Equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) in the healthcare field are crucial in meeting the healthcare needs of a progressively diverse society. In fact, a diverse healthcare workforce enables culturally sensitive care, promotes health equity and enhances the understanding of various needs and patients’ viewpoints, potentially resulting in more effective patient treatment and improved patient outcomes. Despite this, information on the effectiveness of policies or programmes promoting EDI in health institutions is scarce. The objective of this systematic review is to assess the effects and outcomes of EDI programmes in healthcare institutions.

We will conduct Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-compliant systematic review of studies on EDI programmes and describe their effects and outcomes in healthcare institutions. We will search PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases. Selected studies will include randomised control trials (RCTs), non-RCTs and cross-sectional studies published either in English or French. Quality appraisal of studies and a narrative synthesis of extracted data will be conducted as well as a meta-analysis if possible. The quality of evidence in this review will be assessed by the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

We anticipate that this systematic review will reveal information on the effect of EDI programmes and their outcomes in healthcare institutions. We expect this information will provide insights that will lead to improvements in designing EDI policies and programmes in healthcare institutions.

No ethical clearance is required for this study as no primary data will be collected. The final manuscript will be submitted to a journal for publication. In addition to this, the results of the study will also be disseminated through conference presentations to inform the research and clinical practice.

This protocol has been registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; registration number CRD42024502781.

To undertake further psychometric testing of the Multimorbidity Treatment Burden Questionnaire (MTBQ) and examine whether reversing the scale reduced floor effects.

Survey.

UK primary care.

Adults (≥18 years) with three or more long-term conditions randomly selected from four general practices and invited by post.

Baseline survey: sociodemographics, MTBQ (original or version with scale reversed), Treatment Burden Questionnaire (TBQ), four questions (from QQ-10) on ease of completing the questionnaires. Follow-up survey (1–4 weeks after baseline): MTBQ, TBQ and QQ-10. Anonymous data collected from electronic GP records: consultations (preceding 12 months) and long-term conditions. The proportion of missing data and distribution of responses were examined for the original and reversed versions of the MTBQ and the TBQ. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Spearman’s rank correlation (R_s) assessed test–retest reliability and construct validity, respectively. Ease of completing the MTBQ and TBQ was compared. Interpretability was assessed by grouping global MTBQ scores into 0 and tertiles (>0).

244 adults completed the baseline survey (consent rate 31%, mean age 70 years) and 225 completed the follow-up survey. Reversing the scale did not reduce floor effects or data skewness. The global MTBQ scores had good test–retest reliability (ICC for agreement at baseline and follow-up 0.765, 95% CI 0.702 to 0.816). Global MTBQ score was correlated with global TBQ score (R_s 0.77, ps 0.17, p=0.010), and number of different general practitioners consulted (R_s 0.23, ps –0.063, p=0.330). Most participants agreed that both the MTBQ and TBQ were easy to complete and included aspects they were concerned about.

This study demonstrates test–retest reliability and ease of completion of the MTBQ and builds on a previous study demonstrating good content validity, construct validity and internal consistency reliability of the questionnaire.

Menstrual health is essential for gender equity and the well-being of women and girls. Qualitative research has described the burden of poor menstrual health on health and education; however, these impacts have not been quantified, curtailing investment. The Adolescent Menstrual Experiences and Health Cohort (AMEHC) Study aims to describe menstrual health and its trajectories across adolescence, and quantify the relationships between menstrual health and girls’ health and education in Khulna, Bangladesh.

AMEHC is a prospective longitudinal cohort of 2016 adolescent girls recruited at the commencement of class 6 (secondary school, mean age=12) across 101 schools selected through a proportional random sampling approach. Each year, the cohort will be asked to complete a survey capturing (1) girls’ menstrual health and experiences, (2) support for menstrual health, and (3) health and education outcomes. Survey questions were refined through qualitative research, cognitive interviews and pilot survey in the year preceding the cohort. Girls’ guardians will be surveyed at baseline and wave 2 to capture their perspectives and household demographics. Annual assessments will capture schools’ water, sanitation and hygiene, and support for menstruation and collect data on participants’ education, including school attendance and performance (in maths, literacy). Cohort enrolment and baseline survey commenced in February 2023. Follow-up waves are scheduled for 2024, 2025 and 2026, with plans for extension. A nested subcohort will follow 406 post-menarche girls at 2-month intervals throughout 2023 (May, August, October) to describe changes across menstrual periods. This protocol outlines a priori hypotheses regarding the impacts of menstrual health to be tested through the cohort.

AMEHC has ethical approval from the Alfred Hospital Ethics Committee (369/22) and BRAC James P Grant School of Public Health Institutional Review Board (IRB-06 July 22-024). Study materials and outputs will be available open access through peer-reviewed publication and study web pages.

Premature onset of type 2 diabetes and excess mortality are critical issues internationally, particularly in Indigenous populations. There is an urgent need for developmentally appropriate and culturally safe models of care. We describe the methods for the codesign, implementation and evaluation of enhanced models of care with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youth living with type 2 diabetes across Northern Australia.

Our mixed-methods approach is informed by the principles of codesign. Across eight sites in four regions, the project brings together the lived experience of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people (aged 10–25) with type 2 diabetes, their families and communities, and health professionals providing diabetes care through a structured yet flexible codesign process. Participants will help identify and collaborate in the development of a range of multifaceted improvements to current models of care. These may include addressing needs identified in our formative work such as the development of screening and management guidelines, referral pathways, peer support networks, diabetes information resources and training for health professionals in youth type 2 diabetes management. The codesign process will adopt a range of methods including qualitative interviews, focus group discussions, art-based methods and healthcare systems assessments. A developmental evaluation approach will be used to create and refine the components and principles of enhanced models of care. We anticipate that this codesign study will produce new theoretical insights and practice frameworks, resources and approaches for age-appropriate, culturally safe models of care.

The study design was developed in collaboration with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous researchers, health professionals and health service managers and has received ethical approval across all sites. A range of outputs will be produced to disseminate findings to participants, other stakeholders and the scholarly community using creative and traditional formats.

The growing incidence of mental ill health in doctors was a major issue in the UK and internationally, even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. It has significant and far-reaching implications, including poor quality or inconsistent patient care, absenteeism, workforce attrition and retention issues, presenteeism, and increased risk of suicide. Existing approaches to workplace support do not take into account the individual, organisational and social factors contributing to mental ill health in doctors, nor how interventions/programmes might interact with each other within the workplace. The aim of this study is to work collaboratively with eight purposively selected National Health Service (NHS) trusts within England to develop an evidence-based implementation toolkit for all NHS trusts to reduce doctors’ mental ill health and its impacts on the workforce.

The project will incorporate three phases. Phase 1 develops a typology of interventions to reduce doctors’ mental ill health. Phase 2 is a realist evaluation of the existing combinations of strategies being used by acute English healthcare trusts to reduce doctors’ mental ill health (including preventative promotion of well-being), based on 160 interviews with key stakeholders. Phase 3 synthesises the insights gained through phases 1 and 2, to create an implementation toolkit that all UK healthcare trusts can use to optimise their strategies to reduce doctors’ mental ill health and its impact on the workforce and patient care.

Ethical approval has been granted for phase 2 of the project from the NHS Research Ethics Committee (REC reference number 22/WA/0352). As part of the conditions for our ethics approval, the sites included in our study will remain anonymous. To ensure the relevance of the study’s outputs, we have planned a wide range of dissemination strategies: an implementation toolkit for healthcare leaders, service managers and doctors; conventional academic outputs such as journal manuscripts and conference presentations; plain English summaries; cartoons and animations; and a media engagement campaign.

In Australia, only 22% of male and 8% of female adolescents meet the muscle-strengthening physical activity guidelines, and few school-based interventions support participation in resistance training (RT). After promising findings from our effectiveness trial, we conducted a state-wide dissemination of the ‘Resistance Training for Teens’ (RT4T) intervention from 2015 to 2020. Despite high estimated reach, we found considerable variability in programme delivery and teachers reported numerous barriers to implementation. Supporting schools when they first adopt evidence-based programmes may strengthen programme fidelity, sustainability, and by extension, programme impact. However, the most effective implementation support model for RT4T is unclear.

To compare the effects of three implementation support models on the reach (primary outcome), dose delivered, fidelity, sustainability, impact and cost of RT4T.

We will conduct a hybrid type III implementation–effectiveness trial involving grade 9 and 10 (aged 14–16 years) students from 90 secondary schools in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Schools will be recruited across one cohort in 2023, stratified by school type, socioeconomic status and location, and randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive one of the following levels of implementation support: (1) ‘low’ (training and resources), (2) ‘moderate’ (training and resources+external support) or ‘high’ (training and resources+external support+equipment). Training includes a teacher workshop related to RT4T programme content (theory and practical sessions) and the related resources. Additional support will be provided by trained project officers from five local health districts. Equipment will consist of a pack of semiportable RT equipment (ie, weighted bars, dumbbells, resistance bands and inverted pull up bar stands) valued at ~$A1000 per school. Study outcomes will be assessed at baseline (T0), 6 months (T1) and 18 months (T2). A range of quantitative (teacher logs, observations and teacher surveys) and qualitative (semistructured interviews with teachers) methods will be used to assess primary (reach) and secondary outcomes (dose delivered, fidelity, sustainability, impact and cost of RT4T). Quantitative analyses will use logistic mixed models for dichotomous outcomes, and ordinal or linear mixed effects regression models for continuous outcomes, with alpha levels set at p

Ethics approval has been obtained from the University of Newcastle (H-2021-0418), the NSW Department of Education (SERAP:2022215), Hunter New England Human Research Ethics Committee (2023/ETH00052) and the Catholic Schools Office. The design, conduct and reporting will adhere to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement, the Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies statement and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist. Findings will be published in open access peer-reviewed journals, key stakeholders will be provided with a detailed report. We will support ongoing dissemination of RT4T in Australian schools via professional learning for teachers.

ACTRN12622000861752.