Matt Mason

Purpose and Rationale This project is a scoping review examining the empirical evidence on the relationship between extreme-right (ER) ideology, including Christo-fascist and Christian nationalist variants, and gender-based violence (GBV). The review addresses a significant and explicitly identified gap in the synthesised evidence base. Despite growing scholarly and policy interest in the intersection of ER ideology and GBV, no scoping review has previously attempted to map this dispersed literature, characterise its scope and methods, or synthesise its findings. The review is being conducted at a moment of considerable social and political urgency, given the documented resurgence of ER movements globally and their associations with rollbacks of women's rights, increases in politically-motivated hate crimes targeting women and gender minorities, and the mainstreaming of misogynist rhetoric in public and online discourse. Background Extreme-right political movements have experienced a substantial resurgence across Western democracies and globally since the early 2000s, with accelerated growth following the 2008 global financial crisis and intensifying through the 2010s and 2020s. These movements are broadly characterised by ultranationalism, authoritarianism, nativism, ethnic or racial hierarchies, and explicit hostility to liberal democratic norms, including gender equality and reproductive rights. A significant subset draws on Christian ideological frameworks, with Christian nationalism and its more radical variant, Christo-fascism, fusing religious fundamentalism with fascist political ideology to advance authoritarian governance and patriarchal social organisation. Gender-based violence encompasses a broad spectrum of harmful behaviours directed at individuals on the basis of their gender, including intimate partner violence, sexual violence, femicide, harassment, reproductive coercion, and the normalisation of misogynistic attitudes. It represents a significant global public health and human rights problem, with the World Health Organisation estimating that approximately one in three women globally has experienced physical or sexual violence in her lifetime. Misogyny has been reconceptualised in the literature not merely as a personal attitude but as a structural and ideological phenomenon functioning as the enforcement mechanism of patriarchal order, a framing directly relevant to understanding how ER ideology may generate, legitimise, or escalate GBV. Review Questions The review is guided by one primary and five secondary questions. The primary question asks what empirical evidence exists on the association between ER political ideology, including Christo-fascist and Christian nationalist variants, and GBV across any setting globally. Secondary questions address the forms of GBV examined in relation to ER ideology; the theoretical frameworks employed to explain the relationship; the research designs and methods used; the demographic and geographic characteristics of study populations; and the gaps in the existing evidence base. Methods The review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews and reported using the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. The protocol is prospectively registered with the Open Science Framework. The review will proceed through six stages: preparation and protocol development; systematic searching; study selection; data extraction; data analysis and presentation; and evidence summarisation and gap identification. A comprehensive search strategy will be executed across six electronic databases: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and Global Index Medicus, developed in consultation with an academic health sciences librarian and supplemented by hand-searching of reference lists and forward citation chasing. All citations will be managed in Covidence. Two independent reviewers will screen titles, abstracts, and full texts against predefined eligibility criteria, with disagreements resolved by consensus or third-party adjudication. A pilot screening phase will be conducted prior to formal screening to ensure consistent application of the criteria. Eligible studies include empirical primary research of any design: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods, published in any language from 1980 to the present, that address both ER ideology and GBV without restriction on geographic or institutional setting. Methodological quality will be assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to contextualise findings, though quality ratings will not be used to exclude studies. Data will be extracted using a structured tool that captures study characteristics, the operationalisation of ER ideology and GBV constructs, theoretical frameworks, key findings, and limitations. Analysis will proceed through descriptive mapping, thematic synthesis, and framework mapping across four dimensions: forms of ER ideology examined, forms of GBV examined, mechanisms linking ER ideology to GBV, and contextual moderating factors. Expected Outcomes The review is expected to produce the first comprehensive map of the empirical evidence base on the relationship between ER ideology and GBV globally. Anticipated outputs include a peer-reviewed publication, conference presentations, and a policy brief for government agencies, non-governmental organisations, and community stakeholders working in GBV prevention and ER radicalisation. All data extraction materials and the PRISMA-ScR flow diagram will be deposited in an open-access repository to facilitate transparency and reproducibility. The review will generate evidence directly informing policy, violence prevention programming, and future primary research, and will explicitly identify geographic, methodological, and population gaps warranting further investigation.

This scoping review aims to identify and synthesise existing evidence on healthcare workers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) relating to standard precautions in low- and middle-income member states of the Pacific Community. Standard precautions are critical for preventing healthcare-associated infections and safeguarding both patients and healthcare personnel, particularly in resource-limited settings. Given the geographic diversity and healthcare challenges in the Pacific region, this review seeks to map the current state of KAP across member countries, highlight regional differences, and identify gaps in research and practice. The review will follow the Arksey and O’Malley framework, be guided by the PRISMA-ScR checklist, and include both peer-reviewed and grey literature. Findings will support future research, policy development, and targeted infection prevention strategies across the Pacific.

Cultural Safety in nursing education is a critical pedagogical and professional standard that ensures the provision of respectful, appropriate, and effective care to culturally diverse populations, particularly Indigenous and marginalised groups. First introduced in Aotearoa New Zealand by Maori nurse Irihapeti Ramsden in the 1990s, Culutral Safety moves beyond cultural awareness and sensitivity to an explicit focus on power imbalances, institutional discrimination, and practitioner reflexivity. It has since been recognised across Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand as an essential educational and clinical standard.

Registered nurses (RNs) represent the largest group of healthcare professionals globally and are fundamental to the delivery of high-quality and safe care across all healthcare settings (World Health Organization, 2025a). Their scope of practice however is not uniform, and can significantly vary between regions, countries and even within healthcare systems. Scope of practice is generally in reference to the range of roles, functions, responsibilities and clinical or direct care activities that nurses are educated, competent and authorised to perform. This scope is determined by regulatory authorities, professional standards, and workplace policies. Finally, scope of practice is dynamic, and responding to evolving health needs, technology and knowledge (International Council of Nurses, 2013, 2021). While there are common elements to nursing practice worldwide, contextual factors often shape the extent of professional autonomy and authority afforded to RNs.

Nurses are the backbone of the Solomon Islands' health system, delivering a majority of the country’s clinical services. Nurses must be empowered with the appropriate training and support to practice safely and provide high-quality healthcare to the Solomon Islands population. Understanding nurses’ scope of practice is crucial to ensure they are well-equipped to meet the needs of the communities they serve. Pilot searches have indicated that there is minimal literature exploring the scope of practice of Registered Nurses in the Solomon Islands.

Traumatic fistula is a devastating but under recognised outcome of sexual violence, representing both a severe physical injury and a profound violation of human rights. Unlike obstetric fistula, which arises from prolonged obstructed labour, traumatic fistula results from direct genital trauma, often associated with rape, sexual torture, or extreme gender-based violence (including sorcery accusation-related violence) (United Nations, 2020).This condition involves an abnormal opening between the vagina and the bladder or rectum, leading to chronic incontinence, infection, and social isolation. Survivors frequently endure lasting psychological distress, stigma and rejection by their families or communities (Grose et al., 2021).

Globally, the true incidence and prevalence of traumatic fistula remain poorly understood.Most available data originate from clinical reports, small case studies, or humanitarian settings in Sub-Saharan Africa, the Great Lakes Region, and parts of South Asia where sexual violence has been used as a weapon of war (Longombe et al., 2008).However, comparable data from non-conflict and community contexts are sparse. The absence of standardised definitions and the frequent conflation of traumatic and obstetric fistula further obscure prevalence estimates (United Nations Population Fund, 2018. Limited surveillance, under-reporting, and sociocultural barriers compound this data gap, leaving the global burden largely invisible in health and policy discourse (Söderqvist et al., 2022).