 29 January 2024). 6. Rood S, McGroder S. Promoting place-based strategies to address poverty: exploring the governor’s role. Washington, D.C., 2017. https://www.nga.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/1701PlaceBasedStrategiesPoverty.pdf 7. Katz I, Ritter A, de Leeuw E, et al. Australia and New Zealand School. How do services evolve in a world of virtual, physical and hybrid service delivery. Melbourne, 2022. 8. Drysdale K, Bates S, Ritter A, et al. Is there a role for hybrid service provision in place-based initiatives within the human services sector? Findings from an Australian exploratory study. Aust J Public Adm. 2023. 10.1111/1467-8500.12621. [ Google Scholar ] 9. World Health Organization. WHO global strategy on integrated people-centred health services 2016–2026. Geneva, http://www.who.int/servicedeliverysafety/areas/people-centred-care/en . (2015, accessed 13 April 2024). 10. Plochg T, Klazinga NS. Community-based integrated care: myth or must? Int J Qual Health Care. 2002;14:91–101. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 11. Eastwood JG, Jalaludin BB, Kemp LA. Realist explanatory theory building method for social epidemiology: a protocol for a mixed method multilevel study of neighbourhood context and postnatal depression. Springerplus. 2014;3:12. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 12. Eastwood JG, Shaw M, Garg P, et al. Designing an integrated care initiative for vulnerable families: operationalisation of realist causal and programme theory, Sydney Australia. Int J Integr Care. 2019. 10.5334/ijic.3980. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 13. Katz I. Community interventions for vulnerable children and families: participation and power. Communities, Children and Families Australia, https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/informit.196925594250947 (2007, accessed 14 April 2024). 14. Eastwood JG, Kemp LA, Garg P, et al. A critical realist translational social epidemiology protocol for concretising and contextualising a “theory of neighbourhood context, stress, depression, and the developmental origins of health and disease (DOHaD)”, Sydney Australia. Int J Integr Care. 2019. 10.5334/IJIC.3962. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 15. Uribe G, Mukumbang F, Moore C, et al. How can we define social care and what are the levels of true integration in integrated care? A narrative review. Social care in the context of integrated care 43. J Integr Care. 2023; 31: 1476–9018. 16. Balasubramanian BA, Cohen DJ, Jetelina KK, et al. Outcomes of integrated behavioral health with primary care. J Am Board Fam Med. 2017;30:130–9. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 17. Kolko DJ, Campo J, Kilbourne AM, et al. Collaborative care outcomes for pediatric behavioral health problems: a cluster randomized trial. Pediatrics. 2014;133:e981. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 18. Chuah XJ, Aw CB, Ong PN, et al. Receptivity towards remote service delivery among social work clients and practitioners during COVID times: a systematic review. J Evid Based Soc Work. 2023;20:800–39. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 19. Hersch E, Cohen KA, Saklecha A, et al. Remote-delivered services during COVID-19: a mixed-methods survey of college counseling center clinicians. J Am Coll Health. 2024. 10.1080/07448481.2022.2038178. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 20. Pascoe KM. Remote service delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic: questioning the impact of technology on relationship-based social work practice. Br J Soc Work. 2022;52:3268–87. [ Google Scholar ] 21. Ashcroft R, Sur D, Greenblatt A, et al. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on social workers at the frontline: a survey of Canadian social workers. Br J Soc Work. 2021;52:bcab158. 22. Pollock D, Peters MDJ, Khalil H, et al. Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2023;21:520–32. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 23. Peters MDJ, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, et al. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13:141–6. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 24. 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. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 25. Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, et al. Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols. JBI Evid Synth. 2022;20:953–68. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 26. Cleo G, Scott AM, Islam F, et al. Usability and acceptability of four systematic review automation software packages: a mixed method design. Syst Rev. 2019;8:1–5. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 27. Hilton M. JBI critical appraisal checklist for systematic reviews and research syntheses. J Can Health Libr Assoc. 2024;45:180. [ Google Scholar ] 28. Bullock HL, Lavis JN, Wilson MG, et al. Understanding the implementation of evidence-informed policies and practices from a policy perspective: a critical interpretive synthesis. Implement Sci. 2021;16:1–24. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 29. Conrad DA, Dowling WL. Vertical integration in health services: theory and managerial implications. Health Care Manage Rev. 1990;15:9–22. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 30. Gale NK, Heath G, Cameron E, et al. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:1–8. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Associated Data This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. Supplementary Materials Supplementary Material 1 (14.7KB, docx) Supplementary Material 2 (84.5KB, docx) Data Availability Statement The data available is secondary data and is available as part of the study. Articles from Systematic Reviews are provided here courtesy of BMC ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (1.3 MB) Cite Collections Permalink PERMALINK Copy RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Cite Copy Download .nbib .nbib Format: AMA APA MLA NLM Add to Collections Create a new collection Add to an existing collection Name your collection * Choose a collection Unable to load your collection due to an error Please try again Add Cancel Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top