Background Menopause is a major life transition with diverse physical, psychological, and social symptoms. More than 70% of women experience musculoskeletal (MSK) pain during the menopausal transition, and around 25% are disabled by it; this symptom cluster was recently characterised as the musculoskeletal syndrome of menopause. These symptoms are frequently normalised as an inevitable consequence of ageing rather than recognised as treatable, contributing to underdiagnosis and limited management. Mobile health (mHealth) applications increasingly deliver education, symptom tracking, and self-management support to menopausal women, yet the evidence base is fragmented, and how well this research captures MSK symptoms, rather than leaving them embedded within broader symptom measures, remains unclear. Methods This scoping review will follow JBI methodology and be reported using the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Six bibliographic databases (Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, and IEEE Xplore) will be searched, with reference-list hand-searching of included studies. Records will be screened in duplicate in Covidence; title/abstract screening will retain records indicating symptom monitoring or tracking with a potential MSK link (including composite menopause symptom measures) or strength-oriented exercise, with MSK relevance confirmed at full text. A structured charting form will capture intervention characteristics, symptom-tracking functionality, study design, and outcomes, alongside an MSK-directness classification distinguishing direct measurement from indirect coverage (within composite measures, or exercise/physical-activity components). Reported acceptability, usability, and engagement will be organised through the Technology Acceptance Model. Findings will be synthesised narratively using tables and thematic summaries. Conclusions This review will map how published, menopause-related mHealth research represents MSK symptoms, and whether they are assessed directly or only within broader symptom measures, rather than evaluating the applications themselves, which are the focus of a separate, complementary review. Results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and presented at national and/or international conferences.
Buttenham et al. (Wed,) studied this question.