To compare primary care for depression among patients detected in the first 21 months of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic to patients detected pre-pandemic, and examine whether depression care was associated with patient characteristics.

Retrospective pre–post study using de-identified data from electronic medical record data from the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network (CPCSSN).

Primary care clinics enrolled in CPCSSN from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2021.

Patients with a valid CPCSSN case definition of depression detected between 01 January 2018 and 31 December 2021 were included in the cohort and categorised by detection date (pre-pandemic or during Canadian pandemic waves).

Primary care encounters, psychotropic prescriptions and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) prescriptions were observed at 3 and 12 months post-detection. Multivariable regression evaluated associations between patients’ depression detection timing and depression care, adjusting for age, sex, rurality, neighbourhood deprivation quintile, province, number of observable comorbidities and pre-detection psychotropic use.

91 453 patients with depression were identified, of whom 53% were detected pre-pandemic. Patients detected during the pandemic were younger and less comorbid than those detected pre-pandemic. Proportions of patients with any encounter, psychotropic prescriptions and SSRI prescriptions were higher for patients detected during every pandemic wave compared with patients detected pre-pandemic. The adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRRs) of number of encounters (aIRR=1.15; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.17), psychotropics (aIRR=1.11, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.13) and SSRIs prescribed (aIRR=1.12; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.15) within 3 months of detection were higher among patients detected during the first pandemic wave compared with those detected pre-pandemic. Socio-demographic characteristics had weaker associations with outcomes compared with timing of detection. Results were similar within 12 months of detection.

Overall, primary care for depression was maintained during the pandemic despite challenging circumstances. Increases in paediatric encounter rates and increased prescribing in younger adults warrant further investigation to understand the factors driving these patterns.

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05813652.

To characterise the reporting practices of sequential multiple assignment randomised trials (SMARTs) in human health research.

Scoping review of protocol and primary analysis papers describing SMARTs published between January 2009 and February 2024.

SMARTs are innovative trial designs that allow for multiple stages of randomisation to treatment, with randomization potentially based on a patient’s response(s) to previous treatment(s). They are uniquely designed to develop sequential adaptive interventions (dynamic treatment regimes (DTRs)) to support personalized clinical decision-making over time. Previous reviews have identified inconsistencies in how the design, implementation and results of SMARTs have been reported in published studies. A comprehensive assessment of SMART reporting practices is lacking and necessary for developing standardised SMART-specific reporting guidelines.

We systematically searched multiple databases for SMART-related protocol and primary analysis papers published between January 2009 and February 2024. Title, abstract and full-text screenings were performed by pairs of reviewers, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Data extraction included study characteristics, design elements and analytical approaches for embedded or tailored DTRs. Results were synthesised qualitatively and presented descriptively.

From 5486 screened studies, 103 (59 protocol papers, 16 primary analysis papers, 14 protocol papers with corresponding primary analysis papers) met the inclusion criteria. Most studies targeted adults (62.7% protocols, 62.5% primary analyses, 42.9% protocol+primary analyses) and were primarily conducted in the USA. Behavioural and mental health constituted the most frequent therapeutic domain. While intervention descriptions and re-randomisation criteria were consistently reported, operational characteristics such as blinding (protocols: 64.4%, primary analyses: 62.5%, protocols+primary analyses: 71.4%) and randomisation details (protocols: 55.9%, primary analyses: 37.5%, protocols+primary analyses: 50.0%) were inconsistently documented. Only 46.7% of primary analyses evaluated embedded DTRs, and none explored deeply tailored DTRs.

Despite the increased adoption of SMART designs, substantial reporting variability persists. Most primary analyses underuse the capability of SMARTs to generate data for developing DTRs. SMART-specific standardised reporting guidelines can help accelerate the scientific and clinical impact of SMARTs.

The global population of older adults has grown at an unprecedented rate, and projections indicate that the number of older adults will continue to increase considerably in the coming decades. The clinical complexity of older adults living in retirement homes, also known as assisted living settings, is also increasing, and the regulations to ensure quality and safety standards in retirement homes are highly variable. The purpose of this scoping review is to map and summarise the methods used to monitor and measure the safety of older adults living in retirement homes, providing an overview of existing approaches and areas requiring further investigation.

This scoping review will follow the five stages of the Arksey and O’Malley scoping review process. We will report this review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. A comprehensive search of four electronic databases (MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO) and Web of Science Core Collection) will be performed, and reference lists of included articles will be searched. We will conduct a two-step screening process, data extraction and analysis of the included studies. We will include all primary study designs that report on safety measurement and monitoring of any type of harms. Relevant grey literature will also be identified. We will exclude studies that only report results from facilities providing 24-hour skilled nursing care or specialised care services, and those not published in English or French. This protocol is registered on the Open Science Framework (osf.io/8rheq).

No ethical approval is needed for the review, and we plan to present the results at research conferences and in a peer-reviewed article. Our findings may inform future research studies that seek to support and improve safety practices in retirement homes.

Many people with psychosis find the world very frightening. It can be difficult for them to do everyday things—for example, walking down a busy street, travelling on a bus or going to the shops. Sometimes, the fears are so great that individuals rarely leave their homes. gameChange virtual reality therapy is designed to reduce this agoraphobic avoidance. In gameChange, users practise going into computerised immersive versions of ordinary situations. A virtual therapist guides users through the programme. A mental health worker also supports people. People normally do six sessions of gameChange, but now they can do more as headsets can be left with many people. We originally tested gameChange with 346 patients with psychosis. People saw a significant reduction in their fears. People with the most severe problems made the biggest improvements. This led to gameChange receiving National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Early Value Assessment (EVA) approval for its use with patients with psychosis who have severe agoraphobic avoidance. NICE EVA approval is conditional on further evidence generation. We aim to carry out a real-world trial of gameChange used in the NHS. The overall aim is to gather evidence on the four essential areas (clinical benefits on agoraphobia, level of engagement and adherence, healthcare resource use, adverse effects) and the two further supporting areas (health-related quality of life, generalisability) identified in the NICE evidence generation plan for gameChange.

200 patients with psychosis and severe agoraphobic avoidance will be randomised (1:1) to receive gameChange in addition to treatment as usual (TAU) or to a waitlist control group receiving TAU. Assessments will be conducted blind to group allocation at baseline, 8 weeks (end of treatment) and 26 weeks (follow-up). The trial will be embedded in services in at least seven National Health Service (NHS) trusts across England. The primary outcome is agoraphobic avoidance at 26 weeks assessed with the Oxford Agoraphobic Avoidance Scale. The secondary clinical outcomes are agoraphobic distress, paranoia and social contacts. There will be tests of moderation of the main clinical outcome. Treatment acceptability, adverse effects and cost-effectiveness will also be assessed. The target estimand is the treatment policy estimand and all primary and secondary analyses will be carried out incorporating data from all participants including those who do not complete treatment.

The trial has received ethical approval from the NHS Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research Wales (25/WA/0081). A key output will be the evidence needed for a NICE guidance update on gameChange and a clear recommendation concerning future routine use in the NHS.

ISRCTN79060696.