Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol

Maria Pierce; Andrew Darley; Attracta Lafferty

doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.14047.1

Home Browse Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Study Protocol

Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol

[version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]

Maria Pierce ¹, Andrew Darley², Attracta Lafferty²

PUBLISHED 23 Jan 2025

Author details Author details

¹ Applied Social Studies, Maynooth University, Maynooth, County Kildare, Ireland
² University College Dublin School of Nursing Midwifery and Health Systems, Dublin, Leinster, Ireland

Maria Pierce
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Andrew Darley
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Attracta Lafferty
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Student carers in higher education institutions (HEIs) is an emerging policy issue in many countries. Researchers have sought to synthesise the literature on student carers in HEIs. Runacres et al. (2024) conducted a scoping review, which included 14 studies, and Knopf et al. (2022) conducted a systematic review of university students who are caring for an older adult, which included six studies. These reviews identified some key themes discussed in the literature. However, there are further areas of discussion that have yet to be explored in the evidence to date. This observation is in the context of a growing body of international literature published on the topic and the greater visibility of family carers post-pandemic. One key area yet to be examined is the policy and practice responses to student carers in HEIs in different countries. The scope of this review will be broader than previous reviews with a specific focus on policy and practice responses regarding this population. This scoping review will: examine definitional issues concerning student carers in HEIs; summarise studies from different countries that provide estimates of the number of student carers in HEIs; identify theoretical perspectives and concepts underpinning research on this topic; and assess the available evidence on the value and outcomes of supports. The 5-stage methodological framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) will be used to guide this scoping review, as described in detail in this protocol. The findings of the scoping review will be used to inform the enhancement of supports for student carers in HEIs. A range of vehicles will be used to disseminate the findings, including conference presentations, publication in an international peer-reviewed journal, and preparation of a policy brief to disseminate the findings of this scoping review to policymakers and other relevant stakeholders.

Keywords

family care, student carers, higher education institutions, policy

Corresponding author: Maria Pierce

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright: © 2025 Pierce M et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Pierce M, Darley A and Lafferty A. Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. HRB Open Res 2025, 8:9 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14047.1) First published: 23 Jan 2025, 8:9 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14047.1) Latest published: 23 Jan 2025, 8:9 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14047.1)

Introduction

Background and rationale

Student carers in higher education institutes (HEIs) can be defined as any student enrolled in a HEI ‘who cares, unpaid, for a friend or family member who due to illness, disability, a mental health problem or an addiction cannot cope without their support’ (Carers Trust, 2015: 7). There is a growing body of knowledge and evidence on student carers in HEIs. Researchers have sought to synthesise the literature. Runacres et al. (2024) undertook a scoping review to collate, synthesise and map key concepts across the literature. The review, which included 14 studies published up to early 2020, identified the following six themes: impact of caring on student health; impact on university performance, decisions and social life; finance and employment during higher education; impact on study and ability to care; formal supports; and informal supports. Knopf et al. (2022) conducted a systematic review of university students caring for an older adult, which included six studies published between 1998 and 2020. The review identified four core themes: student pathways into care; challenges entailed in reconciling the responsibilities of caregiving and studying; impacts of being a student carer and its implications for higher education; and support structures for caregiving students. There are some areas of discussion that have yet to be explored. As student carers in HEIs is an emerging policy issue in Ireland (Pierce, 2024) and many other counties, the policy and practice responses to student carers in HEIs in different countries is one aspect that needs to be explored and synthesised. Since March 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic has contributed to making carers more visible, including those studying in HEIs. The situation and experience of student carers in HEIs post-pandemic is another aspect that needs to be explored.

The body of international literature published on the topic has grown since May 2020 (e.g. Armstrong-Carter et al., 2022; Chevrier et al., 2023; Day, 2021; Haugland et al., 2020; Munro et al., 2024; Rawlinson, 2024; Taylor et al., 2023; van der Werf et al., 2023). As well as the need to examine policy and practice responses in different countries, there is a need to explore other aspects not covered by existing reviews. In this scoping review, the scope will be extended to examine definitional issues with respect to student carers in HEIs; summarise studies from different countries providing estimates of the prevalence of student carers in HEIs; identify theoretical perspectives and concepts underpinning research on this topic; examine policy responses to student carers in HEIs across different countries; and assess the available evidence on the value and outcomes of supports.

The findings of the proposed scoping review will be used to inform the enhancement of supports for student carers in HEIs. A scoping review has been chosen for this evidence synthesis over other types of literature reviews. The reasons for this are that the review aims to address a broad question on this topic and examine the extent, range and nature of research studies on this topic. It seeks to include studies conducted on this topic using many different study designs, but it is not intended to assess the quality of included studies.

Research aims and objectives

The overall aim of the scoping review is to collate and synthesise what is known from the existing literature about student carers in HEIs. A key focus will be on the policy and practice responses to student carers in HEIs in different countries. The scoping review has several objectives, which are to identify: how student carers in HEIs are typically defined in policy, research and practice; what methodologies are used in research on student carers in HEIs; which theoretical perspectives and concepts underpin research students on student carers in HEIs; estimates of the prevalence of student carers in HEIs and methods used in producing these estimates; the main characteristics of student carers in HEIs; the main impacts of student caring in HEIs for students and staff; and the evidence that exists on approaches developed to identify and support student carers in HEIs.

Larkin and Kubiak (2021: 142) propose adopting the term ‘caring-experienced students’ (not to be confused with care-experienced students) as it is inclusive of ‘students who are, become or have been a carer’ and recognises the several vulnerabilities that all these students are likely to experience. This scoping review adopts the term ‘caring-experienced students’ to mean students in HEIs who are, become or have been caring, unpaid, for a friend or family member who due to illness, disability, a mental health problem or an addiction cannot cope without support. In our use of the term, we include students who are caring for a sibling where a family member is experiencing a physical or mental health problem and students who are parents caring for a child with a chronic illness or mental health problem, but not caregiving for children more broadly.

Methods

The scoping review is informed by the methodological framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley (2005), which proposes a five stage framework. Hence, the review process follows the following five stages:

Stage 1: Identifying the research question
Stage 2: Identifying relevant studies
Stage 3: Study selection and screening
Stage 4: Charting the data and data extraction
Stage 5: Collating, summarising and reporting the results

The approach that will be taken to each of these stages is outlined in greater detail below. A consultation exercise will not be conducted as part of the review, although consultation with a group of student carers or with access/support staff in HEIs will be considered for any future research projects on this topic.

The authors used the guidance and template developed by Lely et al. (2023) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) (Tricco et al., 2018) for writing this scoping review protocol. The PRISMA ScR (Tricco et al., 2018) is the reporting guideline that will be used for writing the final scoping review manuscript.

Stage 1: identifying the research question

The first methodological stage when undertaking a scoping review is to determine the focus of the research questions (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). Following a preliminary review of the literature, the research team has identified an overall research question to guide the scoping review, as follows: What is known from the existing literature about student carers in higher education institutions, with a key focus on the policy and practice responses to student carers in different countries? The following research questions will also guide the scoping review:

What definitions of student carers in HEIs are typically adopted?
What estimates of the number/proportion of student carers in HEIs have been produced, and what methods are used for producing estimates?
What are the main socio-demographic characteristics of student carers in HEIs?
What theoretical perspectives and concepts underpin research studies on student carers in HEIs?
What type of studies have been conducted and what methods have been used?
What are the experiences and impacts of student caring in HEIs for students and staff?
What evidence exists on approaches developed to identify and support student carers in HEIs?

Stage 2: identifying relevant studies

For the second stage of the scoping review, the authors will develop a search strategy for the purposes of identifying all relevant literature related to student carers in higher education. Relevant literature includes publications that have a principal focus on evidence regarding student carers attending higher level education. Sources of evidence will be peer-reviewed empirical studies (qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods), reviews, conference abstracts, book chapters as well as grey literature. The author team will use a three-step search strategy in this scoping review. This follows the recommendations by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Manual for Evidence Synthesis (Peters et al., 2020). First, the author team will conduct an initial search of two databases, i.e., Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA) and Education Resources Information Centre (ERIC). Second, they will conduct an analysis of the text words contained in the title and abstract of retrieved papers, and of the index terms used to describe the articles. The author team will use the ‘PCC’ mnemonic (i.e., population, concept and context) to frame the research question and the subsequent search. In the current review, this refers to:

Population: Students who are attending higher level education while also providing unpaid care
Concept: Caring for a family member while studying within higher level education
Context: Higher Education Institutions

The second step entailing a second search using all identified keywords and index terms will then be undertaken across all included databases. Search terms will focus on two core concepts: "students caring for a family member" and "higher education". Databases to be searched include MEDLINE, ERIC, PsycINFO, Cumulated Index in Nursing and Allied Health Literature. (CINAHL), ASSIA and the British Education Index. The search will also include synonyms and related terms to ensure comprehensive coverage. Boolean operators (AND, OR) and truncation (*) will be applied to refine the search. Based on this exploratory scoping phase, the search strings for each database will be finalised. Database searches are intended to commence in January 2025. The proposed search terms which will be used to develop the search strategy are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Search terms.

PCC	Concept	Search Terms
Population	Family	“Famil” OR "Family"[Mesh] OR “sibling” OR "Siblings"[Mesh] OR “spous” OR "Spouses"[Mesh] OR “relative” OR “wife” OR “wives” OR “husband” OR “partner” OR “significant other” OR “next of kin” OR “kinship” OR “father” OR “mother” OR “daughter” OR “son” OR “child” OR “brother” OR “sister” OR “informal” OR “unpaid” OR “non-professional” OR “parent*” OR "Parents"[Mesh]
	AND
	Carer	“Care” OR “caregiver” OR “care-giver” OR “caregiving” OR “care-giving” OR “caring” OR “unpaid care” OR “Family care” OR "Caregivers"[Mesh]) OR “eldercare” OR “elder-care” OR “elder care”
Concept	Student	"student" OR "Students"[Mesh] OR “young adult” OR “Young Adult"[Mesh] OR “undergrad” OR “postgrad” OR “‘graduate” OR “graduand” OR freshman OR “sophomore” OR “scholar” OR “registrant” OR “doctora” OR “phd” OR “master” OR “College Senior” OR “Two Year College Student”
Context	Higher Education	"higher education" OR "HEI" OR "university" OR "college" OR "tertiary education" OR "postsecondary education" OR “institut” OR “education” OR “post-18 education” OR “third level” OR “higher level education” OR “academic institution” OR "Education, Graduate"[Mesh] OR "Universities"[Mesh]

The third step will involve hand searching of the reference lists of identified reports and articles to identify any additional sources. Where it is deemed necessary, the reviewers will contact authors of primary articles or reviews for further information. The reviewers will also undertake a search for grey material, such as unpublished work, conferences, reports, and website information. Each database search will combine terms related to both the student carer role and higher education institutions. Grey literature search will be also performed using the term ‘student carer’ in a range of education-related evidence sources and data-hubs linked to relevant family carer organisations such as The Carer’s Trust and Eurocarers. Additionally, the following key journals will be hand-searched to identify articles that have been missed through the electronic database search: International Journal of Inclusive Education; Journal of Further and Higher Education; Higher Education, Research & Development; International Journal of Care and Caring.

The full search strategy for at least one of the major databases used will be included as an appendix to the scoping review manuscript (Tricco et al., 2018).

Stage 3: study selection and screening

Before commencing screening of the evidence found from the search strategy, the author team will discuss and decide on the inclusion criteria to ensure that all team members have a shared interpretation of the criteria. In line with the methodological guidance from Arksey and O’Malley (2005), the final inclusion and exclusion criteria will be refined based on increasing familiarity with the body of literature and type of data available. The authors seek to restrict the synthesise to the last 25 years of evidence on this topic, because of the dearth of evidence prior to the year 2000, as highlighted by Runacres et al. (2024). Table 2 presents the initial inclusion criteria for the scoping review. The full list of eligibility criteria (e.g., the search period, language, and publication status) and rationale will be provided in the scoping review manuscript (Tricco et al., 2018).

Table 2. Inclusion criteria.

Inclusion Criteria

Exclusion Criteria

1. Studies focusing on students in higher education with caregiving
responsibilities.
2. Research on the impact of caregiving on students’ academic
performance, well-being, institutional experiences or policy/practices.
3. Studies addressing interventions, support mechanisms, or policies
aimed at student carers.
4. Research articles, reviews, conference abstracts, working papers,
reports, books and book chapters.
5. Written in English (the language understood by the authors).
6. Published between 2000 and 2024.

1. Studies focusing solely on carers
outside higher education (e.g., adult
carers not in higher educational settings).
2. Research focusing on student carers in
secondary or primary school.
3. Studies that do not include a clear focus
on student caregiving or higher education
institutions.
4. Not written in English.

Once the searches have been completed within all relevant databases, retrieved articles will be imported into the reference management software, Endnote 21. To ensure that each study retrieved is not repeated, duplicate records will be identified and removed within Endnote. This will provide a more reliable final set of studies. For the purposes of screening of the retrieved literature, this set of articles will be imported into the systematic review software tool, Covidence (www.covidence.org). Using this software, the reviewers will conduct a final check to ensure that remaining duplicate studies have been identified and removed. Pilot-testing of the screening process will then be conducted using Covidence. This will involve selecting a random sample (e.g., n=25) of the articles retrieved. This will be followed by screening of each article, based on title and abstract, which will be conducted independently by two team members. The independent review is aimed at reducing screening bias. The purpose of the screening is to determine if an article is to be included or excluded and will use the pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Following the title and abstract screening, the included articles will be subjected to full-text screening, conducted independently by two reviewers. If a consensus regarding inclusion and exclusion is not reached between the two reviewers, this will be resolved by the decision of a third team member. The process of study selection will be reported using the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Once the review is completed, the reporting of this process will be updated and provided in the scoping review manuscript (Tricco et al., 2018).

Stage 4: data charting/collection/extraction

The author team will develop and agree on an Excel data extraction template and the extraction variations, and the studies retrieved through the search and screening process that meet the inclusion criteria will be inputted in the spreadsheet. The type of data that will be extracted will help to answer the scoping review’s overall research question and objectives. These include author(s), year of publication, country of publication, disciplinary background, definition of ‘student carer’, theoretical frameworks, study aims, study design, methods adopted, type of data collected, study population, and main findings. The rules for data extraction will be agreed by the author team and stored in a shared folder. The methods of charting, collecting and extracting data will be fully described in the scoping review manuscript (Tricco et al., 2018).

Stage 5: collating, summarising and reporting the results

The data extracted will be collated, synthesised and presented numerically and thematically in a meaningful way (e.g., using tables, figures, diagrams). A PRISMA flow diagram will be used to provide a visual overview, depicting the screening process and showing the number of sources of evidence reviewed, assessed for eligibility and included in the review, and the number excluded at each stage. The characteristics regarding the sources of evidence and results of individual sources of data will be presented (Tricco et al., 2018). Using reflexive thematic analysis, the paper will be summarised in a way that answers the scoping review’s research questions (Braun & Clarke, 2019). For the purposes of validation, a second author team member will review and check the results. The limitations of the scoping review process will be reported (Tricco et al., 2018).

Dissemination

By summarising in detail the findings and range of research on the topic of student carers in HEIs, this scoping review will provide a mechanism for disseminating key research findings to a range of relevant stakeholders including policy makers, HEIs, student unions, community and voluntary sector organisations with an interest in family carers, and student carers, who might otherwise lack time or resources to undertake such work themselves.

It is intended to present the findings at relevant conferences and to publish the findings of this scoping review in an international peer-reviewed journal, e.g. International Journal of Inclusive Education or Journal of Further and Higher Education. It is intended to prepare a policy brief to disseminate the findings of this scoping review to policymakers and other stakeholders.

Conclusion

The primary objective of this scoping review is to build on existing reviews of student carers in HEIs and address areas of discussion not yet covered. It will collate, summarise and map what is known from the existing literature about student carers in higher education institutions, with a particular focus on the policy and practice responses. Other areas to be addressed include: examining definitional issues with respect to student carers in HEIs; summarising studies from different countries providing available estimates of the number of students carers in HEIs; identifying theoretical perspectives and concepts underpinning research on this topic; and providing evidence that exists on approaches developed to identify and support student carers in HEIs. This scoping review will thus provide updated and valuable information for dissemination to a wide range of relevant stakeholders including policy makers and HEIs.

Ethics

Ethical approval is not required for this evidence synthesis study.

Data availability

No data are associated with this study.

Extended data

No extended data are associated with this study.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the University College Dublin Research Engagement Librarian, Diarmuid Stokes, for their support in refining the scoping review search terms.

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

Arksey H, O'Malley L: Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005; 8(1): 19–32. Publisher Full Text
Armstrong-Carter E, Panter AT, Hutson B, et al.: A university-wide survey of caregiving students in the US: individual differences and associations with emotional and academic adjustment. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2022; 9(1): 300. Publisher Full Text
Braun V, Clarke V: Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Res Sport Exercise Health. 2019; 11(4): 589–597. Publisher Full Text
Carers Trust: Supporting students with caring responsibilities: ideas and practice for universities to help student carers access and succeed in Higher Education. London: Carers Trust, 2015. Reference Source
Chevrier B, Untas A, Dorard G: Young adult caregivers in Higher Education: a study of prevalence in France. J Further High Educ. 2023; 47(5): 699–710. Publisher Full Text
Day C: An empirical case study of young adult carers' engagement and success in Higher Education. Int J Inclus Educ. 2021; 25(14): 1597–1615. Publisher Full Text
Haugland BSM, Hysing M, Sivertsen B: The burden of care: a national survey on the prevalence, demographic characteristics and health problems among Young Adult Carers attending Higher Education in Norway. Front Psychol. 2020; 10: 2859. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Knopf L, Wazinski K, Wanka A, et al.: Caregiving students: a systematic literature review of an under-researched group. J Further High Educ. 2022; 46(6): 822–835. Publisher Full Text
Larkin M, Kubiak C: Carers and Higher Education: where next? Widen Participat Lifelong Learn. 2021; 23(2): 130–151. Publisher Full Text
Lely J, Morris HC, Sasson N, et al.: How to write a scoping review protocol: guidance and template.OSF, 2023. Publisher Full Text
Munro D, Willis J, Gibson A, et al.: From inside the head to putting it on the table: supporting reflexive decision-making for unpaid female carers considering Higher Education. Reflect Pract. 2024; 25(3): 426–440. Publisher Full Text
Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, et al.: Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020; 18(10): 2119–2126. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Pierce M: Student carers in Higher Education institutions in Ireland: an emerging policy issue. Dublin: UCD Geary Institute for Public Policy, 2024. Reference Source
Rawlinson S: 'Little Islands': challenges and opportunities for student carers in Higher Education. Int J Inclus Educ. 2024; 1–16. Publisher Full Text
Runacres J, Herron D, Buckless K, et al.: Student carer experiences of Higher Education and support: a scoping review. Int J Inclus Educ. 2024; 28(7): 1275–1292. Publisher Full Text
Taylor J, Gleeson P, Teague T, et al.: Practices of inclusion for carers who are Higher Education students. Int J Inclus Educ. 2023; 27(13): 1469–1486. Publisher Full Text
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al.: PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018; 169(7): 467–473. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
van der Werf HM, Paans W, Francke AL, et al.: Identifying and supporting students with a chronically Ill family member: a mixed-methods study on the perceived competences and role views of lecturers. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023; 20(6): 4978. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 23 Jan 2025

Author details Author details

¹ Applied Social Studies, Maynooth University, Maynooth, County Kildare, Ireland
² University College Dublin School of Nursing Midwifery and Health Systems, Dublin, Leinster, Ireland

Maria Pierce
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Andrew Darley
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Attracta Lafferty
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Article Versions (1)

version 1

Published: 23 Jan 2025, 8:9

https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14047.1

© 2025 Pierce M et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

VIEWS

465

downloads

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Pierce M, Darley A and Lafferty A. Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. HRB Open Res 2025, 8:9 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14047.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 23 Jan 2025

Views

Reviewer Report 04 Mar 2025

Peter Unwin, University of Worcester, Worcester, UK

Approved

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15424.r45954

This is a well-written proposal on an important issue that has not been fully addressed by previous research.
The structure flows well and it would appear that key extant literature is already known to the authors, who set out an ambitious project.
It will be challenging to compare different countries' experiences, and to make reliable comparators. Contextual factors such as levels of fees / complexities in any 'carers' allowances' and percentages of 'study at home' / flexi studies in different disciplines will be very different across countries. Depending on how manageable the logistics appear, it might be worth narrowing the scope to specific disciplines which might allow for more validity comparisons to be drawn. For example, some disciplines ( history/ languages, literature) lend themselves more to flexi - hours whereas certain science subjects demand on-campus lab time and vocational courses such as nursing and social work have considerable placement demands, with very little in-built flexibility. It may , of course, be that the team find that the study foci of caring-experienced students reflect a tendency toward certain subjects.
Another factor of interest, which might be a challenge too far, is to consider cohorts which became carers after their studies had commenced as compared to those who applied to HEIs when they were already carers.
On a point of detail, I note the team's preference for the term 'caring-experienced students' but that the proposed research questions use the term 'student carers'.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Voices of service users and carers in education -Marginalised groups - Social Inclusion- Disability

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 10 Sep 2025

Maria Pierce, Applied Social Studies, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Ireland

10 Sep 2025

Author Response

We wish to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our submissions and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled ‘Student Carers ... Continue reading We wish to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our submissions and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled ‘Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol’. We have carefully considered each comment. Below, we provide a detailed response to each point raised, as well as supporting references, which we believe will strengthen the manuscript considerably.

Comment: This is a well-written proposal on an important issue that has not been fully addressed by previous research. The structure flows well and it would appear that key extant literature is already known to the authors, who set out an ambitious project.

Response: Thank-you for these comments. Please find below our response to each point your provided. We would be happy to provide further clarification if necessary.

Comment: It will be challenging to compare different countries' experiences, and to make reliable comparators. Contextual factors such as levels of fees / complexities in any 'carers' allowances' and percentages of 'study at home' / flexi studies in different disciplines will be very different across countries. Depending on how manageable the logistics appear, it might be worth narrowing the scope to specific disciplines which might allow for more validity comparisons to be drawn. For example, some disciplines (history/ languages, literature) lend themselves more to flexi - hours whereas certain science subjects demand on-campus lab time and vocational courses such as nursing and social work have considerable placement demands, with very little in-built flexibility. It may, of course, be that the team find that the study foci of caring-experienced students reflect a tendency toward certain subjects.

Response: We agree that making comparisons between countries is challenging and will make these challenges known and acknowledge the important contextual differences between countries when reporting on the findings. However, rather than making a detailed comparison of different aspects of the higher education systems and carer supports in different countries, our intention in comparing countries is to have better awareness and understanding of the range of broad policy options available for responding to the needs of student carers in HEIs, which a key goal of comparative social policy (Lawrence, 1986). We will be examining the literature to see what it says about programme flexibility and student choice in specific disciplines.

Comment: Another factor of interest, which might be a challenge too far, is to consider cohorts which became carers after their studies had commenced as compared to those who applied to HEIs when they were already carers.

Response: We agree that this would be interesting comparison. It will be interesting to see if any of the literature included in our scoping review makes this comparison.

Comment: On a point of detail, I note the team's preference for the term 'caring-experienced students' but that the proposed research questions use the term 'student carers'.

Response: To clarify, we are using the term ‘student carers in higher education institutes’ for the purposes of the scoping review, as this is a commonly used and well-known term. However, we wanted to embrace the proposal by Larkin and colleagues to use an inclusive definition of student carers. Therefore, we amended the definition provided by the Carer’s Trust (2015: 7) to be inclusive of what Larkin et al (2021) refer to as ‘caring-experienced students.’ Consequently, for the scoping review, we adopt the term student carers in HEIs and use it to mean ‘any student in HEIs who is, becomes or has been caring, unpaid, for a friend or family member who due to illness, disability, a mental health problem or an addiction cannot cope without their support.’

References

Carers Trust: Supporting students with caring responsibilities: ideas and practice for universities to help student carers access and succeed in Higher Education. London: Carers Trust, 2015.

Larkin M, Kubiak C: Carers and Higher Education: where next? Widen Participat Lifelong Learn. 2021; 23(2): 130–151.

Lawrence, J. (1986) Comparative study of social policy: Conceptual and Methodological Issues’ International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 6(3), 1-12.
We wish to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our submissions and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled ‘Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol’. We have carefully considered each comment. Below, we provide a detailed response to each point raised, as well as supporting references, which we believe will strengthen the manuscript considerably.

Comment: This is a well-written proposal on an important issue that has not been fully addressed by previous research. The structure flows well and it would appear that key extant literature is already known to the authors, who set out an ambitious project.

Response: Thank-you for these comments. Please find below our response to each point your provided. We would be happy to provide further clarification if necessary.

Comment: It will be challenging to compare different countries' experiences, and to make reliable comparators. Contextual factors such as levels of fees / complexities in any 'carers' allowances' and percentages of 'study at home' / flexi studies in different disciplines will be very different across countries. Depending on how manageable the logistics appear, it might be worth narrowing the scope to specific disciplines which might allow for more validity comparisons to be drawn. For example, some disciplines (history/ languages, literature) lend themselves more to flexi - hours whereas certain science subjects demand on-campus lab time and vocational courses such as nursing and social work have considerable placement demands, with very little in-built flexibility. It may, of course, be that the team find that the study foci of caring-experienced students reflect a tendency toward certain subjects.

Response: We agree that making comparisons between countries is challenging and will make these challenges known and acknowledge the important contextual differences between countries when reporting on the findings. However, rather than making a detailed comparison of different aspects of the higher education systems and carer supports in different countries, our intention in comparing countries is to have better awareness and understanding of the range of broad policy options available for responding to the needs of student carers in HEIs, which a key goal of comparative social policy (Lawrence, 1986). We will be examining the literature to see what it says about programme flexibility and student choice in specific disciplines.

Comment: Another factor of interest, which might be a challenge too far, is to consider cohorts which became carers after their studies had commenced as compared to those who applied to HEIs when they were already carers.

Response: We agree that this would be interesting comparison. It will be interesting to see if any of the literature included in our scoping review makes this comparison.

Comment: On a point of detail, I note the team's preference for the term 'caring-experienced students' but that the proposed research questions use the term 'student carers'.

Response: To clarify, we are using the term ‘student carers in higher education institutes’ for the purposes of the scoping review, as this is a commonly used and well-known term. However, we wanted to embrace the proposal by Larkin and colleagues to use an inclusive definition of student carers. Therefore, we amended the definition provided by the Carer’s Trust (2015: 7) to be inclusive of what Larkin et al (2021) refer to as ‘caring-experienced students.’ Consequently, for the scoping review, we adopt the term student carers in HEIs and use it to mean ‘any student in HEIs who is, becomes or has been caring, unpaid, for a friend or family member who due to illness, disability, a mental health problem or an addiction cannot cope without their support.’

References

Carers Trust: Supporting students with caring responsibilities: ideas and practice for universities to help student carers access and succeed in Higher Education. London: Carers Trust, 2015.

Larkin M, Kubiak C: Carers and Higher Education: where next? Widen Participat Lifelong Learn. 2021; 23(2): 130–151.

Lawrence, J. (1986) Comparative study of social policy: Conceptual and Methodological Issues’ International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 6(3), 1-12.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 10 Sep 2025

Maria Pierce, Applied Social Studies, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Ireland

10 Sep 2025

Author Response

We wish to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our submissions and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled ‘Student Carers ... Continue reading We wish to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our submissions and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled ‘Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol’. We have carefully considered each comment. Below, we provide a detailed response to each point raised, as well as supporting references, which we believe will strengthen the manuscript considerably.

Comment: This is a well-written proposal on an important issue that has not been fully addressed by previous research. The structure flows well and it would appear that key extant literature is already known to the authors, who set out an ambitious project.

Response: Thank-you for these comments. Please find below our response to each point your provided. We would be happy to provide further clarification if necessary.

Comment: It will be challenging to compare different countries' experiences, and to make reliable comparators. Contextual factors such as levels of fees / complexities in any 'carers' allowances' and percentages of 'study at home' / flexi studies in different disciplines will be very different across countries. Depending on how manageable the logistics appear, it might be worth narrowing the scope to specific disciplines which might allow for more validity comparisons to be drawn. For example, some disciplines (history/ languages, literature) lend themselves more to flexi - hours whereas certain science subjects demand on-campus lab time and vocational courses such as nursing and social work have considerable placement demands, with very little in-built flexibility. It may, of course, be that the team find that the study foci of caring-experienced students reflect a tendency toward certain subjects.

Response: We agree that making comparisons between countries is challenging and will make these challenges known and acknowledge the important contextual differences between countries when reporting on the findings. However, rather than making a detailed comparison of different aspects of the higher education systems and carer supports in different countries, our intention in comparing countries is to have better awareness and understanding of the range of broad policy options available for responding to the needs of student carers in HEIs, which a key goal of comparative social policy (Lawrence, 1986). We will be examining the literature to see what it says about programme flexibility and student choice in specific disciplines.

Comment: Another factor of interest, which might be a challenge too far, is to consider cohorts which became carers after their studies had commenced as compared to those who applied to HEIs when they were already carers.

Response: We agree that this would be interesting comparison. It will be interesting to see if any of the literature included in our scoping review makes this comparison.

Comment: On a point of detail, I note the team's preference for the term 'caring-experienced students' but that the proposed research questions use the term 'student carers'.

Response: To clarify, we are using the term ‘student carers in higher education institutes’ for the purposes of the scoping review, as this is a commonly used and well-known term. However, we wanted to embrace the proposal by Larkin and colleagues to use an inclusive definition of student carers. Therefore, we amended the definition provided by the Carer’s Trust (2015: 7) to be inclusive of what Larkin et al (2021) refer to as ‘caring-experienced students.’ Consequently, for the scoping review, we adopt the term student carers in HEIs and use it to mean ‘any student in HEIs who is, becomes or has been caring, unpaid, for a friend or family member who due to illness, disability, a mental health problem or an addiction cannot cope without their support.’

References

Carers Trust: Supporting students with caring responsibilities: ideas and practice for universities to help student carers access and succeed in Higher Education. London: Carers Trust, 2015.

Larkin M, Kubiak C: Carers and Higher Education: where next? Widen Participat Lifelong Learn. 2021; 23(2): 130–151.

Lawrence, J. (1986) Comparative study of social policy: Conceptual and Methodological Issues’ International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 6(3), 1-12.
We wish to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our submissions and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled ‘Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol’. We have carefully considered each comment. Below, we provide a detailed response to each point raised, as well as supporting references, which we believe will strengthen the manuscript considerably.

Comment: This is a well-written proposal on an important issue that has not been fully addressed by previous research. The structure flows well and it would appear that key extant literature is already known to the authors, who set out an ambitious project.

Response: Thank-you for these comments. Please find below our response to each point your provided. We would be happy to provide further clarification if necessary.

Comment: It will be challenging to compare different countries' experiences, and to make reliable comparators. Contextual factors such as levels of fees / complexities in any 'carers' allowances' and percentages of 'study at home' / flexi studies in different disciplines will be very different across countries. Depending on how manageable the logistics appear, it might be worth narrowing the scope to specific disciplines which might allow for more validity comparisons to be drawn. For example, some disciplines (history/ languages, literature) lend themselves more to flexi - hours whereas certain science subjects demand on-campus lab time and vocational courses such as nursing and social work have considerable placement demands, with very little in-built flexibility. It may, of course, be that the team find that the study foci of caring-experienced students reflect a tendency toward certain subjects.

Response: We agree that making comparisons between countries is challenging and will make these challenges known and acknowledge the important contextual differences between countries when reporting on the findings. However, rather than making a detailed comparison of different aspects of the higher education systems and carer supports in different countries, our intention in comparing countries is to have better awareness and understanding of the range of broad policy options available for responding to the needs of student carers in HEIs, which a key goal of comparative social policy (Lawrence, 1986). We will be examining the literature to see what it says about programme flexibility and student choice in specific disciplines.

Comment: Another factor of interest, which might be a challenge too far, is to consider cohorts which became carers after their studies had commenced as compared to those who applied to HEIs when they were already carers.

Response: We agree that this would be interesting comparison. It will be interesting to see if any of the literature included in our scoping review makes this comparison.

Comment: On a point of detail, I note the team's preference for the term 'caring-experienced students' but that the proposed research questions use the term 'student carers'.

Response: To clarify, we are using the term ‘student carers in higher education institutes’ for the purposes of the scoping review, as this is a commonly used and well-known term. However, we wanted to embrace the proposal by Larkin and colleagues to use an inclusive definition of student carers. Therefore, we amended the definition provided by the Carer’s Trust (2015: 7) to be inclusive of what Larkin et al (2021) refer to as ‘caring-experienced students.’ Consequently, for the scoping review, we adopt the term student carers in HEIs and use it to mean ‘any student in HEIs who is, becomes or has been caring, unpaid, for a friend or family member who due to illness, disability, a mental health problem or an addiction cannot cope without their support.’

References

Carers Trust: Supporting students with caring responsibilities: ideas and practice for universities to help student carers access and succeed in Higher Education. London: Carers Trust, 2015.

Larkin M, Kubiak C: Carers and Higher Education: where next? Widen Participat Lifelong Learn. 2021; 23(2): 130–151.

Lawrence, J. (1986) Comparative study of social policy: Conceptual and Methodological Issues’ International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 6(3), 1-12.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 03 Mar 2025

Mary Larkin, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK

Approved

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15424.r45189

The authors are to be congratulated on their use of such an Inclusive definition of Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions, Rigorous use of Arksey and O’Malley’s five stage framework. They also present some excellent ideas about ways of accessing and including grey literature.
If the aims of the scoping review can achieved it will certainly address key outstanding issues which underpin future student carer research and policy making
There are a couple of weaknesses::
- It is not clear how they will be using their inclusive definition of a student carer throughout the scoping - review
It will be worth working with carers organisations on the dissemination and eliciting their support in working with policy makers

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: care, carers and caring

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 10 Sep 2025

Maria Pierce, Applied Social Studies, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Ireland

10 Sep 2025

Author Response

We wish to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our submission and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled ‘Student Carers ... Continue reading We wish to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our submission and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled ‘Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol’. We have carefully considered each comment. Below, we provide a detailed response to each point raised, which we believe will strengthen the manuscript considerably.

Comment: The authors are to be congratulated on their use of such an Inclusive definition of Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions, Rigorous use of Arksey and O’Malley’s five stage framework. They also present some excellent ideas about ways of accessing and including grey literature. If the aims of the scoping review can achieved it will certainly address key outstanding issues which underpin future student carer research and policy making.

Response: Thank-you for your encouraging comments and for identifying weaknesses.

Comment: There are a couple of weaknesses. It is not clear how they will be using their inclusive definition of a student carer throughout the scoping review.

Response: With respect to the first weakness identified, we are using the term ‘student carers in higher education institutes’ for the purposes of the scoping review to mean ‘any student in HEIs who is, becomes or has been caring, unpaid, for a friend or family member who due to illness, disability, a mental health problem or an addiction cannot cope without their support.’ One of the research questions of our scoping review is ‘What definitions of student carers in HEIs are typically adopted?’ We plan to examine the extent to which the definitions identified from included studies align with the inclusive definition that we have adopted.

Comment: It will be worth working with carers organisations on the dissemination and eliciting their support in working with policy makers.

Response: Thank-you also for your comment about working with carers organisations. We are in contact with and have good working relationships with carers organisations in Ireland. These organisations are aware that the scoping review is underway. We are keeping them updated on how the work is progressing. The carers organisations have expressed interest in the scoping review and there is scope for working with carers organisations on the dissemination and eliciting their support in working with policy makers. Another promising avenue for dissemination and support in working with policy makers and other relevant stakeholders is the Higher Educational Institutes Carer Network that was established in Ireland in 2024. One of the authors (AL) of the scoping review is a founding member of the network and another (MP) is a member of the network.

Maria Pierce on behalf of author team
We wish to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our submission and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled ‘Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol’. We have carefully considered each comment. Below, we provide a detailed response to each point raised, which we believe will strengthen the manuscript considerably.

Comment: The authors are to be congratulated on their use of such an Inclusive definition of Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions, Rigorous use of Arksey and O’Malley’s five stage framework. They also present some excellent ideas about ways of accessing and including grey literature. If the aims of the scoping review can achieved it will certainly address key outstanding issues which underpin future student carer research and policy making.

Response: Thank-you for your encouraging comments and for identifying weaknesses.

Comment: There are a couple of weaknesses. It is not clear how they will be using their inclusive definition of a student carer throughout the scoping review.

Response: With respect to the first weakness identified, we are using the term ‘student carers in higher education institutes’ for the purposes of the scoping review to mean ‘any student in HEIs who is, becomes or has been caring, unpaid, for a friend or family member who due to illness, disability, a mental health problem or an addiction cannot cope without their support.’ One of the research questions of our scoping review is ‘What definitions of student carers in HEIs are typically adopted?’ We plan to examine the extent to which the definitions identified from included studies align with the inclusive definition that we have adopted.

Comment: It will be worth working with carers organisations on the dissemination and eliciting their support in working with policy makers.

Response: Thank-you also for your comment about working with carers organisations. We are in contact with and have good working relationships with carers organisations in Ireland. These organisations are aware that the scoping review is underway. We are keeping them updated on how the work is progressing. The carers organisations have expressed interest in the scoping review and there is scope for working with carers organisations on the dissemination and eliciting their support in working with policy makers. Another promising avenue for dissemination and support in working with policy makers and other relevant stakeholders is the Higher Educational Institutes Carer Network that was established in Ireland in 2024. One of the authors (AL) of the scoping review is a founding member of the network and another (MP) is a member of the network.

Maria Pierce on behalf of author team
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 10 Sep 2025

Maria Pierce, Applied Social Studies, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Ireland

10 Sep 2025

Author Response

We wish to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our submission and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled ‘Student Carers ... Continue reading We wish to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our submission and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled ‘Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol’. We have carefully considered each comment. Below, we provide a detailed response to each point raised, which we believe will strengthen the manuscript considerably.

Comment: The authors are to be congratulated on their use of such an Inclusive definition of Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions, Rigorous use of Arksey and O’Malley’s five stage framework. They also present some excellent ideas about ways of accessing and including grey literature. If the aims of the scoping review can achieved it will certainly address key outstanding issues which underpin future student carer research and policy making.

Response: Thank-you for your encouraging comments and for identifying weaknesses.

Comment: There are a couple of weaknesses. It is not clear how they will be using their inclusive definition of a student carer throughout the scoping review.

Response: With respect to the first weakness identified, we are using the term ‘student carers in higher education institutes’ for the purposes of the scoping review to mean ‘any student in HEIs who is, becomes or has been caring, unpaid, for a friend or family member who due to illness, disability, a mental health problem or an addiction cannot cope without their support.’ One of the research questions of our scoping review is ‘What definitions of student carers in HEIs are typically adopted?’ We plan to examine the extent to which the definitions identified from included studies align with the inclusive definition that we have adopted.

Comment: It will be worth working with carers organisations on the dissemination and eliciting their support in working with policy makers.

Response: Thank-you also for your comment about working with carers organisations. We are in contact with and have good working relationships with carers organisations in Ireland. These organisations are aware that the scoping review is underway. We are keeping them updated on how the work is progressing. The carers organisations have expressed interest in the scoping review and there is scope for working with carers organisations on the dissemination and eliciting their support in working with policy makers. Another promising avenue for dissemination and support in working with policy makers and other relevant stakeholders is the Higher Educational Institutes Carer Network that was established in Ireland in 2024. One of the authors (AL) of the scoping review is a founding member of the network and another (MP) is a member of the network.

Maria Pierce on behalf of author team
We wish to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our submission and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled ‘Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol’. We have carefully considered each comment. Below, we provide a detailed response to each point raised, which we believe will strengthen the manuscript considerably.

Comment: The authors are to be congratulated on their use of such an Inclusive definition of Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions, Rigorous use of Arksey and O’Malley’s five stage framework. They also present some excellent ideas about ways of accessing and including grey literature. If the aims of the scoping review can achieved it will certainly address key outstanding issues which underpin future student carer research and policy making.

Response: Thank-you for your encouraging comments and for identifying weaknesses.

Comment: There are a couple of weaknesses. It is not clear how they will be using their inclusive definition of a student carer throughout the scoping review.

Response: With respect to the first weakness identified, we are using the term ‘student carers in higher education institutes’ for the purposes of the scoping review to mean ‘any student in HEIs who is, becomes or has been caring, unpaid, for a friend or family member who due to illness, disability, a mental health problem or an addiction cannot cope without their support.’ One of the research questions of our scoping review is ‘What definitions of student carers in HEIs are typically adopted?’ We plan to examine the extent to which the definitions identified from included studies align with the inclusive definition that we have adopted.

Comment: It will be worth working with carers organisations on the dissemination and eliciting their support in working with policy makers.

Response: Thank-you also for your comment about working with carers organisations. We are in contact with and have good working relationships with carers organisations in Ireland. These organisations are aware that the scoping review is underway. We are keeping them updated on how the work is progressing. The carers organisations have expressed interest in the scoping review and there is scope for working with carers organisations on the dissemination and eliciting their support in working with policy makers. Another promising avenue for dissemination and support in working with policy makers and other relevant stakeholders is the Higher Educational Institutes Carer Network that was established in Ireland in 2024. One of the authors (AL) of the scoping review is a founding member of the network and another (MP) is a member of the network.

Maria Pierce on behalf of author team
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 26 Feb 2025

Jessica Runacres, University of Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent, UK

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15424.r45182

This is a protocol for a scoping review focusing on student carers in higher education which is an emerging and interesting area of research. The researchers present a detailed outline of the methods to be undertaken and have generated broad research questions which address a noted gap in the current literature. It is clear that a significant amount of thought has been put into the proposed methods which are well articulated and suitably referenced. Some points to consider below:

The work of Runacres et al. (2024) and Knopf et al. (2022) is mentioned in the introduction, including the findings, and it is stated that there are some areas of discussion that have yet to be explored, however specifically how this scoping review will build on this existing work is unclear. Some further critical engagement with the existing literature reviews on this topic would be beneficial here. Furthermore, the introduction argues that “there is a need to explore other aspects not covered by existing reviews” but why could be further justified.

There is a brief argument for the use of a scoping review at the end of the introduction, this argues that this scoping review intends to address a broad question and incorporate studies using a variety of different study designs, however, this is possible within a systematic review. This section also states that the reviewers are using a scoping review as they do not intend to assess quality, and, whilst this is the case within a scoping review, it should not be used as an argument for the use of this. Instead, it would be interesting to hear why it is important that quality is not assessed for this review. Also, it is stated in this protocol that policy responses to student carers in HEIs will be examined. I would assume that this information is within the grey literature, which therefore means that a scoping review would be suitable, and quality appraisal would be challenging. This justification for the chosen review approach could be mentioned here.

It is mentioned at the end of the introduction that the term “caring-experienced students” will be adopted by this review, however this is not the case, instead “student carer” is used throughout. This needs to be clarified.

The aim and objectives are clear, although perhaps very broad for a single review. I am unsure how you will be able to recognise these broad objectives within a single analysis.

There is overlap in your search terms. For example, al the subsequent terms would be captured by the first ““Care*” OR “caregiver*” OR “care-giver*” OR “caregiving” OR “care-giving” OR “caring”. This is the case within other levels of your search strategy.

Your definition for this review of student carers is those who provide care for a friend or family member, yet “friend” is not encompassed within your search terms.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Student carers, informal carers, literature reviews

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 10 Sep 2025

Maria Pierce, Applied Social Studies, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Ireland

10 Sep 2025

Author Response

We wish to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our submission and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled ‘Student Carers ... Continue reading We wish to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our submission and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled ‘Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol’. We have carefully considered each comment. Below, we provide a detailed response to each point raised, as well as supporting references. We believe that these author responses strengthen the manuscript considerably, and we hope it will now meet the standards for approval status in HRB Open Research.

Comment: This is a protocol for a scoping review focusing on student carers in higher education which is an emerging and interesting area of research. The researchers present a detailed outline of the methods to be undertaken and have generated broad research questions which address a noted gap in the current literature. It is clear that a significant amount of thought has been put into the proposed methods which are well articulated and suitably referenced. Some points to consider below.

Response: Thank-you for identifying points that warrant further consideration. Please find below our response to each of the points made. We would be happy to provide further clarification if necessary.

Comment: The work of Runacres et al. (2024) and Knopf et al. (2022) is mentioned in the introduction, including the findings, and it is stated that there are some areas of discussion that have yet to be explored, however specifically how this scoping review will build on this existing work is unclear. Some further critical engagement with the existing literature reviews on this topic would be beneficial here. Furthermore, the introduction argues that “there is a need to explore other aspects not covered by existing reviews” but why could be further justified.

Response: The scoping review seeks both to complement and build on the work of and Knopf et al. (2022) and Runacres et al. (2024). With respect to building on this work, it will analyse information on some of the knowledge gaps in the literature that have been identified by the authors of these works. For example, Runacres et al. (2024) identify the importance of knowing the prevalence and demographics of student carers in HEIs. Our scoping review will analyse and report on the findings from included studies estimating the prevalence and demographics of student carers in HEIs (e.g. Haugland et al., 2020; Armstrong-Carter et al., 2022; Chevrier et al., 2023), and methods used. The analysis will be useful for universities seeking to capture data on prevalence and demographics of student carers among their student populations, as well as for researchers.

Comment: The scoping review identified the following salient gaps in the literature. Firstly, limited research within any one country could be identified. This is a concern as the differences in education and healthcare between countries limits the comparisons and generalisations that can be made.

Response: We agree that making comparisons between countries is challenging and we acknowledge that countries will differ with respect to both their education and health and social care systems. When publishing our findings, we will make the challenges we encounter clearly known. We are not planning to compare the organisation, operation or delivery of education and health care systems across different countries. Rather than making generalisations, our intention in comparing countries is to have better awareness and understanding of the range of broad policy options available from different countries for responding to the needs of student carers in HEIs. Better awareness and understanding of different policy options is a key goal of comparative social policy (Lawrence, 1986).

Comment: Furthermore, no longitudinal research was identified, consequently still relatively little is known about mechanisms and causal links which impact student carers across their life course. A better understanding of these mechanisms is crucial for designing appropriate interventions. This is particularly salient as the scoping review identified concerns with employment prospects (Day 2019; Kettell 2018); this suggests that being a student carer might have an impact in future life regardless of the continuation of caring responsibilities.

Response: Existing reviews did not identify any longitudinal research. Our scoping review provides an opportunity to identify and report on findings of any longitudinal studies on student carers in HEIs conducted after these reviews were completed such as the qualitative longitudinal study undertaken by Runacres, Herron and Crust (2025). A life course perspective offers a very useful framework that could be used to inform the design of future research studies on student carers in HEIs. One of the questions of our scoping review relates to theoretical perspectives and concepts underpinning studies on student carers in HEIs, and the life course perspective could potentially be discussed as part of the analysis.

Comment: Much identified research focussed on student carer’s experiences, their health and well-being, and academic outcomes, little research has examined the implications of being a carer on broader student life, such as social activities.

Response: Research on the implications of being a carer on broader student life is limited. However, we have identified research published in 2020 that includes an examination of the issue of socialising for student carers in HEIs. This and any other research published since 2020 on this issue identified via our search strategy will be included and reported on in our scoping review.

Comment: There is a brief argument for the use of a scoping review at the end of the introduction, this argues that this scoping review intends to address a broad question and incorporate studies using a variety of different study designs, however, this is possible within a systematic review. This section also states that the reviewers are using a scoping review as they do not intend to assess quality, and, whilst this is the case within a scoping review, it should not be used as an argument for the use of this. Instead, it would be interesting to hear why it is important that quality is not assessed for this review. Also, it is stated in this protocol that policy responses to student carers in HEIs will be examined. I would assume that this information is within the grey literature, which therefore means that a scoping review would be suitable, and quality appraisal would be challenging. This justification for the chosen review approach could be mentioned here.

Response: Thank-you for making these points. While it is possible to address a broad question and incorporate studies using a variety of different study designs in a systematic review, the reason we chose to conduct a scoping review is because we will be including grey literature as a source of information to examine policy responses to student carers in HEIs. Hence, a scoping review is an appropriate approach to take. It was not our intention to use our decision not to assess quality as an argument for conducting a scoping review. We will make this clearer when writing a paper on the findings of our scoping review. Unlike systematic reviews, the quality of included studies is often omitted from scoping reviews, as it is not mandatory for scoping reviews, given that the goal is to map rather than critique existing empirical and grey literature (Arksey and O’Malley, 2005; Pollock et al., 2022). Moreover, information on the availability of tools and guidance for critical appraisal and risk of bias assessments of studies included in scoping reviews is lacking (Pollock et al., 2022). A clearer justification for applying the scoping review methodology will be included in the forthcoming manuscript.

Comment: It is mentioned at the end of the introduction that the term “caring-experienced students” will be adopted by this review, however this is not the case, instead “student carer” is used throughout. This needs to be clarified.

Response: We acknowledge that our explanation of the terms adopted is confusing. To clarify, we are using the term ‘student carers in higher education institutes’ for the purposes of the scoping review, as this is a commonly used and well-known term. However, we wanted to embrace the proposal by Larkin and colleagues to use an inclusive definition of student carers. Therefore, we amended the definition provided by the Carer’s Trust (2015: 7) to be inclusive of what Larkin et al (2021) refer to as ‘caring-experienced students.’ Consequently, for the scoping review, we adopt the term student carers in HEIs, defined as ‘any student in HEIs who is, becomes or has been caring, unpaid, for a friend or family member who due to illness, disability, a mental health problem or an addiction cannot cope without their support.’

Comment: The aim and objectives are clear, although perhaps very broad for a single review. I am unsure how you will be able to recognise these broad objectives within a single analysis.

Response: We agree that the aims and objectives are broad. We plan to present the findings from the review in an integrated way, with the potential of supplemental files to support the key findings. We will only consider splitting the paper if it does not undermine the findings.

Comment: There is overlap in your search terms. For example, al the subsequent terms would be captured by the first ““Care*” OR “caregiver*” OR “care-giver*” OR “caregiving” OR “care-giving” OR “caring”. This is the case within other levels of your search strategy.

Response: Table 1 of the paper provides a list of the ‘proposed’ search terms to be used to develop the search strategy. We are aware of the overlap in search terms, and this issue was addrssed during the exploratory scoping phase, which was undertaken soon after the protocol paper was published. For example, the inclusion of “Care*” resulted in many studies focused on career options of higher education students. Following this exploratory scoping phase, we addressed any issues and finalised the search terms and strings. The string for carers is now amended, as guided by our University Librarian.

“carer*” OR “care”OR “caregiv*” OR “care-giv*” OR “caring” OR “unpaid care*” OR “Family care” OR “eldercare” OR “elder-care” OR “elder care”

We will be reporting on the final search strategy that we used when reporting the findings of our scoping review.

Comment: Your definition for this review of student carers is those who provide care for a friend or family member, yet “friend” is not encompassed within your search terms.

Response: Similarly to our response to the above comment, we identified this omission during the exploratory scoping phase and set about addressing it. We will be reporting on the final search terms that we used when reporting on the findings of our scoping review.

References

Arksey H, O'Malley L: Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005; 8(1): 19–32.

Armstrong-Carter E, Panter AT, Hutson B, et al.: A university-wide survey of caregiving students in the US: individual differences and associations with emotional and academic adjustment. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2022; 9(1): 300.

Carers Trust: Supporting students with caring responsibilities: ideas and practice for universities to help student carers access and succeed in Higher Education. London: Carers Trust, 2015.

Chevrier B, Untas A, Dorard G: Young adult caregivers in Higher Education: a study of prevalence in France. J Further High Educ. 2023; 47(5): 699–710.

Haugland BSM, Hysing M, Sivertsen B: The burden of care: a national survey on the prevalence, demographic characteristics and health problems among Young Adult Carers attending Higher Education in Norway. Front Psychol. 2020; 10: 2859.

Knopf L, Wazinski K, Wanka A, et al.: Caregiving students: a systematic literature review of an under-researched group. J Further High Educ. 2022; 46(6): 822–835.

Larkin M, Kubiak C: Carers and Higher Education: where next? Widen Participat Lifelong Learn. 2021; 23(2): 130–151.

Lawrence, J. (1986) Comparative study of social policy: Conceptual and Methodological Issues’ International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 6(3), 1-12.

Pollock D, Tricco AC, Peters MDJ, Mclnerney PA, Khalil H, Godfrey CM, Alexander LA, Munn Z. Methodological quality, guidance, and tools in scoping reviews: a scoping review protocol. JBI Evid Synth. 2022 Apr 1;20(4):1098-1105. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-20-00570.

Runacres J, Herron D, Buckless K, et al.: Student carer experiences of Higher Education and support: a scoping review. Int J Inclus Educ. 2024; 28(7): 1275–1292.

Maria Pierce on behalf of author team
We wish to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our submission and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled ‘Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol’. We have carefully considered each comment. Below, we provide a detailed response to each point raised, as well as supporting references. We believe that these author responses strengthen the manuscript considerably, and we hope it will now meet the standards for approval status in HRB Open Research.

Comment: This is a protocol for a scoping review focusing on student carers in higher education which is an emerging and interesting area of research. The researchers present a detailed outline of the methods to be undertaken and have generated broad research questions which address a noted gap in the current literature. It is clear that a significant amount of thought has been put into the proposed methods which are well articulated and suitably referenced. Some points to consider below.

Response: Thank-you for identifying points that warrant further consideration. Please find below our response to each of the points made. We would be happy to provide further clarification if necessary.

Comment: The work of Runacres et al. (2024) and Knopf et al. (2022) is mentioned in the introduction, including the findings, and it is stated that there are some areas of discussion that have yet to be explored, however specifically how this scoping review will build on this existing work is unclear. Some further critical engagement with the existing literature reviews on this topic would be beneficial here. Furthermore, the introduction argues that “there is a need to explore other aspects not covered by existing reviews” but why could be further justified.

Response: The scoping review seeks both to complement and build on the work of and Knopf et al. (2022) and Runacres et al. (2024). With respect to building on this work, it will analyse information on some of the knowledge gaps in the literature that have been identified by the authors of these works. For example, Runacres et al. (2024) identify the importance of knowing the prevalence and demographics of student carers in HEIs. Our scoping review will analyse and report on the findings from included studies estimating the prevalence and demographics of student carers in HEIs (e.g. Haugland et al., 2020; Armstrong-Carter et al., 2022; Chevrier et al., 2023), and methods used. The analysis will be useful for universities seeking to capture data on prevalence and demographics of student carers among their student populations, as well as for researchers.

Comment: The scoping review identified the following salient gaps in the literature. Firstly, limited research within any one country could be identified. This is a concern as the differences in education and healthcare between countries limits the comparisons and generalisations that can be made.

Response: We agree that making comparisons between countries is challenging and we acknowledge that countries will differ with respect to both their education and health and social care systems. When publishing our findings, we will make the challenges we encounter clearly known. We are not planning to compare the organisation, operation or delivery of education and health care systems across different countries. Rather than making generalisations, our intention in comparing countries is to have better awareness and understanding of the range of broad policy options available from different countries for responding to the needs of student carers in HEIs. Better awareness and understanding of different policy options is a key goal of comparative social policy (Lawrence, 1986).

Comment: Furthermore, no longitudinal research was identified, consequently still relatively little is known about mechanisms and causal links which impact student carers across their life course. A better understanding of these mechanisms is crucial for designing appropriate interventions. This is particularly salient as the scoping review identified concerns with employment prospects (Day 2019; Kettell 2018); this suggests that being a student carer might have an impact in future life regardless of the continuation of caring responsibilities.

Response: Existing reviews did not identify any longitudinal research. Our scoping review provides an opportunity to identify and report on findings of any longitudinal studies on student carers in HEIs conducted after these reviews were completed such as the qualitative longitudinal study undertaken by Runacres, Herron and Crust (2025). A life course perspective offers a very useful framework that could be used to inform the design of future research studies on student carers in HEIs. One of the questions of our scoping review relates to theoretical perspectives and concepts underpinning studies on student carers in HEIs, and the life course perspective could potentially be discussed as part of the analysis.

Comment: Much identified research focussed on student carer’s experiences, their health and well-being, and academic outcomes, little research has examined the implications of being a carer on broader student life, such as social activities.

Response: Research on the implications of being a carer on broader student life is limited. However, we have identified research published in 2020 that includes an examination of the issue of socialising for student carers in HEIs. This and any other research published since 2020 on this issue identified via our search strategy will be included and reported on in our scoping review.

Comment: There is a brief argument for the use of a scoping review at the end of the introduction, this argues that this scoping review intends to address a broad question and incorporate studies using a variety of different study designs, however, this is possible within a systematic review. This section also states that the reviewers are using a scoping review as they do not intend to assess quality, and, whilst this is the case within a scoping review, it should not be used as an argument for the use of this. Instead, it would be interesting to hear why it is important that quality is not assessed for this review. Also, it is stated in this protocol that policy responses to student carers in HEIs will be examined. I would assume that this information is within the grey literature, which therefore means that a scoping review would be suitable, and quality appraisal would be challenging. This justification for the chosen review approach could be mentioned here.

Response: Thank-you for making these points. While it is possible to address a broad question and incorporate studies using a variety of different study designs in a systematic review, the reason we chose to conduct a scoping review is because we will be including grey literature as a source of information to examine policy responses to student carers in HEIs. Hence, a scoping review is an appropriate approach to take. It was not our intention to use our decision not to assess quality as an argument for conducting a scoping review. We will make this clearer when writing a paper on the findings of our scoping review. Unlike systematic reviews, the quality of included studies is often omitted from scoping reviews, as it is not mandatory for scoping reviews, given that the goal is to map rather than critique existing empirical and grey literature (Arksey and O’Malley, 2005; Pollock et al., 2022). Moreover, information on the availability of tools and guidance for critical appraisal and risk of bias assessments of studies included in scoping reviews is lacking (Pollock et al., 2022). A clearer justification for applying the scoping review methodology will be included in the forthcoming manuscript.

Comment: It is mentioned at the end of the introduction that the term “caring-experienced students” will be adopted by this review, however this is not the case, instead “student carer” is used throughout. This needs to be clarified.

Response: We acknowledge that our explanation of the terms adopted is confusing. To clarify, we are using the term ‘student carers in higher education institutes’ for the purposes of the scoping review, as this is a commonly used and well-known term. However, we wanted to embrace the proposal by Larkin and colleagues to use an inclusive definition of student carers. Therefore, we amended the definition provided by the Carer’s Trust (2015: 7) to be inclusive of what Larkin et al (2021) refer to as ‘caring-experienced students.’ Consequently, for the scoping review, we adopt the term student carers in HEIs, defined as ‘any student in HEIs who is, becomes or has been caring, unpaid, for a friend or family member who due to illness, disability, a mental health problem or an addiction cannot cope without their support.’

Comment: The aim and objectives are clear, although perhaps very broad for a single review. I am unsure how you will be able to recognise these broad objectives within a single analysis.

Response: We agree that the aims and objectives are broad. We plan to present the findings from the review in an integrated way, with the potential of supplemental files to support the key findings. We will only consider splitting the paper if it does not undermine the findings.

Comment: There is overlap in your search terms. For example, al the subsequent terms would be captured by the first ““Care*” OR “caregiver*” OR “care-giver*” OR “caregiving” OR “care-giving” OR “caring”. This is the case within other levels of your search strategy.

Response: Table 1 of the paper provides a list of the ‘proposed’ search terms to be used to develop the search strategy. We are aware of the overlap in search terms, and this issue was addrssed during the exploratory scoping phase, which was undertaken soon after the protocol paper was published. For example, the inclusion of “Care*” resulted in many studies focused on career options of higher education students. Following this exploratory scoping phase, we addressed any issues and finalised the search terms and strings. The string for carers is now amended, as guided by our University Librarian.

“carer*” OR “care”OR “caregiv*” OR “care-giv*” OR “caring” OR “unpaid care*” OR “Family care” OR “eldercare” OR “elder-care” OR “elder care”

We will be reporting on the final search strategy that we used when reporting the findings of our scoping review.

Comment: Your definition for this review of student carers is those who provide care for a friend or family member, yet “friend” is not encompassed within your search terms.

Response: Similarly to our response to the above comment, we identified this omission during the exploratory scoping phase and set about addressing it. We will be reporting on the final search terms that we used when reporting on the findings of our scoping review.

References

Arksey H, O'Malley L: Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005; 8(1): 19–32.

Armstrong-Carter E, Panter AT, Hutson B, et al.: A university-wide survey of caregiving students in the US: individual differences and associations with emotional and academic adjustment. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2022; 9(1): 300.

Carers Trust: Supporting students with caring responsibilities: ideas and practice for universities to help student carers access and succeed in Higher Education. London: Carers Trust, 2015.

Chevrier B, Untas A, Dorard G: Young adult caregivers in Higher Education: a study of prevalence in France. J Further High Educ. 2023; 47(5): 699–710.

Haugland BSM, Hysing M, Sivertsen B: The burden of care: a national survey on the prevalence, demographic characteristics and health problems among Young Adult Carers attending Higher Education in Norway. Front Psychol. 2020; 10: 2859.

Knopf L, Wazinski K, Wanka A, et al.: Caregiving students: a systematic literature review of an under-researched group. J Further High Educ. 2022; 46(6): 822–835.

Larkin M, Kubiak C: Carers and Higher Education: where next? Widen Participat Lifelong Learn. 2021; 23(2): 130–151.

Lawrence, J. (1986) Comparative study of social policy: Conceptual and Methodological Issues’ International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 6(3), 1-12.

Pollock D, Tricco AC, Peters MDJ, Mclnerney PA, Khalil H, Godfrey CM, Alexander LA, Munn Z. Methodological quality, guidance, and tools in scoping reviews: a scoping review protocol. JBI Evid Synth. 2022 Apr 1;20(4):1098-1105. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-20-00570.

Runacres J, Herron D, Buckless K, et al.: Student carer experiences of Higher Education and support: a scoping review. Int J Inclus Educ. 2024; 28(7): 1275–1292.

Maria Pierce on behalf of author team
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 10 Sep 2025

Maria Pierce, Applied Social Studies, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Ireland

10 Sep 2025

Author Response

We wish to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our submission and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled ‘Student Carers ... Continue reading We wish to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our submission and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled ‘Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol’. We have carefully considered each comment. Below, we provide a detailed response to each point raised, as well as supporting references. We believe that these author responses strengthen the manuscript considerably, and we hope it will now meet the standards for approval status in HRB Open Research.

Comment: This is a protocol for a scoping review focusing on student carers in higher education which is an emerging and interesting area of research. The researchers present a detailed outline of the methods to be undertaken and have generated broad research questions which address a noted gap in the current literature. It is clear that a significant amount of thought has been put into the proposed methods which are well articulated and suitably referenced. Some points to consider below.

Response: Thank-you for identifying points that warrant further consideration. Please find below our response to each of the points made. We would be happy to provide further clarification if necessary.

Comment: The work of Runacres et al. (2024) and Knopf et al. (2022) is mentioned in the introduction, including the findings, and it is stated that there are some areas of discussion that have yet to be explored, however specifically how this scoping review will build on this existing work is unclear. Some further critical engagement with the existing literature reviews on this topic would be beneficial here. Furthermore, the introduction argues that “there is a need to explore other aspects not covered by existing reviews” but why could be further justified.

Response: The scoping review seeks both to complement and build on the work of and Knopf et al. (2022) and Runacres et al. (2024). With respect to building on this work, it will analyse information on some of the knowledge gaps in the literature that have been identified by the authors of these works. For example, Runacres et al. (2024) identify the importance of knowing the prevalence and demographics of student carers in HEIs. Our scoping review will analyse and report on the findings from included studies estimating the prevalence and demographics of student carers in HEIs (e.g. Haugland et al., 2020; Armstrong-Carter et al., 2022; Chevrier et al., 2023), and methods used. The analysis will be useful for universities seeking to capture data on prevalence and demographics of student carers among their student populations, as well as for researchers.

Comment: The scoping review identified the following salient gaps in the literature. Firstly, limited research within any one country could be identified. This is a concern as the differences in education and healthcare between countries limits the comparisons and generalisations that can be made.

Response: We agree that making comparisons between countries is challenging and we acknowledge that countries will differ with respect to both their education and health and social care systems. When publishing our findings, we will make the challenges we encounter clearly known. We are not planning to compare the organisation, operation or delivery of education and health care systems across different countries. Rather than making generalisations, our intention in comparing countries is to have better awareness and understanding of the range of broad policy options available from different countries for responding to the needs of student carers in HEIs. Better awareness and understanding of different policy options is a key goal of comparative social policy (Lawrence, 1986).

Comment: Furthermore, no longitudinal research was identified, consequently still relatively little is known about mechanisms and causal links which impact student carers across their life course. A better understanding of these mechanisms is crucial for designing appropriate interventions. This is particularly salient as the scoping review identified concerns with employment prospects (Day 2019; Kettell 2018); this suggests that being a student carer might have an impact in future life regardless of the continuation of caring responsibilities.

Response: Existing reviews did not identify any longitudinal research. Our scoping review provides an opportunity to identify and report on findings of any longitudinal studies on student carers in HEIs conducted after these reviews were completed such as the qualitative longitudinal study undertaken by Runacres, Herron and Crust (2025). A life course perspective offers a very useful framework that could be used to inform the design of future research studies on student carers in HEIs. One of the questions of our scoping review relates to theoretical perspectives and concepts underpinning studies on student carers in HEIs, and the life course perspective could potentially be discussed as part of the analysis.

Comment: Much identified research focussed on student carer’s experiences, their health and well-being, and academic outcomes, little research has examined the implications of being a carer on broader student life, such as social activities.

Response: Research on the implications of being a carer on broader student life is limited. However, we have identified research published in 2020 that includes an examination of the issue of socialising for student carers in HEIs. This and any other research published since 2020 on this issue identified via our search strategy will be included and reported on in our scoping review.

Comment: There is a brief argument for the use of a scoping review at the end of the introduction, this argues that this scoping review intends to address a broad question and incorporate studies using a variety of different study designs, however, this is possible within a systematic review. This section also states that the reviewers are using a scoping review as they do not intend to assess quality, and, whilst this is the case within a scoping review, it should not be used as an argument for the use of this. Instead, it would be interesting to hear why it is important that quality is not assessed for this review. Also, it is stated in this protocol that policy responses to student carers in HEIs will be examined. I would assume that this information is within the grey literature, which therefore means that a scoping review would be suitable, and quality appraisal would be challenging. This justification for the chosen review approach could be mentioned here.

Response: Thank-you for making these points. While it is possible to address a broad question and incorporate studies using a variety of different study designs in a systematic review, the reason we chose to conduct a scoping review is because we will be including grey literature as a source of information to examine policy responses to student carers in HEIs. Hence, a scoping review is an appropriate approach to take. It was not our intention to use our decision not to assess quality as an argument for conducting a scoping review. We will make this clearer when writing a paper on the findings of our scoping review. Unlike systematic reviews, the quality of included studies is often omitted from scoping reviews, as it is not mandatory for scoping reviews, given that the goal is to map rather than critique existing empirical and grey literature (Arksey and O’Malley, 2005; Pollock et al., 2022). Moreover, information on the availability of tools and guidance for critical appraisal and risk of bias assessments of studies included in scoping reviews is lacking (Pollock et al., 2022). A clearer justification for applying the scoping review methodology will be included in the forthcoming manuscript.

Comment: It is mentioned at the end of the introduction that the term “caring-experienced students” will be adopted by this review, however this is not the case, instead “student carer” is used throughout. This needs to be clarified.

Response: We acknowledge that our explanation of the terms adopted is confusing. To clarify, we are using the term ‘student carers in higher education institutes’ for the purposes of the scoping review, as this is a commonly used and well-known term. However, we wanted to embrace the proposal by Larkin and colleagues to use an inclusive definition of student carers. Therefore, we amended the definition provided by the Carer’s Trust (2015: 7) to be inclusive of what Larkin et al (2021) refer to as ‘caring-experienced students.’ Consequently, for the scoping review, we adopt the term student carers in HEIs, defined as ‘any student in HEIs who is, becomes or has been caring, unpaid, for a friend or family member who due to illness, disability, a mental health problem or an addiction cannot cope without their support.’

Comment: The aim and objectives are clear, although perhaps very broad for a single review. I am unsure how you will be able to recognise these broad objectives within a single analysis.

Response: We agree that the aims and objectives are broad. We plan to present the findings from the review in an integrated way, with the potential of supplemental files to support the key findings. We will only consider splitting the paper if it does not undermine the findings.

Comment: There is overlap in your search terms. For example, al the subsequent terms would be captured by the first ““Care*” OR “caregiver*” OR “care-giver*” OR “caregiving” OR “care-giving” OR “caring”. This is the case within other levels of your search strategy.

Response: Table 1 of the paper provides a list of the ‘proposed’ search terms to be used to develop the search strategy. We are aware of the overlap in search terms, and this issue was addrssed during the exploratory scoping phase, which was undertaken soon after the protocol paper was published. For example, the inclusion of “Care*” resulted in many studies focused on career options of higher education students. Following this exploratory scoping phase, we addressed any issues and finalised the search terms and strings. The string for carers is now amended, as guided by our University Librarian.

“carer*” OR “care”OR “caregiv*” OR “care-giv*” OR “caring” OR “unpaid care*” OR “Family care” OR “eldercare” OR “elder-care” OR “elder care”

We will be reporting on the final search strategy that we used when reporting the findings of our scoping review.

Comment: Your definition for this review of student carers is those who provide care for a friend or family member, yet “friend” is not encompassed within your search terms.

Response: Similarly to our response to the above comment, we identified this omission during the exploratory scoping phase and set about addressing it. We will be reporting on the final search terms that we used when reporting on the findings of our scoping review.

References

Arksey H, O'Malley L: Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005; 8(1): 19–32.

Armstrong-Carter E, Panter AT, Hutson B, et al.: A university-wide survey of caregiving students in the US: individual differences and associations with emotional and academic adjustment. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2022; 9(1): 300.

Carers Trust: Supporting students with caring responsibilities: ideas and practice for universities to help student carers access and succeed in Higher Education. London: Carers Trust, 2015.

Chevrier B, Untas A, Dorard G: Young adult caregivers in Higher Education: a study of prevalence in France. J Further High Educ. 2023; 47(5): 699–710.

Haugland BSM, Hysing M, Sivertsen B: The burden of care: a national survey on the prevalence, demographic characteristics and health problems among Young Adult Carers attending Higher Education in Norway. Front Psychol. 2020; 10: 2859.

Knopf L, Wazinski K, Wanka A, et al.: Caregiving students: a systematic literature review of an under-researched group. J Further High Educ. 2022; 46(6): 822–835.

Larkin M, Kubiak C: Carers and Higher Education: where next? Widen Participat Lifelong Learn. 2021; 23(2): 130–151.

Lawrence, J. (1986) Comparative study of social policy: Conceptual and Methodological Issues’ International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 6(3), 1-12.

Pollock D, Tricco AC, Peters MDJ, Mclnerney PA, Khalil H, Godfrey CM, Alexander LA, Munn Z. Methodological quality, guidance, and tools in scoping reviews: a scoping review protocol. JBI Evid Synth. 2022 Apr 1;20(4):1098-1105. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-20-00570.

Runacres J, Herron D, Buckless K, et al.: Student carer experiences of Higher Education and support: a scoping review. Int J Inclus Educ. 2024; 28(7): 1275–1292.

Maria Pierce on behalf of author team
We wish to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our submission and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled ‘Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol’. We have carefully considered each comment. Below, we provide a detailed response to each point raised, as well as supporting references. We believe that these author responses strengthen the manuscript considerably, and we hope it will now meet the standards for approval status in HRB Open Research.

Comment: This is a protocol for a scoping review focusing on student carers in higher education which is an emerging and interesting area of research. The researchers present a detailed outline of the methods to be undertaken and have generated broad research questions which address a noted gap in the current literature. It is clear that a significant amount of thought has been put into the proposed methods which are well articulated and suitably referenced. Some points to consider below.

Response: Thank-you for identifying points that warrant further consideration. Please find below our response to each of the points made. We would be happy to provide further clarification if necessary.

Comment: The work of Runacres et al. (2024) and Knopf et al. (2022) is mentioned in the introduction, including the findings, and it is stated that there are some areas of discussion that have yet to be explored, however specifically how this scoping review will build on this existing work is unclear. Some further critical engagement with the existing literature reviews on this topic would be beneficial here. Furthermore, the introduction argues that “there is a need to explore other aspects not covered by existing reviews” but why could be further justified.

Response: The scoping review seeks both to complement and build on the work of and Knopf et al. (2022) and Runacres et al. (2024). With respect to building on this work, it will analyse information on some of the knowledge gaps in the literature that have been identified by the authors of these works. For example, Runacres et al. (2024) identify the importance of knowing the prevalence and demographics of student carers in HEIs. Our scoping review will analyse and report on the findings from included studies estimating the prevalence and demographics of student carers in HEIs (e.g. Haugland et al., 2020; Armstrong-Carter et al., 2022; Chevrier et al., 2023), and methods used. The analysis will be useful for universities seeking to capture data on prevalence and demographics of student carers among their student populations, as well as for researchers.

Comment: The scoping review identified the following salient gaps in the literature. Firstly, limited research within any one country could be identified. This is a concern as the differences in education and healthcare between countries limits the comparisons and generalisations that can be made.

Response: We agree that making comparisons between countries is challenging and we acknowledge that countries will differ with respect to both their education and health and social care systems. When publishing our findings, we will make the challenges we encounter clearly known. We are not planning to compare the organisation, operation or delivery of education and health care systems across different countries. Rather than making generalisations, our intention in comparing countries is to have better awareness and understanding of the range of broad policy options available from different countries for responding to the needs of student carers in HEIs. Better awareness and understanding of different policy options is a key goal of comparative social policy (Lawrence, 1986).

Comment: Furthermore, no longitudinal research was identified, consequently still relatively little is known about mechanisms and causal links which impact student carers across their life course. A better understanding of these mechanisms is crucial for designing appropriate interventions. This is particularly salient as the scoping review identified concerns with employment prospects (Day 2019; Kettell 2018); this suggests that being a student carer might have an impact in future life regardless of the continuation of caring responsibilities.

Response: Existing reviews did not identify any longitudinal research. Our scoping review provides an opportunity to identify and report on findings of any longitudinal studies on student carers in HEIs conducted after these reviews were completed such as the qualitative longitudinal study undertaken by Runacres, Herron and Crust (2025). A life course perspective offers a very useful framework that could be used to inform the design of future research studies on student carers in HEIs. One of the questions of our scoping review relates to theoretical perspectives and concepts underpinning studies on student carers in HEIs, and the life course perspective could potentially be discussed as part of the analysis.

Comment: Much identified research focussed on student carer’s experiences, their health and well-being, and academic outcomes, little research has examined the implications of being a carer on broader student life, such as social activities.

Response: Research on the implications of being a carer on broader student life is limited. However, we have identified research published in 2020 that includes an examination of the issue of socialising for student carers in HEIs. This and any other research published since 2020 on this issue identified via our search strategy will be included and reported on in our scoping review.

Comment: There is a brief argument for the use of a scoping review at the end of the introduction, this argues that this scoping review intends to address a broad question and incorporate studies using a variety of different study designs, however, this is possible within a systematic review. This section also states that the reviewers are using a scoping review as they do not intend to assess quality, and, whilst this is the case within a scoping review, it should not be used as an argument for the use of this. Instead, it would be interesting to hear why it is important that quality is not assessed for this review. Also, it is stated in this protocol that policy responses to student carers in HEIs will be examined. I would assume that this information is within the grey literature, which therefore means that a scoping review would be suitable, and quality appraisal would be challenging. This justification for the chosen review approach could be mentioned here.

Response: Thank-you for making these points. While it is possible to address a broad question and incorporate studies using a variety of different study designs in a systematic review, the reason we chose to conduct a scoping review is because we will be including grey literature as a source of information to examine policy responses to student carers in HEIs. Hence, a scoping review is an appropriate approach to take. It was not our intention to use our decision not to assess quality as an argument for conducting a scoping review. We will make this clearer when writing a paper on the findings of our scoping review. Unlike systematic reviews, the quality of included studies is often omitted from scoping reviews, as it is not mandatory for scoping reviews, given that the goal is to map rather than critique existing empirical and grey literature (Arksey and O’Malley, 2005; Pollock et al., 2022). Moreover, information on the availability of tools and guidance for critical appraisal and risk of bias assessments of studies included in scoping reviews is lacking (Pollock et al., 2022). A clearer justification for applying the scoping review methodology will be included in the forthcoming manuscript.

Comment: It is mentioned at the end of the introduction that the term “caring-experienced students” will be adopted by this review, however this is not the case, instead “student carer” is used throughout. This needs to be clarified.

Response: We acknowledge that our explanation of the terms adopted is confusing. To clarify, we are using the term ‘student carers in higher education institutes’ for the purposes of the scoping review, as this is a commonly used and well-known term. However, we wanted to embrace the proposal by Larkin and colleagues to use an inclusive definition of student carers. Therefore, we amended the definition provided by the Carer’s Trust (2015: 7) to be inclusive of what Larkin et al (2021) refer to as ‘caring-experienced students.’ Consequently, for the scoping review, we adopt the term student carers in HEIs, defined as ‘any student in HEIs who is, becomes or has been caring, unpaid, for a friend or family member who due to illness, disability, a mental health problem or an addiction cannot cope without their support.’

Comment: The aim and objectives are clear, although perhaps very broad for a single review. I am unsure how you will be able to recognise these broad objectives within a single analysis.

Response: We agree that the aims and objectives are broad. We plan to present the findings from the review in an integrated way, with the potential of supplemental files to support the key findings. We will only consider splitting the paper if it does not undermine the findings.

Comment: There is overlap in your search terms. For example, al the subsequent terms would be captured by the first ““Care*” OR “caregiver*” OR “care-giver*” OR “caregiving” OR “care-giving” OR “caring”. This is the case within other levels of your search strategy.

Response: Table 1 of the paper provides a list of the ‘proposed’ search terms to be used to develop the search strategy. We are aware of the overlap in search terms, and this issue was addrssed during the exploratory scoping phase, which was undertaken soon after the protocol paper was published. For example, the inclusion of “Care*” resulted in many studies focused on career options of higher education students. Following this exploratory scoping phase, we addressed any issues and finalised the search terms and strings. The string for carers is now amended, as guided by our University Librarian.

“carer*” OR “care”OR “caregiv*” OR “care-giv*” OR “caring” OR “unpaid care*” OR “Family care” OR “eldercare” OR “elder-care” OR “elder care”

We will be reporting on the final search strategy that we used when reporting the findings of our scoping review.

Comment: Your definition for this review of student carers is those who provide care for a friend or family member, yet “friend” is not encompassed within your search terms.

Response: Similarly to our response to the above comment, we identified this omission during the exploratory scoping phase and set about addressing it. We will be reporting on the final search terms that we used when reporting on the findings of our scoping review.

References

Arksey H, O'Malley L: Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005; 8(1): 19–32.

Armstrong-Carter E, Panter AT, Hutson B, et al.: A university-wide survey of caregiving students in the US: individual differences and associations with emotional and academic adjustment. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2022; 9(1): 300.

Carers Trust: Supporting students with caring responsibilities: ideas and practice for universities to help student carers access and succeed in Higher Education. London: Carers Trust, 2015.

Chevrier B, Untas A, Dorard G: Young adult caregivers in Higher Education: a study of prevalence in France. J Further High Educ. 2023; 47(5): 699–710.

Haugland BSM, Hysing M, Sivertsen B: The burden of care: a national survey on the prevalence, demographic characteristics and health problems among Young Adult Carers attending Higher Education in Norway. Front Psychol. 2020; 10: 2859.

Knopf L, Wazinski K, Wanka A, et al.: Caregiving students: a systematic literature review of an under-researched group. J Further High Educ. 2022; 46(6): 822–835.

Larkin M, Kubiak C: Carers and Higher Education: where next? Widen Participat Lifelong Learn. 2021; 23(2): 130–151.

Lawrence, J. (1986) Comparative study of social policy: Conceptual and Methodological Issues’ International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 6(3), 1-12.

Pollock D, Tricco AC, Peters MDJ, Mclnerney PA, Khalil H, Godfrey CM, Alexander LA, Munn Z. Methodological quality, guidance, and tools in scoping reviews: a scoping review protocol. JBI Evid Synth. 2022 Apr 1;20(4):1098-1105. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-20-00570.

Runacres J, Herron D, Buckless K, et al.: Student carer experiences of Higher Education and support: a scoping review. Int J Inclus Educ. 2024; 28(7): 1275–1292.

Maria Pierce on behalf of author team
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 23 Jan 2025

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2	3
Version 1 23 Jan 25	read	read	read

Jessica Runacres, University of Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent, UK
Mary Larkin, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK
Peter Unwin, University of Worcester, Worcester, UK

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

20 Views

04 Mar 2025 | for Version 1

Peter Unwin, University of Worcester, Worcester, UK

20 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Voices of service users and carers in education -Marginalised groups - Social Inclusion- Disability

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

10 Sep 2025

Maria Pierce, Applied Social Studies, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Ireland

We wish to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our submissions and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled ‘Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol’. We have carefully considered each comment. Below, we provide a detailed response to each point raised, as well as supporting references, which we believe will strengthen the manuscript considerably.

Comment: This is a well-written proposal on an important issue that has not been fully addressed by previous research. The structure flows well and it would appear that key extant literature is already known to the authors, who set out an ambitious project.

Response: Thank-you for these comments. Please find below our response to each point your provided. We would be happy to provide further clarification if necessary.

Comment: It will be challenging to compare different countries' experiences, and to make reliable comparators. Contextual factors such as levels of fees / complexities in any 'carers' allowances' and percentages of 'study at home' / flexi studies in different disciplines will be very different across countries. Depending on how manageable the logistics appear, it might be worth narrowing the scope to specific disciplines which might allow for more validity comparisons to be drawn. For example, some disciplines (history/ languages, literature) lend themselves more to flexi - hours whereas certain science subjects demand on-campus lab time and vocational courses such as nursing and social work have considerable placement demands, with very little in-built flexibility. It may, of course, be that the team find that the study foci of caring-experienced students reflect a tendency toward certain subjects.

Response: We agree that making comparisons between countries is challenging and will make these challenges known and acknowledge the important contextual differences between countries when reporting on the findings. However, rather than making a detailed comparison of different aspects of the higher education systems and carer supports in different countries, our intention in comparing countries is to have better awareness and understanding of the range of broad policy options available for responding to the needs of student carers in HEIs, which a key goal of comparative social policy (Lawrence, 1986). We will be examining the literature to see what it says about programme flexibility and student choice in specific disciplines.

Comment: Another factor of interest, which might be a challenge too far, is to consider cohorts which became carers after their studies had commenced as compared to those who applied to HEIs when they were already carers.

Response: We agree that this would be interesting comparison. It will be interesting to see if any of the literature included in our scoping review makes this comparison.

Comment: On a point of detail, I note the team's preference for the term 'caring-experienced students' but that the proposed research questions use the term 'student carers'.

Response: To clarify, we are using the term ‘student carers in higher education institutes’ for the purposes of the scoping review, as this is a commonly used and well-known term. However, we wanted to embrace the proposal by Larkin and colleagues to use an inclusive definition of student carers. Therefore, we amended the definition provided by the Carer’s Trust (2015: 7) to be inclusive of what Larkin et al (2021) refer to as ‘caring-experienced students.’ Consequently, for the scoping review, we adopt the term student carers in HEIs and use it to mean ‘any student in HEIs who is, becomes or has been caring, unpaid, for a friend or family member who due to illness, disability, a mental health problem or an addiction cannot cope without their support.’

References

Carers Trust: Supporting students with caring responsibilities: ideas and practice for universities to help student carers access and succeed in Higher Education. London: Carers Trust, 2015.

Larkin M, Kubiak C: Carers and Higher Education: where next? Widen Participat Lifelong Learn. 2021; 23(2): 130–151.

Lawrence, J. (1986) Comparative study of social policy: Conceptual and Methodological Issues’ International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 6(3), 1-12.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

24 Views

03 Mar 2025 | for Version 1

Mary Larkin, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK

24 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

care, carers and caring

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

10 Sep 2025

Maria Pierce, Applied Social Studies, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Ireland

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

39 Views

26 Feb 2025 | for Version 1

Jessica Runacres, University of Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent, UK

39 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Student carers, informal carers, literature reviews

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

10 Sep 2025

Maria Pierce, Applied Social Studies, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Ireland

We wish to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our submission and for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript titled ‘Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol’. We have carefully considered each comment. Below, we provide a detailed response to each point raised, as well as supporting references. We believe that these author responses strengthen the manuscript considerably, and we hope it will now meet the standards for approval status in HRB Open Research.

Comment: This is a protocol for a scoping review focusing on student carers in higher education which is an emerging and interesting area of research. The researchers present a detailed outline of the methods to be undertaken and have generated broad research questions which address a noted gap in the current literature. It is clear that a significant amount of thought has been put into the proposed methods which are well articulated and suitably referenced. Some points to consider below.

Response: Thank-you for identifying points that warrant further consideration. Please find below our response to each of the points made. We would be happy to provide further clarification if necessary.

Comment: The work of Runacres et al. (2024) and Knopf et al. (2022) is mentioned in the introduction, including the findings, and it is stated that there are some areas of discussion that have yet to be explored, however specifically how this scoping review will build on this existing work is unclear. Some further critical engagement with the existing literature reviews on this topic would be beneficial here. Furthermore, the introduction argues that “there is a need to explore other aspects not covered by existing reviews” but why could be further justified.

Response: The scoping review seeks both to complement and build on the work of and Knopf et al. (2022) and Runacres et al. (2024). With respect to building on this work, it will analyse information on some of the knowledge gaps in the literature that have been identified by the authors of these works. For example, Runacres et al. (2024) identify the importance of knowing the prevalence and demographics of student carers in HEIs. Our scoping review will analyse and report on the findings from included studies estimating the prevalence and demographics of student carers in HEIs (e.g. Haugland et al., 2020; Armstrong-Carter et al., 2022; Chevrier et al., 2023), and methods used. The analysis will be useful for universities seeking to capture data on prevalence and demographics of student carers among their student populations, as well as for researchers.

Comment: The scoping review identified the following salient gaps in the literature. Firstly, limited research within any one country could be identified. This is a concern as the differences in education and healthcare between countries limits the comparisons and generalisations that can be made.

Response: We agree that making comparisons between countries is challenging and we acknowledge that countries will differ with respect to both their education and health and social care systems. When publishing our findings, we will make the challenges we encounter clearly known. We are not planning to compare the organisation, operation or delivery of education and health care systems across different countries. Rather than making generalisations, our intention in comparing countries is to have better awareness and understanding of the range of broad policy options available from different countries for responding to the needs of student carers in HEIs. Better awareness and understanding of different policy options is a key goal of comparative social policy (Lawrence, 1986).

Comment: Furthermore, no longitudinal research was identified, consequently still relatively little is known about mechanisms and causal links which impact student carers across their life course. A better understanding of these mechanisms is crucial for designing appropriate interventions. This is particularly salient as the scoping review identified concerns with employment prospects (Day 2019; Kettell 2018); this suggests that being a student carer might have an impact in future life regardless of the continuation of caring responsibilities.

Response: Existing reviews did not identify any longitudinal research. Our scoping review provides an opportunity to identify and report on findings of any longitudinal studies on student carers in HEIs conducted after these reviews were completed such as the qualitative longitudinal study undertaken by Runacres, Herron and Crust (2025). A life course perspective offers a very useful framework that could be used to inform the design of future research studies on student carers in HEIs. One of the questions of our scoping review relates to theoretical perspectives and concepts underpinning studies on student carers in HEIs, and the life course perspective could potentially be discussed as part of the analysis.

Comment: Much identified research focussed on student carer’s experiences, their health and well-being, and academic outcomes, little research has examined the implications of being a carer on broader student life, such as social activities.

Response: Research on the implications of being a carer on broader student life is limited. However, we have identified research published in 2020 that includes an examination of the issue of socialising for student carers in HEIs. This and any other research published since 2020 on this issue identified via our search strategy will be included and reported on in our scoping review.

Comment: There is a brief argument for the use of a scoping review at the end of the introduction, this argues that this scoping review intends to address a broad question and incorporate studies using a variety of different study designs, however, this is possible within a systematic review. This section also states that the reviewers are using a scoping review as they do not intend to assess quality, and, whilst this is the case within a scoping review, it should not be used as an argument for the use of this. Instead, it would be interesting to hear why it is important that quality is not assessed for this review. Also, it is stated in this protocol that policy responses to student carers in HEIs will be examined. I would assume that this information is within the grey literature, which therefore means that a scoping review would be suitable, and quality appraisal would be challenging. This justification for the chosen review approach could be mentioned here.

Response: Thank-you for making these points. While it is possible to address a broad question and incorporate studies using a variety of different study designs in a systematic review, the reason we chose to conduct a scoping review is because we will be including grey literature as a source of information to examine policy responses to student carers in HEIs. Hence, a scoping review is an appropriate approach to take. It was not our intention to use our decision not to assess quality as an argument for conducting a scoping review. We will make this clearer when writing a paper on the findings of our scoping review. Unlike systematic reviews, the quality of included studies is often omitted from scoping reviews, as it is not mandatory for scoping reviews, given that the goal is to map rather than critique existing empirical and grey literature (Arksey and O’Malley, 2005; Pollock et al., 2022). Moreover, information on the availability of tools and guidance for critical appraisal and risk of bias assessments of studies included in scoping reviews is lacking (Pollock et al., 2022). A clearer justification for applying the scoping review methodology will be included in the forthcoming manuscript.

Comment: It is mentioned at the end of the introduction that the term “caring-experienced students” will be adopted by this review, however this is not the case, instead “student carer” is used throughout. This needs to be clarified.

Response: We acknowledge that our explanation of the terms adopted is confusing. To clarify, we are using the term ‘student carers in higher education institutes’ for the purposes of the scoping review, as this is a commonly used and well-known term. However, we wanted to embrace the proposal by Larkin and colleagues to use an inclusive definition of student carers. Therefore, we amended the definition provided by the Carer’s Trust (2015: 7) to be inclusive of what Larkin et al (2021) refer to as ‘caring-experienced students.’ Consequently, for the scoping review, we adopt the term student carers in HEIs, defined as ‘any student in HEIs who is, becomes or has been caring, unpaid, for a friend or family member who due to illness, disability, a mental health problem or an addiction cannot cope without their support.’

Comment: The aim and objectives are clear, although perhaps very broad for a single review. I am unsure how you will be able to recognise these broad objectives within a single analysis.

Response: We agree that the aims and objectives are broad. We plan to present the findings from the review in an integrated way, with the potential of supplemental files to support the key findings. We will only consider splitting the paper if it does not undermine the findings.

Comment: There is overlap in your search terms. For example, al the subsequent terms would be captured by the first ““Care*” OR “caregiver*” OR “care-giver*” OR “caregiving” OR “care-giving” OR “caring”. This is the case within other levels of your search strategy.

Response: Table 1 of the paper provides a list of the ‘proposed’ search terms to be used to develop the search strategy. We are aware of the overlap in search terms, and this issue was addrssed during the exploratory scoping phase, which was undertaken soon after the protocol paper was published. For example, the inclusion of “Care*” resulted in many studies focused on career options of higher education students. Following this exploratory scoping phase, we addressed any issues and finalised the search terms and strings. The string for carers is now amended, as guided by our University Librarian.

“carer*” OR “care”OR “caregiv*” OR “care-giv*” OR “caring” OR “unpaid care*” OR “Family care” OR “eldercare” OR “elder-care” OR “elder care”

We will be reporting on the final search strategy that we used when reporting the findings of our scoping review.

Comment: Your definition for this review of student carers is those who provide care for a friend or family member, yet “friend” is not encompassed within your search terms.

Response: Similarly to our response to the above comment, we identified this omission during the exploratory scoping phase and set about addressing it. We will be reporting on the final search terms that we used when reporting on the findings of our scoping review.

References

Arksey H, O'Malley L: Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005; 8(1): 19–32.

Armstrong-Carter E, Panter AT, Hutson B, et al.: A university-wide survey of caregiving students in the US: individual differences and associations with emotional and academic adjustment. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2022; 9(1): 300.

Carers Trust: Supporting students with caring responsibilities: ideas and practice for universities to help student carers access and succeed in Higher Education. London: Carers Trust, 2015.

Chevrier B, Untas A, Dorard G: Young adult caregivers in Higher Education: a study of prevalence in France. J Further High Educ. 2023; 47(5): 699–710.

Haugland BSM, Hysing M, Sivertsen B: The burden of care: a national survey on the prevalence, demographic characteristics and health problems among Young Adult Carers attending Higher Education in Norway. Front Psychol. 2020; 10: 2859.

Knopf L, Wazinski K, Wanka A, et al.: Caregiving students: a systematic literature review of an under-researched group. J Further High Educ. 2022; 46(6): 822–835.

Larkin M, Kubiak C: Carers and Higher Education: where next? Widen Participat Lifelong Learn. 2021; 23(2): 130–151.

Lawrence, J. (1986) Comparative study of social policy: Conceptual and Methodological Issues’ International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 6(3), 1-12.

Pollock D, Tricco AC, Peters MDJ, Mclnerney PA, Khalil H, Godfrey CM, Alexander LA, Munn Z. Methodological quality, guidance, and tools in scoping reviews: a scoping review protocol. JBI Evid Synth. 2022 Apr 1;20(4):1098-1105. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-20-00570.

Runacres J, Herron D, Buckless K, et al.: Student carer experiences of Higher Education and support: a scoping review. Int J Inclus Educ. 2024; 28(7): 1275–1292.

Maria Pierce on behalf of author team

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] Arksey H, O'Malley L: Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005; 8(1): 19–32. Publisher Full Text

[2] Armstrong-Carter E, Panter AT, Hutson B, et al.: A university-wide survey of caregiving students in the US: individual differences and associations with emotional and academic adjustment. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2022; 9(1): 300. Publisher Full Text

[3] Braun V, Clarke V: Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Res Sport Exercise Health. 2019; 11(4): 589–597. Publisher Full Text

[4] Carers Trust: Supporting students with caring responsibilities: ideas and practice for universities to help student carers access and succeed in Higher Education. London: Carers Trust, 2015. Reference Source

[5] Chevrier B, Untas A, Dorard G: Young adult caregivers in Higher Education: a study of prevalence in France. J Further High Educ. 2023; 47(5): 699–710. Publisher Full Text

[6] Day C: An empirical case study of young adult carers' engagement and success in Higher Education. Int J Inclus Educ. 2021; 25(14): 1597–1615. Publisher Full Text

[7] Haugland BSM, Hysing M, Sivertsen B: The burden of care: a national survey on the prevalence, demographic characteristics and health problems among Young Adult Carers attending Higher Education in Norway. Front Psychol. 2020; 10: 2859. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[8] Knopf L, Wazinski K, Wanka A, et al.: Caregiving students: a systematic literature review of an under-researched group. J Further High Educ. 2022; 46(6): 822–835. Publisher Full Text

[9] Larkin M, Kubiak C: Carers and Higher Education: where next? Widen Participat Lifelong Learn. 2021; 23(2): 130–151. Publisher Full Text

[10] Lely J, Morris HC, Sasson N, et al.: How to write a scoping review protocol: guidance and template.OSF, 2023. Publisher Full Text

[11] Munro D, Willis J, Gibson A, et al.: From inside the head to putting it on the table: supporting reflexive decision-making for unpaid female carers considering Higher Education. Reflect Pract. 2024; 25(3): 426–440. Publisher Full Text

[12] Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, et al.: Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020; 18(10): 2119–2126. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[13] Pierce M: Student carers in Higher Education institutions in Ireland: an emerging policy issue. Dublin: UCD Geary Institute for Public Policy, 2024. Reference Source

[14] Rawlinson S: 'Little Islands': challenges and opportunities for student carers in Higher Education. Int J Inclus Educ. 2024; 1–16. Publisher Full Text

[15] Runacres J, Herron D, Buckless K, et al.: Student carer experiences of Higher Education and support: a scoping review. Int J Inclus Educ. 2024; 28(7): 1275–1292. Publisher Full Text

[16] Taylor J, Gleeson P, Teague T, et al.: Practices of inclusion for carers who are Higher Education students. Int J Inclus Educ. 2023; 27(13): 1469–1486. Publisher Full Text

[17] Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al.: PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018; 169(7): 467–473. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[18] van der Werf HM, Paans W, Francke AL, et al.: Identifying and supporting students with a chronically Ill family member: a mixed-methods study on the perceived competences and role views of lecturers. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023; 20(6): 4978. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Background and rationale

Research aims and objectives

Methods

Stage 1: identifying the research question

Stage 2: identifying relevant studies

Table 1. Search terms.

Stage 3: study selection and screening

Table 2. Inclusion criteria.

Stage 4: data charting/collection/extraction

Stage 5: collating, summarising and reporting the results

Dissemination

Conclusion

Ethics

Data availability

Extended data

Acknowledgements

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Are you a HRB-funded researcher?

Thank you!

Student Carers in Higher Education Institutions: A Scoping Review Protocol

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Background and rationale

Research aims and objectives

Methods

Stage 1: identifying the research question

Stage 2: identifying relevant studies

Table 1. Search terms.

Stage 3: study selection and screening

Table 2. Inclusion criteria.

Stage 4: data charting/collection/extraction

Stage 5: collating, summarising and reporting the results

Dissemination

Conclusion

Ethics

Data availability

Extended data

Acknowledgements

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated

Are you a HRB-funded researcher?

Thank you!