Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 Nov 14;20(11):e0325012. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0325012

Menopause education of healthcare professionals: A scoping review protocol

C Keye 1,*, Murphy M 2, Saab MM 2, O’ Driscoll M 1
Editor: Fereshteh Behmanesh3
PMCID: PMC12617892  PMID: 41237114

Abstract

The reported lack of adequate menopause care is a significant issue, leaving many women feeling isolated and unsupported as they navigate this transition. The increasing mainstream attention on menopause healthcare highlights the need to evaluate whether healthcare professionals are adequately educated and competent to provide effective care for menopausal women. The aim of this scoping review is to ascertain to what extent undergraduate and post registration healthcare professionals are educated regarding menopause throughout their training and subsequent careers, with a view to informing future educational initiatives. This scoping review will be carried out using the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews checklist. It will include all healthcare professionals relevant to the provision of menopause care, including medical doctors, nurses, midwives, pharmacists, physiotherapists, and psychologists. The search will use the following databases: CINAHL; MEDLINE; EMBASE; APA PsycINFO; ERIC; and Academic Search Complete. Grey literature will be searched using Google Scholar and Open Grey. An academic librarian has been contacted to assist in the development of the search strategy. Covidence online software will be used to manage the screening and data extraction process. Purposely developed data extraction tables will be created by the reviewers. The data will be synthesised and reported narratively.

Introduction

Menopause is defined as the last menstrual period, with perimenopause being the time leading up to the final menses and post-menopause being one year since the final period [13]. The average age of menopause is 51 years [4]. Symptoms of menopause can begin 7–10 years before cessation of menses and can last for up to 12 years post menopause, meaning women can spend up to 22 years experiencing the impacts of menopause [5].

Research shows many women feel unprepared, unsupported, and receive poor practitioner care during menopause transition [68]. It is recommended that an understanding of menopause physiology, signs and symptoms, and impact of menopause are essential for creating an individualised patient management plan [9]. However, clinicians have reported a lack of understanding and treatment of menopause [9], with training gaps leading to half of healthcare professionals (HCPs) studied not being aware of contraindications to prescribing menopausal hormonal treatment [10,11]. Despite the fact that there is no limitation to the length of time women should remain on hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and that the British Menopause Society recommend persistent symptoms usually overrule the risks [12], 2023 data from the United Kingdom (UK) shows that only approximately 15% of women aged between 45–64 use HRT [13]. This can be attributed to several factors, including a shortage of HRT [14], lower prescribing rate in deprived areas [15] and probably most importantly, the impact of the 2002 Women’s Health Initiative trial [16]. This large, long-term study had a profoundly negative impact on the perception and prescribing of HRT. Initial findings in that study suggested that HRT posed more risks than benefits, highlighting increased risks of breast cancer and cardiovascular disease, leading to a significant decline in HRT use, as both patients and healthcare providers became wary of its potential harms [16]. However, it was later shown that this study’s analysis was flawed. It has since been reanalysed, demonstrating that HRT, when initiated at the right time and for the right population, can have significant benefits, including symptom relief, cardiovascular protection, and improved bone health [16].

In 2014, the European Menopause and Andropause Society provided guidance on the importance of medical undergraduate training in menopause [17]. This statement was updated in 2022 to include all HCPs at all stages of their careers, ensuring that knowledge about reproductive ageing and menopause is integrated into all healthcare education and training programs [17]. The British Menopause Society vision statement also agrees that menopause care is multi-disciplinary, and that it is necessary for all HCPs, both in primary and secondary care, to have access to sufficient menopause education [18].

To the best of our knowledge, and based on a preliminary search of CINAHL, Medline, and Embase, only one existing scoping review was found, which explored the menopause education of. HCPs [19]. However, this scoping review only included doctors and did not include other allied HCPs. Therefore, the overarching aim of the current scoping review is to assess the extent of the literature on HCP education on menopause care.

The review questions were developed using the population, concept, and context (PCC) framework as recommended by the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis [16] as follows:

  1. What menopause educational programmes are available for HCPs?

  2. Which HCP(s) have received menopause education?

  3. How has menopause education been delivered?

  4. Where and in what settings has menopause education been delivered?

Methods

This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews [20], and will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), ensuring the scoping review is carried out rigorously, and is transparent and reproducible, enhancing the credibility and utility of the findings (Appendix S1) [21].

  • 1. Inclusion criteria

Review inclusion criteria have been informed by the PCC framework as follows:

Population

  • All HCPs who provide menopause care to women, inclusive of nurses, midwives, doctors, physiotherapists, pharmacists, and psychologists.

  • Undergraduate, postgraduate students and qualified HCPs undertaking Continuing Professional Development.

Concept

This review is focused on exploring the breadth of evidence available on the types of HCPs’ menopause education and training delivered. This review will help identify key concepts, definitions, important learning outcomes, as well as identify specific indicators that can be used to shape the development of research design and a future comprehensive educational model.

Context

The review will include all HCPs who are involved in the provision of menopause-related care in both primary and secondary healthcare settings. There will be no geographical, language, or date limitations placed on the review. All primary research papers relating to menopause education provision will be included. This scoping review will consider quantitative studies such as experimental or quasi-experimental study designs, including randomised and non-randomised controlled trials. This review will also include descriptive observational studies. Qualitative studies will be included with a focus on, but not limited to, study designs such as phenomenology, grounded theory, and qualitative description. Articles, reviews, abstracts, and opinion pieces will not be considered for inclusion.

  • 2. Search strategy

A preliminary search was conducted in MEDLINE to identify relevant free-text and subject heading terms. Keywords were determined through discussions with an academic librarian and the co-authors, and further terms were identified by examining literature during the scoping phase of the search. Using these terms, a comprehensive search strategy for MEDLINE was developed (S2 Appendix). The search strategy will be developed further by all the authors in conjunction with the academic librarian and will aim to locate all relevant published and unpublished studies across CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, APA PsycINFO, ERIC, and Academic Search Complete. The final search strategy will be included in the scoping review. Of note, journals by professional organisations, such as the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, British Menopause Society, International Menopause Society and European Menopause and Andropause Society, are indexed in at least one of the included electronic databases. In addition, we will search the following websites for unpublicised sources: EQUATOR Network (https://www.equator-network.org/); Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (https://www.cebm.net/); Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (https://www.york.ac.uk/crd/); Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (https://casp-uk.net/); McMaster’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (https://hslmcmaster.libguides.com/c.php?g=306765&p=2044668); Evidence Synthesis International (https://evidencesynthesis.org/); JBI (https://JBI.global/); and Campbell Collaboration (Campbell Collaboration (https://campbellcollaboration.org/). We will also conduct a hand search of the included articles to identify any relevant studies [22].

  • 3. Study selection

Firstly, titles and abstracts will be screened against the predefined inclusion criteria. Documents that meet the criteria or require further clarification will advance to the full-text screening stage. Secondly, full-text screening will be conducted to thoroughly assess the full details of the remaining documents. Those that meet the criteria will be included in the review, while the remaining will be excluded, with the reason for exclusion documented. Thirdly, the reference list of all included papers will be hand-searched to source any additional relevant papers for inclusion. A PRISMA [23] flowchart will be used to illustrate the study screening process. Covidence online software will be used to assist in the automatic deletion of duplicated articles, with an additional manual screening for these conducted [24]. Title, abstract, and full text screenings will be conducted by two reviewers independently. Any disagreements that arise between the reviewers at each stage of the selection process will be resolved by a third independent reviewer.

  • 4. Data extraction

Two data extraction tables have been drafted to collect all data of relevance to the review (S3 Appendix, S4 Appendix). The use of the data extraction tools reduces transcription errors, ensures all relevant information is collected, assists in checking accuracy and acts as a record of information collected [25]. Data extraction tables will be checked and validated by a second reviewer in line with best practice to reduce extraction errors [26]. The reviewers will firstly record general information such as the author(s), publication year, the country and setting of the research, as well as the population size, participants’ profession, aims of the study and methodology (S3 Appendix). A second data extraction table has been developed to extrapolate specific details around the education provided to address the aims of the review (S4 Appendix). The draft data extraction tables will be modified and revised as necessary during the process of extracting data from each included evidence source. Modifications will be detailed in the scoping review.

  • 5. Data analysis and presentation

Data will be synthesised by addressing the four key questions outlined in the review. By organising the findings into these categories, we will visualise relationships between the concepts, highlighting areas where consensus/contradictions exist to identify any gaps in the literature. The results will be reported narratively with diagrams, charts, or narrative maps to show relationships between themes. We will include descriptive statistics as appropriate. As this scoping review progresses, emergent themes or concepts not initially anticipated may arise. Given the iterative nature of scoping review methodologies [20,21], the framework will remain flexible to accommodate new insights. Any modifications to the structure or approach will be documented in the final review, ensuring transparency.

Limitations

The authors will do their utmost to reduce study selection bias by using translation software to include non-English papers and optimising the search strategy to identify all relevant papers. There may also be limitations regarding searching grey literature, with some papers not being identified in the search due to a lack of controlled vocabulary.

Conclusion

This scoping review aims to identify gaps in the literature to provide a platform for further evidence-based research on HCPs menopause education. This will subsequently serve to inform the development of a framework for future studies on service planning and delivery of menopause education for HCPs’.This article describes a protocol for a scoping review. The full results and any associated datasets will be made available in a subsequent publication upon completion of the scoping review.

Supporting information

S1 File. PRISMA protocol checklist.

(DOCX)

pone.0325012.s001.docx (18.9KB, docx)
S2Appendix. Search strategy.

(DOCX)

pone.0325012.s002.docx (15.9KB, docx)
S3 Appendix. Data extraction table 1.

(DOCX)

pone.0325012.s003.docx (17.4KB, docx)
S4 Appendix. Data extractions table 2.

(DOCX)

pone.0325012.s004.docx (18.8KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge Siobhan Bowman, Academic Librarian, University College Cork, for assisting in the development of the search strategy for this scoping review.

Data Availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.

Funding Statement

The authors would like to acknowledge that C. Keye is in receipt of a PhD scholarship from the School of Pharmacy, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.

References

Decision Letter 0

Fereshteh Behmanesh

15 Aug 2025

Dear Dr. Keye

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 29 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Fereshteh Behmanesh, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.-->--> -->-->Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at -->-->https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and -->-->https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf-->--> -->-->2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: -->-->The authors would like to acknowledge that C. Keye is in receipt of a PhD scholarship from the School of Pharmacy, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.   -->--> -->-->Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." -->-->If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. -->-->Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.-->--> -->-->3. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.-->--> -->-->4. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. ?>

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Reviewer 1

In the search strategy, it is advisable to also search citing articles of known studies, so I would include this in the strategy. Also, with Open Grey not having been updated recently (archived in 2021), instead of searching this repository, I would suggest instead searching the websites of known organizations invovled in menopause and/or medical and health care professional education. For example, FIGO and its members or the Menopause Society. You can likely use the peer-reviewed literature to find references to useful groups.

Will the searches be included in the appendix of the final paper or archived somewhere else? This should be clear.

Reviewer 2

In the search phase, consider including the following websites to help identify pertinent unpublished sources.

EQUATOR Network (https://www.equator-network.org/);

Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (https://www.cebm.net/);

Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (https://www.york.ac.uk/crd/);

Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (https://casp-uk.net/);

McMaster's Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (https://hslmcmaster.libguides.com/c.php?g=306765&p=2044668);

Evidence Synthesis International (https://evidencesynthesis.org/);

JBI (https://JBI.global/);

Campbell Collaboration (https://campbellcollaboration.org/).

Reviewers' comments:

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

Reviewer #1:  Thank you for the opportunity to review this protocol. It is well written according to the JBI standard and needs very few minor revisions.

In the search strategy, it is advisable to also search citing articles of known studies, so I would include this in the strategy. Also, with Open Grey not having been updated recently (archived in 2021), instead of searching this repository, I would suggest instead searching the websites of known organizations invovled in menopause and/or medical and health care professional education. For example, FIGO and its members or the Menopause Society. You can likely use the peer-reviewed literature to find references to useful groups.

Will the searches be included in the appendix of the final paper or archived somewhere else? This should be clear.

Reviewer #2:  In the search phase, consider including the following websites to help identify pertinent unpublished sources.

EQUATOR Network (https://www.equator-network.org/);

Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (https://www.cebm.net/);

Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (https://www.york.ac.uk/crd/);

Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (https://casp-uk.net/);

McMaster's Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (https://hslmcmaster.libguides.com/c.php?g=306765&p=2044668);

Evidence Synthesis International (https://evidencesynthesis.org/);

JBI (https://JBI.global/);

Campbell Collaboration (https://campbellcollaboration.org/).

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: Yes:  Amanda Ross-White

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org

PLoS One. 2025 Nov 14;20(11):e0325012. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0325012.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


27 Aug 2025

Hi, Thank you for your feedback. We have attached a document in response you your recommendations.

Attachment

Submitted filename: response to plos one final.docx

pone.0325012.s005.docx (22.2KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Fereshteh Behmanesh

20 Oct 2025

Menopause education of healthcare professionals: A scoping review protocol

PONE-D-25-24077R1

Dear Dr. Catriona Keye,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Fereshteh Behmanesh, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

Reviewer #2: I have no further comments, as all previous feedback has been thoughtfully incorporated. Congratulations!

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer 1.docx

pone.0325012.s006.docx (13.4KB, docx)

Acceptance letter

Fereshteh Behmanesh

PONE-D-25-24077R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Keye,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Fereshteh Behmanesh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. PRISMA protocol checklist.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0325012.s001.docx (18.9KB, docx)
    S2Appendix. Search strategy.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0325012.s002.docx (15.9KB, docx)
    S3 Appendix. Data extraction table 1.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0325012.s003.docx (17.4KB, docx)
    S4 Appendix. Data extractions table 2.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0325012.s004.docx (18.8KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: response to plos one final.docx

    pone.0325012.s005.docx (22.2KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewer 1.docx

    pone.0325012.s006.docx (13.4KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES