The National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) has 20 Biomedical Research Centres (BRCs) and 28 Clinical Research Facilities (CRFs) that work with NHS organisations and universities to translate cutting-edge research into new interventions. As mandated by NIHR, all BRCs/CRFs have an Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) strategy which details how they will implement EDI through their practices, research and organisational systems. This UK-based study aimed to conduct a pilot qualitative analysis of EDI strategies to compare all 20 NIHR BRCs/CRFs, identify common priorities and improve inclusion across research infrastructures. The analysis was presented at the first in-person seminar for NIHR EDI professionals (Birmingham, October 2024).

Qualitative content analysis of publicly available EDI strategy documents.

48 research infrastructures (20 BRCs and 28 CRFs).

EDI strategies were collated into NVivo and Microsoft Excel where inductive coding and content analysis was executed for objectives, action plans and success measures. Both quantitative and qualitative content analyses were conducted to analyse the prevalence of categories and similarities or differences between them. Logic models were developed to map the process of implementing EDI for each main category generated.

The most common main category across objectives was ‘Cultural change in workplaces’ for BRCs and ‘Leadership, governance and policy’ for CRFs. For action plans, codes for ‘Collaborations and Networks’ and ‘Research development and delivery’ were most prevalent for BRCs—for CRFs, it was ‘Workforce culture change’ and ‘Research development and delivery’. Success measures for both BRCs and CRFs most often related to ‘Summary reports, feedback, audits and monitoring’. Differences between BRCs and CRFs reflected their organisational roles and strategic maturity, with BRCs tending to have more comprehensive, measurable strategies.

This study provides the first systematic analysis of EDI strategies across all NIHR BRCs and CRFs, offering a comprehensive mapping of how EDI priorities are articulated and operationalised across objectives, action plans and success measures. While both infrastructures align with NIHR’s inclusion goals, BRCs generally showed more strategic maturity than CRFs. As the analysis was based solely on publicly available strategy documents, it could not determine the extent to which any strategy had been implemented in practice. Future research is needed to examine implementation and impact. The contribution of this work lies in demonstrating systematically and for the first time the ways in which EDI commitments are framed across NIHR infrastructures and their varying levels of depth and maturity. Our findings support the development of more measurable EDI frameworks and highlight opportunities to strengthen inclusion across NIHR-funded research infrastructures.

Palliative care supports the physical, emotional, social and spiritual needs of people with serious life-limiting illness. Future research must align with the priorities of people approaching the end of their lives, and those close to them.

To undertake a refresh of the James Lind Alliance Palliative and End of Life Care Priority Setting Partnership, to identify and prioritise areas for future research.

The James Lind Alliance process was applied, between May 2023 and February 2025. An initial online survey collected areas for future research from participants. These were synthesised into a long list of questions and shortlisted through a second online survey. Final ranking of priorities was achieved using an adapted Nominal Group Technique within a prioritisation workshop.

People living with serious life-limiting illnesses, carers, friends and family members supporting them, bereaved people, health and social care professionals, volunteers working in palliative and end-of-life care and members of the public.

1032 and 626 responses were received to survey 1 and 2, respectively. 20 people with lived and professional experience attended the prioritisation workshop. An updated list of 24 priorities for palliative and end-of-life care research was produced.

The priorities reflect the range of issues shaping end-of-life experiences and serve as a call to action for researchers and funders.

Increased risks and concerns regarding patient safety in early-phase studies exist because knowledge about the new intervention is still accumulating. This means that narrow eligibility criteria are needed. However, if early-phase studies are narrow in their inclusion, for example, by not including diverse populations, there is a potential risk that new therapies have insufficient relevant efficacy and safety data. Existing research has explored equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) factors in early-phase pharmaceutical studies, but it has not been possible to find studies that have systematically examined whether EDI factors have been considered in surgical studies reporting innovative procedures. We aim to examine how EDI factors are considered in early-phase surgical studies and surgical innovation reports to explore how this may impact on later-phase evaluation and inclusive intervention implementation.

A scoping review following the JBI (Joanna Briggs Institute) and Arksey and O’Malley’s five-step process is being conducted. We will search Scopus, PubMed and Web of Science for surgical early-phase studies. A two-step screening process for eligibility is being used. Independent double screening will take place for 20% of the papers. Eligible articles will report early evaluation of an innovative surgical/invasive procedure. Excluded will be comparative and later-phase studies and early evaluations of pharmaceutical products even in a surgical setting. Data on article details, patient eligibility and whether protected characteristics are reported and considered will be extracted. Information about EDI considerations reported in the introduction or discussion of the papers will also be extracted. Findings will be discussed with a patient advisory group. A content synthesis approach will be undertaken and descriptive summaries presented.

This study does not require ethical approval being a secondary analysis. The findings will be disseminated through academic journal publications and oral presentations.

Many medical students with mental health problems do not seek help. However, it is unclear what medical schools can do to promote help seeking. We sought to establish the effect of medical school initiatives on help seeking for mental health problems among medical students.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published between 2013 and 2023.

MEDLINE Ovid, EMBASE Ovid, PsycINFO Ovid, Web of Science, ERIC, BEI and Education Abstracts.

Studies that assess the effect of an intervention delivered by a university or healthcare organisation on medical students’ attitudes towards help seeking or their help-seeking behaviour for mental health problems.

Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion and extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (for randomised controlled trials (RCTs)) and Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (for non-randomised studies). Studies were grouped according to intervention type. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations.

The evidence from the meta-analyses was of very low to low certainty. Improvements in help seeking were noted in the meta-analyses of pre-post studies investigating the effect of interventions with a lived-experience component (five studies, n=492, standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.62, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.91, p

Overall, the evidence is of very low to low certainty, due to the serious risk of bias in the included studies, most of which used uncontrolled pre-post designs. Interventions with a lived-experience component may improve medical students’ help-seeking attitudes. Standard clinical clerkships did not appear to impact personal help seeking, despite multiple previous studies suggesting they reduce stigma, suggesting barriers to help seeking extend beyond stigma and mental health literacy in this student population. Further high-quality research, particularly RCTs with long-term follow-up, is needed to firm up the evidence base in this area.

CRD42024319771.

To explore the role of senior and mid-level managers as barriers or enablers to change in tackling the discriminatory challenges experienced by Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) employees working in the National Health Service (NHS).

A multi-level, multi-sourced qualitative study of five NHS Trusts in England.

26 qualitative interviews with senior leaders and BME network chairs (27 participants) and five focus groups (37 participants) with BME employees, across five NHS Trusts in England.

Our findings revealed that discrimination, racial harassment, incivilities, lack of progression and exclusion experienced by BME employees appear to be deeply ingrained in the culture of the NHS. Despite numerous national and local initiatives aimed at promoting inclusivity and addressing discriminatory behaviours, our findings also revealed a notable disparity between what senior leaders thought was effective in addressing discriminatory behaviours and the actual lived experiences of BME employees. Finally, a key finding was the pivotal role middle managers played in setting the tone for whether discriminatory behaviours are challenged or allowed to persist, which directly impacts on the overall experiences of BME employees within the NHS.

Our results provide evidence that not only does racial discrimination continue to be experienced by NHS BME employees, but that middle managers are key to addressing and improving this situation. Despite there being national policies and initiatives addressing racial discrimination, our study found that positive change, whether at an individual or organisational level, is dependent on the actions and commitment of middle managers.

Atrial Fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia worldwide affecting an estimated 5% of people over the age of 65 and is a leading cause of stroke and heart failure. Identification of patients at risk allows preventative measures and treatment before these complications occur. Conventional risk prediction models are static, do not have flexibility to incorporate dynamic risk factors and possess only modest predictive value. Artificial intelligence and machine learning-powered health virtual twin technology offer transformative methods for risk prediction and guiding clinical decisions.

In this prospective observational study, 1200 patients will be recruited in two tertiary centres. Patients hospitalised with acute illnesses (sepsis, heart failure, respiratory failure, stroke or critical illness) and patients having undergone high-risk surgery (major vascular surgery, upper gastrointestinal surgery and emergency surgery) will be monitored with a patch-based remote wireless monitoring system for up to 14 days. Clinical and electrocardiographic data will be used for modelling the risk of new-onset AF. The primary outcome is episodes of AF >30 s and will be described as ratio of episodes/patient and as percentage of patients having episodes of AF. Secondary outcomes include 30-day and 90-day readmission rates and complications of AF.

The aim of this study is to generate data for the development and validation of health virtual twins predicting onset of AF in an at-risk population. The intelligent monitoring to predict atrial fibrillation (NOTE-AF) study is part of the TARGET project, a Horizon Europe funded programme which includes risk prediction, diagnosis and management of AF-related stroke (https://target-horizon.eu/).

The study has received approval by the Health Research Authority and the National Research Ethics Service (REC reference 24/NW/0170, IRAS project ID: 342528) in the UK and has been registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT06600620). Results will be disseminated as outlined in the TARGET protocol to communicate project ideas, activities and results to diverse audiences.

NCT06600620.

Patient safety is a central pillar of healthcare quality. However, with repeated examples of failure emerging across healthcare, there is an ongoing need to better understand how the safety of care can be improved for patients. Evidence suggests that some population groups are more likely to inequitably experience healthcare harm. This review will look at what evidence exists on understanding patient safety harm and its causes and impact on different population groups and particularly those from marginalised backgrounds. It will also focus on what actions can be taken to address patient safety disparities and service improvements, including with patient and public involvement.

A scoping review of empirical and grey literature will be conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance. Medical databases such as Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO will be searched for peer-reviewed articles and grey literature sources such as BASE, institutional and government repositories will be searched for reports, independent reviews, confidential enquiries, etc. These will be searched from 2001 to present for publications in English. Title and abstract and full text screening will be undertaken by one or more people acting as first reviewers and validated by a second reviewer. A data extraction form will be used to extract data including equity considerations following the PRO EDI framework. Data will be grouped thematically and analysed using a narrative approach.

Ethics approval is not required for this work as the information used is publicly available. The findings of the review will be disseminated through stakeholder meetings, a peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations.

osf.io/4mfus.

Older adults are particularly vulnerable to climate-related stressors such as extreme heat, food and water insecurity and displacement, all of which can worsen existing health conditions. This is further compounded by age-related physiological changes, pre-existing health conditions and social factors like isolation and limited mobility. With a growing population of older adults in low-income and middle-income countries, their vulnerability to climate change becomes a critical global public health issue and yet is understudied and needs urgent and comprehensive action. This study aims to investigate how climate seasonality impacts the health, well-being and socioeconomic conditions of older adults in rural communities of Kenya.

This formative qualitative study will use a combination of 40 in-depth interviews with older adults and key informant interviews with 20 health workers and 12 policy-makers to provide a comprehensive understanding of the impacts of climate seasonality on the health, well-being and socioeconomic conditions of older adults in rural communities of Busia and Kilifi Counties in Kenya. These counties were selected for the study due to their history of significant flooding and heat stress events. Study participants will be purposively selected for the interviews. A thematic approach will be employed in data analysis using NVivo V.14 software.

This study received ethical approval from the Medical College of Wisconsin Institutional Review Board, Institutional Scientific Ethics Review Committee at Africa International University and National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation, Kenya. The study outputs will reflect the views and experiences of older adults, health workers and policy-makers. The findings will be disseminated to the scientific community through conferences and peer-reviewed publications and to the older adults, health workers, communities and policy-makers through videos and dissemination meetings, and policy briefs. The findings will deepen understanding of how climate seasonality is experienced by older people and shape strategies for resilience and adaptation.

Cultural safety is critical to addressing healthcare disparities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The Deadly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Nursing and Midwifery Mentoring (DANMM) programme was developed to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Nurses and Midwives through culturally responsive mentorship. This pilot study evaluates the feasibility and acceptability of the DANMM programme and its impact on cultural safety knowledge and workplace experiences.

A mixed-methods exploratory study research design was employed. Data collection methods were underpinned by the Ngaa-bi-nya evaluation framework.

Four Local Health Districts in New South Wales, Australia.

20 participants completed the Ganngaleh nga Yagaleh (GY) cultural safety tool (n=12 pre-DANMM programme and n=8 post-DANMM programme), between June 2023 and October 2024. Five of these participants also took part in individual yarns between August and November 2024.

Changes in median cultural safety knowledge scores (pre- to post-programme), measured using the GY tool, were analysed using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test for unpaired data (p

Statistically significant positive changes in median GY tool scores (pre to post) were observed for item 13 (median pre=4.5, post=5.0; p=0.02), item 32 (median pre=4.0, post=5.0; p=0.03) and item 40 (median pre=3.5, post=5.0; p=0.03); with a statistically significant negative change in scores observed for item 6 (median pre=3.0, post=2.0; p=0.01). Qualitative themes included: (1) fostering growth and navigating barriers, (2) the power of connection and (3) navigating prejudice and racism in the workplace. Participants valued the mentorship model, though programme participation was affected by organisational barriers, including time constraints and a lack of managerial support.

The DANMM programme was found to be acceptable and feasible with evidence of enhanced cultural safety knowledge and mentorship benefits. However, the findings highlight the enduring impacts of colonial and cultural load and the need for greater organisational support to ensure the successful implementation and long-term sustainability of cultural safety initiatives. Future research should examine the longer-term effects on workforce retention and overcoming barriers to implementation and scalability.

Acute intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) is devastating with a 1 month mortality rate of ~40%. Cerebral oedema can complicate acute ICH and is associated with poor outcome. In patients with large ICH, the accompanying swelling increases mass effect and causes brain herniation. Mannitol, an osmotic diuretic, is used to treat cerebral oedema after traumatic brain injury, but its safety and efficacy in ICH is unclear. We aim to assess the feasibility of a phase II randomised, controlled trial of mannitol in patients with ICH with, or at risk of, cerebral oedema to inform a definitive trial.

The mannitol for cerebral oedema after acute intracerebral haemorrhage trial (MACE-ICH) aims to include 45 ICH participants from 10 UK sites with estimated largest diameter of haematoma volume >2 cm, presenting within 72 hours of onset with, or at risk of, cerebral oedema (limited Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS)8) with or without mass effect. Participants will be randomised (1:1:1) to 1 g/kg 10% single-dose intravenous mannitol, 1 g/kg 10% mannitol followed by a second dose at 24 hours, or standard care alone. Outcome assessors will be masked to treatment allocation. Feasibility outcomes include proportion of patients approached being randomised, participants receiving allocated treatment, recruitment rate, treatment adherence and follow-up. Secondary outcomes include serum electrolytes and osmolality at days 1–2; change in ICH and oedema volume at day 5; number of participants who developed urinary tract infection, GCS and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale at day 5±2; length of hospital stay, discharge destination and death up to day 28; death and death or dependency by day 180 and disability (Barthel Index), quality of life (EuroQol, 5-D) and cognition (telephone mini-mental state examination) at day 180.

MACE-ICH received ethics approval from the East Midlands-Leicester Central research ethics committee (22/EM/0242). The trial is funded by a National Institute for Health and Care Research RfPB grant (203080). The results will be published in an academic journal and disseminated through academic conferences and patient support groups. Reporting will be in line with Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials recommendations.

ISRCTN15383301; EUDRACT 2022-000283-22.