Approximately 250 million children under 5 years of age are at risk of poor development in low-income and middle-income countries. However, existing early childhood development (ECD) interventions can be expensive, labour intensive and challenging to deliver at scale. Mass media may offer an alternative approach to ECD intervention. This protocol describes the planned economic evaluation of a cluster-randomised controlled trial of a radio campaign promoting responsive caregiving and opportunities for early learning during the first 3 years of life in rural Burkina Faso (SUNRISE trial).

The economic evaluation of the SUNRISE trial will be conducted as a within-trial analysis from the provider’s perspective. Incremental costs and health outcomes of the radio campaign will be compared with standard broadcasting (ie, ‘do nothing’ comparator). All costs associated with creating and broadcasting the radio campaign during intervention start-up and implementation will be captured. The cost per child under 3 years old reached by the intervention will be calculated. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios will be calculated for the trial’s primary outcome (ie, incremental cost per SD of cognitive gain). A cost-consequence analysis will also be presented, whereby all relevant costs and outcomes are tabulated. Finally, an analysis will be conducted to assess the equity impact of the intervention.

The SUNRISE trial has ethical approval from the ethics committees of the Ministry of Health, Burkina Faso, University College London and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. The results of the economic evaluation will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at a relevant international conference.

The SUNRISE trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on 19 April 2019 (identifier: NCT05335395).

Children and adolescents with mature B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL) are treated with short-intensive chemotherapy. The burden of short-term and long-term toxicity is highly relative to its high cure rate in good-risk patients. Although the addition of rituximab to standard lymphome Malin B (LMB) chemotherapy markedly prolongs event-free survival and overall survival in high-risk patients, the benefit of rituximab in good-risk patients remains to be elucidated. This clinical trial will examine whether the addition of rituximab eliminates anthracyclines in good-risk patients without compromising treatment outcomes.

We will perform a single-arm, open-label, multicentre phase II study. Low-risk (stage I – completely resected, stage II abdominal) and intermediate-risk (stages I and II – incompletely resected; stage II – resected, other than abdominal; stage III with LDH x upper limit of normal) patients with newly diagnosed B-NHL are eligible. Low-risk patients receive two courses of R-COM₁P (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, methotrexate, prednisolone and intrathecal methotrexate with hydrocortisone), and intermediate-risk patients receive COP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisolone and intrathecal methotrexate with hydrocortisone) followed by two courses each of R-COM₃P and R-CYM (rituximab, cytarabine, methotrexate and intrathecal methotrexate with hydrocortisone). The primary endpoint is a 3-year event-free survival rate in paediatric patients (

This research was approved by the Certified Review Board at NHO Nagoya Medical Center (Nagoya, Japan) on 21 September 2021. Written informed consent is obtained from all patients and/or their guardians. The results of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

Japan Registry of Clinical Trials, jRCTs041210104.

The school food system varies widely between schools and across the UK. There is a need to understand evidence gaps in school food research to allow the development, implementation and evaluation of policies and interventions to support children’s healthy eating at school. This study aimed to conduct a priority setting exercise to co-produce research priorities in relation to the UK school food system.

The James Lind Alliance process informed this priority setting exercise; all key steps engaged a wide range of UK school food stakeholders (including teachers, parents, principals, school governors, policymakers, caterers). An initial online stakeholder survey identified perceived research priorities. In a second survey, stakeholders were asked to rank these priorities. Lastly, an online priority setting workshop with stakeholders elicited the most important research priorities.

In 2021, school food stakeholders (n=1280) completed the first survey, from which 136 research priorities were identified. In the second survey, participants (n=107) ranked these research priorities regarding their importance. Lastly, 30 workshop participants discussed and reached consensus on the research priorities. After final refinement by the research team, 18 priorities resulted, with the top 10 being related to the provision of free school meals (effectiveness of cost-effectiveness of different levels of eligibility, including universal provision), implementation of policy (including improving uptake) and food standards, issues around procurement, leadership, inequalities, social norms, the eating environment, food culture throughout the school setting and healthy eating.

The top 10 research priorities were elicited through a rigorous approach, including a wide range of stakeholders across the UK. These should be considered by policymakers, researchers and others to inform research, evidence-based policy development and, ultimately, improve the UK school food system.

Obesity is associated with lower treatment response in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In patients with obesity, abatacept was suggested as a preferable option to tumour necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors. We aimed to assess the comparative effectiveness of etanercept, infliximab and abatacept, compared with adalimumab, in patients with RA with obesity. Secondarily, we also investigated this in patients with overweight and normal weight for completeness.

Observational cohort study.

Swiss Clinical Quality Management in Rheumatic Diseases (SCQM) registry (1997–2019).

Adult patients with RA from the SCQM registry who received etanercept, infliximab, abatacept or adalimumab as their first biological or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug were classified based on their body mass index (BMI) at the start of that treatment in three cohorts: obese, overweight, normal weight. They were followed for a maximum of 1 year.

The study exposure of interest was the patients’ first biological, particularly: etanercept, infliximab and abatacept, compared with adalimumab.

The primary study outcome was remission within 12 months, defined as 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28)

The study included 443 obese, 829 overweight and 1243 normal weight patients with RA. There were no statistically significant differences in the odds of DAS28-remission at ≤12 months for etanercept, infliximab and abatacept, compared with adalimumab, in any of the BMI cohorts.

No differences in DAS28-remission were found between the study drugs and adalimumab as first biologic in patients with RA, independently of the BMI cohort. We did not find evidence that treatment with abatacept increased the likelihood of remission compared with adalimumab among obese patients with RA.

Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV) is a mosquito-borne flavivirus that causes encephalitis and other morbidity in Southeast Asia. Since February 2022, geographically dispersed JEV human, animal and vector detections occurred on the Australian mainland for the first time. This study will determine the prevalence of JEV-specific antibodies in human blood with a focus on populations at high risk of JEV exposure and determine risk factors associated with JEV seropositivity by location, age, occupation and other factors.

Samples are collected using two approaches: from routine blood donors (4153 samples), and active collections targeting high-risk populations (convenience sampling). Consent-based sampling for the latter includes a participant questionnaire on demographic, vaccination and exposure data. Samples are tested for JEV-specific total antibody using a defined epitope-blocking ELISA, and total antibody to Australian endemic flaviviruses Murray Valley encephalitis and Kunjin viruses.

Two analytic approaches will occur: descriptive estimates of seroprevalence and multivariable logistic regression using Bayesian hierarchical models. Descriptive analyses will include unadjusted analysis of raw data with exclusions for JEV-endemic country of birth, travel to JEV-endemic countries, prior JEV-vaccination, and sex-standardised and age-standardised analyses. Multivariable logistic regression will determine which risk factors are associated with JEV seropositivity likely due to recent transmission within Australia and the relative contribution of each factor when accounting for effects within the model.

National Mutual Acceptance ethical approval was obtained from the Sydney Children’s Hospitals Network Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC). Local approvals were sought in each jurisdiction. Ethical approval was also obtained from the Australian Red Cross Lifeblood HREC.

Findings will be communicated to participants and their communities, and human and animal health stakeholders and policy-makers iteratively and after final analyses. Understanding human infection rates will inform procurement and targeted allocation of limited JEV vaccine, and public health strategies and communication campaigns, to at-risk populations.

Bronchiolitis is the most common viral lower respiratory tract infection in children under 2 years of age. Respiratory support with high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is increasingly used in this patient population with limited understanding of the patients most likely to benefit and considerable practice variability of use. This study aims to understand the factors associated with failure of HFNC support among patients with bronchiolitis and to describe the current practice variations of HFNC use in patients with bronchiolitis in Canadian hospitals including fluid management and parameters to initiate, escalate and discontinue HFNC support.

This is a multicentre retrospective cohort study including hospitalised patients aged 0–24 months with bronchiolitis requiring support with HFNC between January 2017 and December 2021. Clinical data will be collected from patient medical records from Canadian hospitals (n=12), including academic and community centres. HFNC failure will be defined as the need for escalation to non-invasive or invasive mechanical ventilation. Factors associated with HFNC failure will be analysed using logistic regression. Descriptive statistics will be used to describe practice variations of HFNC utilisation and management.

Approval from the Research Ethics Boards (REBs) has been obtained for each participating study site prior to onset of data collection including Clinical Trials Ontario for all Ontario hospital sites and REBs from British Columbia Children’s Hospital, Stollery Children’s Hospital, Montreal Children’s Hospital and CHU Sainte-Justine. Study results will be disseminated through presentation at national/international conferences and publication in high-impact, peer-reviewed journals.

The fragmentation of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic at national, regional and local levels is a possible source of variability in the impact of the pandemic on society. This study aims to assess how much of this variability affected the burden of COVID-19, measured in terms of all-cause 2020 excess mortality.

Ecological retrospective study.

Lombardy region of Italy, 2015–2020.

We evaluated the relationship between the intensity of the epidemics and excess mortality, assessing the heterogeneity of this relationship across the 91 districts after adjusting for relevant confounders.

The epidemic intensity was quantified as the COVID-19 hospitalisations per 1000 inhabitants. Five confounders were identified through a directed acyclic graph: age distribution, population density, pro-capita gross domestic product, restriction policy and population mobility.

Analyses were based on a negative binomial regression model with district-specific random effects. We found a strong, positive association between COVID-19 hospitalisations and 2020 excess mortality (p

The homogeneous effect of the COVID-19 spread on the excess mortality in the Lombardy districts suggests that, despite the unprecedented conditions, the pandemic reactions did not result in health disparities in the region.

Purrble, a socially assistive robot, was codesigned with children to support in situ emotion regulation. Preliminary evidence has found that LGBTQ+ youth are receptive to Purrble and find it to be an acceptable intervention to assist with emotion dysregulation and their experiences of self-harm. The present study is designed to evaluate the impact of access to Purrble among LGBTQ+ youth who have self-harmful thoughts, when compared with waitlist controls.

The study is a single-blind, randomised control trial comparing access to the Purrble robot with waitlist control. A total of 168 LGBTQ+ youth aged 16–25 years with current self-harmful ideation will be recruited, all based within the UK. The primary outcome is emotion dysregulation (Difficulties with Emotion Regulation Scale-8) measured weekly across a 13-week period, including three pre-deployment timepoints. Secondary outcomes include self-harm (Self-Harm Questionnaire), anxiety (Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7) and depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9). We will conduct analyses using linear mixed models to assess primary and secondary hypotheses. Intervention participants will have unlimited access to Purrble over the deployment period, which can be used as much or as little as they like. After all assessments, control participants will receive their Purrble, with all participants keeping the robot after the end of the study. After the study has ended, a subset of participants will be invited to participate in semistructured interviews to explore engagement and appropriation of Purrble, considering the young people’s own views of Purrble as an intervention device.

Ethical approval was received from King’s College London (RESCM-22/23-34570). Findings will be disseminated in peer review open access journals and at academic conferences.

NCT06025942.

Bariatric surgery is an effective treatment for severe obesity that leads to significant physical health improvements. Few studies have prospectively described the short-term impact of surgery on mental health using standardised case-finding measures for anxiety or depressive disorders. This study describes the prevalence and short-term course of these conditions following surgery.

Prospective observational cohort study.

12 National Health Service centres in England.

Participants studied took part in the By-Band-Sleeve study, a multicentre randomised controlled trial evaluating the surgical management of severe obesity. We included participants who had undergone surgery (gastric bypass, gastric band or sleeve gastrectomy) within 6 months of randomisation.

Anxiety and depression were assessed using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) at baseline and 12 months post-randomisation. Sociodemographic variables collected at prerandomisation included body mass index, age, sex, ethnicity, marital status, tobacco use, employment status and income band.

In our sample of 758 participants, 94.5% (n 716) and 93.9% (n 712) had completed baseline anxiety (HADS-A) and depression (HADS-D) subscales. At pre-randomisation 46.1% (n 330/716, 95% CI 42.4% to 49.7%) met clinical case criteria for anxiety and 48.2% (n 343/712, 95% CI 44.5% to 51.8%) for depression. Among participants returning completed 12 months post-randomisation questionnaires (HADS-A n 503/716, HADS-D n 498/712), there was a significant reduction in the proportion of clinical cases with anxiety (–9.5%, 95% CI –14.3% to -4.8% p

Almost half of people undergoing bariatric surgery had underlying anxiety or depressive symptoms. In the short term, these symptoms appear to substantially improve. Future work must identify whether these effects are sustained beyond the first post-randomisation year.

NCT02841527 and ISRCTN00786323.

To explore and model factors affecting antibiotic prescribing decision-making early in the pandemic.

Semistructured qualitative interview study.

National Health Service (NHS) trusts/health boards in England and Wales.

Clinicians from NHS trusts/health boards in England and Wales.

Individual semistructured interviews were conducted with clinicians in six NHS trusts/health boards in England and Wales as part of the Procalcitonin Evaluation of Antibiotic use in COVID-19 Hospitalised patients study, a wider study that included statistical analysis of procalcitonin (PCT) use in hospitals during the first wave of the pandemic. Thematic analysis was used to identify key factors influencing antibiotic prescribing decisions for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia during the first wave of the pandemic (March to May 2020), including how much influence PCT test results had on these decisions.

During the first wave of the pandemic, recommendations to prescribe antibiotics for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia were based on concerns about secondary bacterial infections. However, as clinicians gained more experience with COVID-19, they reported increasing confidence in their ability to distinguish between symptoms and signs caused by SARS-CoV-2 viral infection alone, and secondary bacterial infections. Antibiotic prescribing decisions were influenced by factors such as clinician experience, confidence, senior support, situational factors and organisational influences. A decision-making model was developed.

This study provides insight into the decision-making process around antibiotic prescribing for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia during the first wave of the pandemic. The importance of clinician experience and of senior review of decisions as factors in optimising antibiotic stewardship is highlighted. In addition, situational and organisational factors were identified that could be optimised. The model presented in the study can be used as a tool to aid understanding of the complexity of the decision-making process around antibiotic prescribing and planning antimicrobial stewardship support in the context of a pandemic.

ISRCTN66682918.

The Improving the Wellbeing of people with Opioid Treated CHronic pain (I-WOTCH) randomised controlled trial found that a group-based educational intervention to support people using strong opioids for chronic non-malignant pain helped a significant proportion of people to stop or decrease opioid use with no increase in pain-related disability. We report a linked process evaluation of the group-based intervention evaluated in comparison to a usual-care control group that received a self-help booklet and relaxation CD.

We interviewed 18 intervention facilitators, and 20 intervention and 20 control participants who had chronic non-malignant pain and were recruited from general (family) practices in the UK. Quantitative data included change mechanism questions on the trial questionnaires which explored motivation, expectations and self-efficacy. Fidelity was assessed by listening to a sample of audio-recorded group sessions and nurse consultations. Quantitative and qualitative data were integrated using ‘follow a thread’ and a mixed-methods matrix.

Four overarching themes emerged: (1) the right time to taper, (2) the backdrop of a life with chronic pain, (3) needing support and (4) the benefits of being in a group. Delivery fidelity was good, adherence (83%) and competence (79%) across a range of intervention groups. Staff delivering the intervention found three typical responses to the intervention: resistance, open to trying and feeling it was not the right time. The group experience was important to those in the intervention arm. It provided people with a forum in which to learn about the current thinking about opioid usage and its effects. It also gave them examples of how feasible or personally relevant coming off opioids might be.

The process evaluation data showed that the I-WOTCH intervention was well delivered, well received and useful for most interviewees. Being ‘the right time’ to taper and having support throughout tapering, emerged as important factors within the context of living with chronic pain.

ISRCTN49470934.

The English National Health Service (NHS) Diabetic Eye Screening Programme (DESP) performs around 2.3 million eye screening appointments annually, generating approximately 13 million retinal images that are graded by humans for the presence or severity of diabetic retinopathy. Previous research has shown that automated retinal image analysis systems, including artificial intelligence (AI), can identify images with no disease from those with diabetic retinopathy as safely and effectively as human graders, and could significantly reduce the workload for human graders. Some algorithms can also determine the level of severity of the retinopathy with similar performance to humans. There is a need to examine perceptions and concerns surrounding AI-assisted eye-screening among people living with diabetes and NHS staff, if AI was to be introduced into the DESP, to identify factors that may influence acceptance of this technology.

People living with diabetes and staff from the North East London (NEL) NHS DESP were invited to participate in two respective focus groups to codesign two online surveys exploring their perceptions and concerns around the potential introduction of AI-assisted screening.

Focus group participants were representative of the local population in terms of ages and ethnicity. Participants’ feedback was taken into consideration to update surveys which were circulated for further feedback. Surveys will be piloted at the NEL DESP and followed by semistructured interviews to assess accessibility, usability and to validate the surveys.

Validated surveys will be distributed by other NHS DESP sites, and also via patient groups on social media, relevant charities and the British Association of Retinal Screeners. Post-survey evaluative interviews will be undertaken among those who consent to participate in further research.

Ethical approval has been obtained by the NHS Research Ethics Committee (IRAS ID: 316631). Survey results will be shared and discussed with focus groups to facilitate preparation of findings for publication and to inform codesign of outreach activities to address concerns and perceptions identified.

Current treatment decision-making in high-grade soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) care is not informed by individualised risks for different treatment options and patients’ preferences. Risk prediction tools may provide patients and professionals insight in personalised risks and benefits for different treatment options and thereby potentially increase patients’ knowledge and reduce decisional conflict. The VALUE-PERSARC study aims to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of a personalised risk assessment tool (PERSARC) to increase patients’ knowledge about risks and benefits of treatment options and to reduce decisional conflict in comparison with usual care in high-grade extremity STS patients.

The VALUE-PERSARC study is a parallel cluster randomised control trial that aims to include at least 120 primarily diagnosed high-grade extremity STS patients in 6 Dutch hospitals. Eligible patients (≥18 years) are those without a treatment plan and treated with curative intent. Patients with sarcoma subtypes or treatment options not mentioned in PERSARC are unable to participate. Hospitals will be randomised between usual care (control) or care with the use of PERSARC (intervention). In the intervention condition, PERSARC will be used by STS professionals in multidisciplinary tumour boards to guide treatment advice and in patient consultations, where the oncological/orthopaedic surgeon informs the patient about his/her diagnosis and discusses benefits and harms of all relevant treatment options. The primary outcomes are patients’ knowledge about risks and benefits of treatment options and decisional conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale) 1 week after the treatment decision has been made. Secondary outcomes will be evaluated using questionnaires, 1 week and 3, 6 and 12 months after the treatment decision. Data will be analysed following an intention-to-treat approach using a linear mixed model and taking into account clustering of patients within hospitals.

The Medical Ethical Committee Leiden-Den Haag-Delft (METC-LDD) approved this protocol (NL76563.058.21). The results of this study will be reported in a peer-review journal.

NL9160, NCT05741944.

In population-based research, disease ascertainment algorithms can be as accurate as, and less costly than, performing supplementary clinical examinations on selected participants to confirm a diagnosis of a neurocognitive disorder (NCD), but they require cohort-specific validation. To optimise the use of the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA) to understand the epidemiology and burden of NCDs, the CLSA Memory Study will validate an NCD ascertainment algorithm to identify CLSA participants with these disorders using routinely acquired study data.

Up to 600 CLSA participants with equal numbers of those likely to have no NCD, mild NCD or major NCD based on prior self-reported physician diagnosis of a memory problem or dementia, medication consumption (ie, cholinesterase inhibitors, memantine) and/or self-reported function will be recruited during the follow-up 3 CLSA evaluations (started August 2021). Participants will undergo an assessment by a study clinician who will also review an informant interview and make a preliminary determination of the presence or absence of an NCD. The clinical assessment and available CLSA data will be reviewed by a Central Review Panel who will make a final categorisation of participants as having (1) no NCD, (2) mild NCD or, (3) major NCD (according to fifth version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria). These will be used as our gold standard diagnosis to determine if the NCD ascertainment algorithm accurately identifies CLSA participants with an NCD. Weighted Kappa statistics will be the primary measure of agreement. Sensitivity, specificity, the C-statistic and the phi coefficient will also be estimated.

Ethics approval has been received from the institutional research ethics boards for each CLSA Data Collection Site (Université de Sherbrooke, Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board, Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia Health Research Ethics Board, University of Manitoba, McGill University, McGill University Health Centre Research Institute, Memorial University of Newfoundland, University of Victoria, Élisabeth Bruyère Research Institute of Ottawa, University of British Columbia, Island Health (Formerly the Vancouver Island Health Authority, Simon Fraser University, Calgary Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board).

The results of this work will be disseminated to public health professionals, researchers, health professionals, administrators and policy-makers through journal publications, conference presentations, publicly available reports and presentations to stakeholder groups.