Cultural, sociopolitical, environmental and built assets supporting health and well-being in Torres Strait Island communities: protocol for a scoping review

Introduction Risks to an individual’s health should be considered alongside the environmental, sociocultural and sociopolitical context(s) in which they live. Environmental mapping is an approach to identifying enablers and barriers to health within a community. The Indigenous Indicator Classification System (IICS) framework has been used to map the environment in Australian Indigenous communities. The IICS is a four-level nested hierarchical framework with subject groups including culture, sociopolitical and built at the top of the hierarchy and indicators at the bottom. The objective of this scoping review is to map the cultural, sociopolitical, environmental and built assets that support health and well-being that exist in each Torres Strait Island community. Methods and analysis This review will be conducted according the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) method for scoping reviews. It will include sources that identify cultural, sociopolitical, environmental and built assets that support health and well-being that exist in each Torres Strait Island community. Databases to be searched include: Informit; Scopus; Web of Science; HealthInfoNet, BioOne Complete and Green File. Sources of unpublished and grey literature will be located using Google and Google Scholar. Searches will be limited to the English language and literature published since January 2018 to ensure that the assets mapped reflect current conditions on each island. Data that answers the research question will be extracted from sources and recorded in an adaptation of the IICS. Quantitative analysis of the data will include summing each asset for individual islands and their associated clusters. Data will be presented graphically, diagrammatically, or in tabular form depending on what approach best conveys its meaning. Ethics and dissemination The Far North Queensland Human Research Ethics Committee (reference HREC/2022/QCH/88 155-1624) has approved this study. Dissemination of the review’s findings will be led by Torres Strait Islander members of the research team through conferences and peer-reviewed publications.


GENERAL COMMENTS
Thanks to the authors for the work and to the editor for allowing me to review this paper.But personally, I don't find the work relevant to the scientific community.It's too community-oriented and will probably be suitable for a local journal.The method is not sufficiently clear and looks like a mixture of several methodologies, including PRISMA.There's a lot of ambiguity, and even the way it's written, or even the way some of the authors are cited, isn't right.I didn't see any results, discussion or even a conclusion to the study.The introduction is a little too light.I was expecting to see a map as the authors were talking about mapping, but I was left wanting more.Personally, I'm not in favor of publishing this paper, at least as long as it's in its current format.It would need to be greatly improved before it could be published.Also, the study area is not presented, the characteristics of the community studied and many other things are missing from this study.

GENERAL COMMENTS
Thank you for the opportunity to review Cultural, socio-political, environmental, and built assets supporting health and wellbeing in Torres Strait Island communities: Protocol for a scoping review.This is a novel approach to assessing health and well-being in Australian Indigenous communities looking at both risk and protective factors in the environment.Page 5 line 4-5 needs a reference The description of the IICS is well done but it is complex.Fig. 1 is a very important illustration but is it possible to have more detail in the figure e.g. two subject groups to illustrate the system?All of them would be good but perhaps that requires too much detail?P.8 were any sources found in the initial search testing the search criteria?I would expect the grey literature to be a better source of information for this topic that the peer reviewed databases.More detail on the strategy for the grey lit search would be helpful.P.9 how does the data extraction tool adapt the IICS?Have you tried Covidence for reviewing -fantastic software especially for multiple reviewers Overall very well written manuscript, protocol clearly described and logical.
Excellent introduction to the project.

Comment How addressed Page
1. Work not relevant to the scientific community.It is too community-orientated and more suitable for a local journal.
Thank you for your perspective on the relevance of this protocol to the wider scientific community.We acknowledge that the context for our work is relatively small on a global scale.However, our approach to utilising an indicator scale that accounts for Indigenous peoples' holistic conceptualisation of the interaction between the environment and their health and wellbeing may be of interest to other researchers globally.In addition, it may also be of interest to researchers working with Indigenous communities globally who are often more significantly impacted by the affects of climate change.
n/a 2. Method not sufficiently clear and looks like a mixture of several methodologies including PRISMA Thank you for your comment.We have reviewed the Methods and Analysis section of the protocol for readability and made changes where necessary.
As this manuscript describes the protocol for a systematic scoping review, we have integrated the JBI methodology for scoping reviews which includes the PRISMA guidelines and associated flow chart.
To identify the assets in each of the island communities we have used a previously published framework, the Indigenous Indicator Classification System (1-5) 6-10

A lot of ambiguity and citation of authors
Thank you for this observation.We have reviewed author citations, and all now align with BMJs requirements for citations.
We have reviewed and edited the text for possible ambiguity.However, without specific examples it is difficult to address your perception of ambiguity.
3-11 4. No results, discussion or conclusion to the study, The manuscript describes a protocol for a systematic scoping review.It does not describe the findings of a study and therefore does not contain results, a discussion and conclusion of a research study.
We have included additional introductory sentences to 3