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 compare differences in recruitment and attrition between placebo control randomised trials of surgery, and trials of the same surgical interventions and conditions that used non-operative (non-placebo) controls.

Meta-epidemiological study.

Randomised controlled trials were identified from an electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from their inception date to 21 November 2018.

Placebo control trials evaluating efficacy of any surgical intervention and non-operative control trials of the same surgical intervention were included in this study. 25 730 records were retrieved from our systemic search, identifying 61 placebo control and 38 non-operative control trials for inclusion in analysis.

Primary outcome measures were recruitment and attrition. These were assessed in terms of recruitment rate (number of participants enrolled, as a proportion of those eligible) and overall attrition rate (composite of dropout, loss to follow-up and cross-overs, expressed as proportion of total sample size). Secondary outcome measures included participant cross-over rate, dropout and loss to follow-up.

Unadjusted pooled recruitment and attrition rates were similar between placebo and non-operative control trials. Study characteristics were not significantly different apart from time to primary timepoint which was shorter in studies with placebo controls (365 vs 274 days, p=0.006). After adjusting for covariates (follow-up duration and number of timepoints), the attrition rate of placebo control trials was almost twice as high compared with non-operative controlled-trials (incident rate ratio (IRR) (95% CI) 1.8 (1.1 to 3.0), p=0.032). The incorporation of one additional follow-up timepoint (regardless of follow-up duration) was associated with reduced attrition in placebo control surgical trials (IRR (95% CI) 0.64 (0.52 to 0.79), p

Placebo control trials of surgery have similar recruitment issues but higher attrition compared with non-operative (non-placebo) control trials. Study design should incorporate strategies such as increased timepoints for given follow-up duration to mitigate losses to follow-up and dropout.

CRD42019117364.

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) remains the most common and serious complication after distal pancreatectomy. Many attempts at lowering fistula rates have led to unrewarding insignificant results as still up to 30% of the patients suffer from clinically relevant POPF. Therefore, the development of new innovative methods and procedures is still a cornerstone of current surgical research.

The cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator (CUSA) device is a well-known ultrasound-based parenchyma transection method, often used in liver and neurosurgery which has not yet been thoroughly investigated in pancreatic surgery, but the first results seem very promising.

The CUSA-1 trial is a randomised controlled pilot trial with two parallel study groups. This single-centre trial is assessor and patient blinded. A total of 60 patients with an indication for open distal pancreatectomy will be intraoperatively randomised after informed consent. The patients will be randomly assigned to either the control group with conventional pancreas transection (scalpel or stapler) or the experimental group, with transection using the CUSA device. The primary safety endpoint of this trial will be postoperative complications ≥grade 3 according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. The primary endpoint to investigate the effect will be the rate of POPF within 30 days postoperatively according to the ISGPS definition. Further perioperative outcomes, including postpancreatectomy haemorrhage, length of hospital stay and mortality will be analysed as secondary endpoints.

Based on the available literature, CUSA may have a beneficial effect on POPF occurrence after distal pancreatectomy. The rationale of the CUSA-1 pilot trial is to investigate the safety and feasibility of the CUSA device in elective open distal pancreatectomy compared with conventional dissection methods and gather the first data on the effect on POPF occurrence. This data will lay the groundwork for a future confirmatory multicentre randomised controlled trial.

The CUSA-1 trial protocol was approved by the ethics committee of the University of Heidelberg (No. S-098/2022). Results will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal and summaries will be provided in lay language to study participants and their relatives.

DRKS00027474.

Improving sustainable transportation options will help cities tackle growing challenges related to population health, congestion, climate change and inequity. Interventions supporting active transportation face many practical and political hurdles. Implementation science aims to understand how interventions or policies arise, how they can be translated to new contexts or scales and who benefits. Sustainable transportation interventions are complex, and existing implementation science frameworks may not be suitable. To apply and adapt implementation science for healthy cities, we have launched our mixed-methods research programme, CapaCITY/É. We aim to understand how, why and for whom sustainable transportation interventions are successful and when they are not.

Across nine Canadian municipalities and the State of Victoria (Australia), our research will focus on two types of sustainable transportation interventions: all ages and abilities bicycle networks and motor vehicle speed management interventions. We will (1) document the implementation process and outcomes of both types of sustainable transportation interventions; (2) examine equity, health and mobility impacts of these interventions; (3) advance implementation science by developing a novel sustainable transportation implementation science framework and (4) develop tools for scaling up and scaling out sustainable transportation interventions. Training activities will develop interdisciplinary scholars and practitioners able to work at the nexus of academia and sustainable cities.

This study received approval from the Simon Fraser University Office of Ethics Research (H22-03469). A Knowledge Mobilization Hub will coordinate dissemination of findings via a website; presentations to academic, community organisations and practitioner audiences; and through peer-reviewed articles.

Diagnostic testing is an important tool to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, yet access to and uptake of testing vary widely 3 years into the pandemic. The WHO recommends the use of COVID-19 self-testing as an option to help expand testing access. We aimed to calculate the cost of providing COVID-19 self-testing across countries and distribution modalities.

We estimated economic costs from the provider perspective to calculate the total cost and the cost per self-test kit distributed for three scenarios that differed by costing period (pilot, annual), the number of tests distributed (actual, planned, scaled assuming an epidemic peak) and self-test kit costs (pilot purchase price, 50% reduction).

We used data collected between August and December 2022 in Brazil, Georgia, Malaysia, Ethiopia and the Philippines from pilot implementation studies designed to provide COVID-19 self-tests in a variety of settings—namely, workplace and healthcare facilities.

Across all five countries, 173 000 kits were distributed during pilot implementation with the cost/test distributed ranging from $2.44 to $12.78. The cost/self-test kit distributed was lowest in the scenario that assumed implementation over a longer period (year), with higher test demand (peak) and a test kit price reduction of 50% ($1.04–3.07). Across all countries and scenarios, test procurement occupied the greatest proportion of costs: 58–87% for countries with off-site self-testing (outside the workplace, for example, home) and 15–50% for countries with on-site self-testing (at the workplace). Staffing was the next key cost driver, particularly for distribution modalities that had on-site self-testing (29–35%) versus off-site self-testing (7–27%).

Our results indicate that it is likely to cost between $2.44 and $12.78 per test to distribute COVID-19 self-tests across common settings in five heterogeneous countries. Cost-effectiveness analyses using these results will allow policymakers to make informed decisions on optimally scaling up COVID-19 self-test distribution programmes across diverse settings and evolving needs.

Recent research has highlighted non-operative management (NOM) as a viable alternative for frail older adults with hip fractures in the final phase of life. This study aims to guide Dutch physicians and hospitals nationwide in a standardised implementation of shared decision-making regarding surgery or NOM in selected frail older adults with a hip fracture.

The patient population for implementation includes frail older adults aged ≥70 years with an acute proximal femoral fracture, nursing home care or a similar level of care elsewhere and at least one additional criterion (ie, malnutrition, severe mobility impairment or ASA≥4). The 2-year implementation study will be conducted in four phases. In phases 1 and 2, barriers and facilitators for implementation will be identified and an implementation protocol, educational materials and patient information will be developed. Phase 3 will involve an implementation pilot in 14 hospitals across the Netherlands. The protocol and educational material will be improved based on healthcare provider and patient experiences gathered through interviews. Phase 4 will focus on upscaling to nationwide implementation and the effect of the implementation on NOM rate will be measured using data from the Dutch Hip Fracture Audit.

The study was exempted by the local Medical Research Ethics Committee (MEC-2023-0270, 10 May 2023) and Medical Ethics Committee United (W23.083, 26 April 2023). The study’s results will be submitted to an open access international peer-reviewed journal. Its protocols, tools and results will be presented at several national and international academic conferences of relevant orthogeriatric (scientific) associations.

NCT06079905 .

Physical restraint (PR) is prescribed in patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU) to avoid unplanned removal of medical devices. However, it is associated with an increased risk of delirium. We hypothesise that a restrictive use of PR, as compared with a systematic use, could reduce the duration of delirium in ICU patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation.

The Restrictive use of Restraints and Delirium Duration in ICU (R2D2-ICU) study is a national multicentric, parallel-group, randomised (1:1) open-label, controlled, superiority trial, which will be conducted in 10 ICUs. A total of 422 adult patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation for an expected duration of at least 48 hours and eligible for prescription of PR will be randomly allocated within 6 hours from intubation to either the restrictive PR use group or the systematic PR use group, until day 14, ICU discharge or death, whichever comes first. In both groups, PR will consist of the use of wrist straps. The primary endpoint will be delirium or coma-free days, defined as the number of days spent alive in the ICU without coma or delirium within the first 14 days after randomisation. Delirium will be assessed using the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU twice daily. Key secondary endpoints will encompass agitation episodes, opioid, propofol, benzodiazepine and antipsychotic drug exposure during the 14-day intervention period, along with a core outcome set of measures evaluated 90 days postrandomisation.

The R2D2-ICU study has been approved by the Comité de Protection des Personnes (CPP) ILE DE FRANCE III—PARIS (CPP19.09.06.37521) on June 10th, 2019). Participant recruitment started on 25 January 2021. Results will be published in international peer-reviewed medical journals and presented at conferences.

NCT04273360.

Pre-eclampsia (PE) affects about 5% of Chinese pregnant women and is a major cause of maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality. The first trimester screening model developed by the Fetal Medicine Foundation, which uses the Bayes theorem to combine maternal characteristics and medical history together with measurements of biomarkers, has been proven to be effective and has superior screening performance to that of the traditional risk factor-based approach for the prediction of PE. Prophylactic use of low-dose aspirin in women at risk for PE has resulted in a lower incidence of preterm-PE. However, there is no consensus on the preferred aspirin dosage for the prevention of preterm-PE. Evidence has also suggested that metformin has the potential benefit in preventing PE in pregnant women who are at high risk of the disorder.

We present a protocol (V.2.0, date 17 March 2022) for the AVERT trial, which is a multicentre, double-blinded, 3-arm randomised controlled trial (RCT) that uses an effective PE screening programme to explore the optimal dosage of aspirin and the role of metformin for the prevention of PE among high-risk pregnant women in China. We intend to recruit 66 000 singleton pregnancies without treatment of low-dose aspirin and metformin at 11–13 weeks’ gestation and all eligible women attending for their first trimester routine scan will be invited to undergo screening for preterm-PE by the combination of maternal factors, mean arterial pressure and placental growth factor. Women found to be at high risk of developing preterm-PE will be invited to take part in the RCT. This study will compare the incidence of preterm-PE with delivery at

Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Joint Chinese University of Hong Kong–New Territories East Cluster Clinical Research Ethics Committee (CREC Ref. No. 2021.406) in Hong Kong and the Ethics Committee of each participating hospital in Mainland China. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. The results of the AVERT trial will be disseminated at international academic conferences and published in high-impact factor journals.

NCT05580523.

We conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effect of colchicine treatment on clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19.

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, medRxiv and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to January 2023.

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the efficacy of colchicine treatment in patients with COVID-19 as compared with placebo or standard of care were included. There were no language restrictions. Studies that used colchicine prophylactically were excluded.

We extracted all information relating to the study characteristics, such as author names, location, study population, details of intervention and comparator groups, and our outcomes of interest. We conducted our meta-analysis by using RevMan V.5.4 with risk ratio (RR) and mean difference as the effect measures.

We included 23 RCTs (28 249 participants) in this systematic review. Colchicine did not decrease the risk of mortality (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.05; I²=0%; 20 RCTs, 25 824 participants), with the results being consistent among both hospitalised and non-hospitalised patients. There were no significant differences between the colchicine and control groups in other relevant clinical outcomes, including the incidence of mechanical ventilation (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.18; p=0.22; I²=40%; 8 RCTs, 13 262 participants), intensive care unit admission (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.49 to 1.22; p=0.27; I²=0%; 6 RCTs, 961 participants) and hospital admission (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.16; p=0.19; I²=70%; 3 RCTs, 8572 participants).

The results of this meta-analysis do not support the use of colchicine as a treatment for reducing the risk of mortality or improving other relevant clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. However, RCTs investigating early treatment with colchicine (within 5 days of symptom onset or in patients with early-stage disease) are needed to fully elucidate the potential benefits of colchicine in this patient population.

CRD42022369850.

In over 50 years since the genetic counseling (GC) profession began, a systematic study of GC communication skills and patient-reported outcomes in actual sessions across multiple clinical specialties has never been conducted. To optimize GC quality and improve efficiency of care, the field must first be able to comprehensively measure GC skills and determine which skills are most critical to achieving positive patient experiences and outcomes. This study aims to characterise GC communication skills using a novel and pragmatic measure and link variations in communication skills to patient-reported outcomes, across clinical specialties and with patients from diverse backgrounds in the USA. Our community-engagement and provider-engagement approach is crucial to develop recommendations for quality, culturally informed GC care, which are greatly needed to improve GC practice.

A mixed methods, sequential explanatory design will be used to collect and analyze: audio-recorded GC sessions in cancer, cardiac, and prenatal/reproductive genetic indications; pre-visit and post-visit quantitative surveys capturing patient experiences and outcomes and post-visit qualitative interview data. A novel, practical checklist will measure GC communication skills. Coincidence analysis will identify patterns of GC skills that are consistent with high scores on patient-reported measures. Two-level, multilevel models will be used to evaluate how GC communication skills and other session/patient characteristics predict patient-reported outcomes. Four community advisory boards (CABs) and a genetic counselor advisory board will inform the study design and analysis.

This study has been approved by the single Institutional Review Board of the University of Minnesota. This research poses no greater than minimal risk to participants. Results from this study will be shared through national and international conferences and through community-based dissemination as guided by the study’s CABs. A lay summary will also be disseminated to all participants.

This study aims to reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) of statins and foster healthy lifestyle promotion in cardiovascular disease (CVD) primary prevention in low-risk patients. To this end, we will compare the effectiveness and feasibility of several de-implementation strategies developed following the structured design process of the Behaviour Change Wheel targeting key determinants of the clinical decision-making process in CVD prevention.

A cluster randomised implementation trial, with an additional control group, will be launched, involving family physicians (FPs) from 13 Integrated Healthcare Organisations (IHOs) of Osakidetza-Basque Health Service with non-zero incidence rates of PIP of statins in 2021. All FPs will be exposed to a non-reflective decision assistance strategy based on reminders and decision support tools. Additionally, FPs from two of the IHOs will be randomly assigned to one of two increasingly intensive de-implementation strategies: adding a decision information strategy based on knowledge dissemination and a reflective decision structure strategy through audit/feedback. The target population comprises women aged 45–74 years and men aged 40–74 years with moderately elevated cholesterol levels but no diagnosed CVD and low cardiovascular risk (REGICOR

The study was approved by the Basque Country Clinical Research Ethics Committee and was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04022850). Results will be disseminated in scientific peer-reviewed journals.

NCT04022850.

EndoTrac is a line-attached sheath-type traction device that enables us to control the direction and the force of traction during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The efficacy of EndoTrac for gastric ESD has not been fully verified.

The G-Trac study is a multicentre (nine general hospitals and two university hospitals in Japan) collaborative trial assessing the efficacy of EndoTrac for gastric ESDs. Patients with superficial gastric neoplasms will be enrolled and randomly assigned to undergo either conventional ESD or EndoTrac ESD. Allocation will be stratified according to tumour location, operator experience and tumour diameter at an allocation rate of 1:1. The type of endoknife used will be confirmed before randomisation. The primary outcome, procedure time, will be compared between the groups in both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. The efficacy-related, safety-related and device-related outcomes will be assessed in the secondary analysis. The planned sample size of the 142 patients in the two groups will enable us to detect a difference with a power of 80% by using the Wilcoxon rank sum test, assuming an effect size of 0.54, asymptotic relative efficiency of 0.864 and a two-sided type 1 error rate of 5%.

This trial was approved by the certified review board of Kobe University (22 December 2022). The results from this trial will be disseminated through peer-review journals, presentations at national and international conferences, and data sharing with other researchers.

jRCT1052220166.

Exploring clinical information-seeking behaviour (CISB) and its associated factors contributes to its theoretical advancement and offers a valuable framework for addressing physicians’ information needs. This study delved into the dimensions, interactions, strategies and determinants of CISB among physicians at the point of care.

A grounded theory study was developed based on Strauss and Corbin’s approach. Data were collected by semistructured interviews and then analysed through open, axial and selective coding.

The study was conducted at academic centres affiliated with Isfahan University of Medical Sciences.

This investigation involved recruiting 21 specialists and subspecialists from the academic centres.

The findings revealed that physicians’ CISB encompassed multiple dimensions when addressing clinical inquiries. Seven principal themes emerged from the analysis: ‘clinical information needs’, ‘clinical question characteristics’, ‘clinical information resources’, ‘information usability’, ‘factors influencing information seeking’, ‘action/interaction encountering clinical questions’ and ‘consequences of CISB’. The core category identified in this study was ‘focused attention’.

The theoretical explanation demonstrated that the CISB process was interactive and dynamic. Various stimuli, including causal, contextual and intervening conditions, guide physicians in adopting information-seeking strategies and focusing on resolving clinical challenges. However, insufficient stimuli may hinder physicians’ engagement in CISB. Understanding CISB helps managers, policy-makers, clinical librarians and information system designers optimally implement several interventions, such as suitable training methods, reviewing monitoring and evaluating information systems, improving clinical decision support systems, electronic medical records and electronic health records, as well as monitoring and evaluating these systems. Such measures facilitate focused attention on clinical issues and promote CISB among physicians.

Incisional hernia (IH) is a prevalent and potentially dangerous complication of abdominal surgery, especially in high-risk groups. Mesh reinforcement of the abdominal wall has been studied as a potential intervention to prevent IHs. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated that prophylactic mesh reinforcement after abdominal surgery, in general, is effective and safe. In patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), prophylactic mesh reinforcement after open repair has not yet been recommended in official guidelines, because of relatively small sample sizes in individual trials. Furthermore, the identification of subgroups that benefit most from prophylactic mesh placement requires larger patient numbers. Our primary aim is to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of the use of a prophylactic mesh after open AAA surgery to prevent IH by performing an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA). Secondary aims include the evaluation of postoperative complications, pain and quality of life, and the identification of potential subgroups that benefit most from prophylactic mesh reinforcement.

We will conduct a systematic review to identify RCTs that study prophylactic mesh placement after open AAA surgery. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection and Google Scholar will be searched from the date of inception onwards. RCTs must directly compare primary sutured closure with mesh closure in adult patients who undergo open AAA surgery. Lead authors of eligible studies will be asked to share individual participant data (IPD). The risk of bias (ROB) for each included study will be assessed using the Cochrane ROB tool. An IPDMA will be performed to evaluate the efficacy, with the IH rate as the primary outcome. Any signs of heterogeneity will be evaluated by Forest plots. Time-to-event analyses are performed using Cox regression analysis to evaluate risk factors.

No new data will be collected in this study. We will adhere to institutional, national and international regulations regarding the secure and confidential sharing of IPD, addressing ethics as indicated. We will disseminate findings via international conferences, open-source publications in peer-reviewed journals and summaries posted online.

CRD42022347881.

Gonorrhoea, the sexually transmissible infection caused by Neisseria gonorrhoeae, has a substantial impact on sexual and reproductive health globally with an estimated 82 million new infections each year worldwide. N. gonorrhoeae antimicrobial resistance continues to escalate, and disease control is largely reliant on effective therapy as there is no proven effective gonococcal vaccine available. However, there is increasing evidence from observational cohort studies that the serogroup B meningococcal vaccine four-component meningitis B vaccine (4CMenB) (Bexsero), licensed to prevent invasive disease caused by Neisseria meningitidis, may provide cross-protection against the closely related bacterium N. gonorrhoeae. This study will evaluate the efficacy of 4CMenB against N. gonorrhoeae infection in men (cis and trans), transwomen and non-binary people who have sex with men (hereafter referred to as GBM+).

This is a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial in GBM+, either HIV-negative on pre-exposure prophylaxis against HIV or living with HIV (CD4 count >350 cells/mm³), who have had a diagnosis of gonorrhoea or infectious syphilis in the last 18 months (a key characteristic associated with a high risk of N. gonorrhoeae infection). Participants are randomised 1:1 to receive two doses of 4CMenB or placebo 3 months apart. Participants have 3-monthly visits over 24 months, which include testing for N. gonorrhoeae and other sexually transmissible infections, collection of demographics, sexual behaviour risks and antibiotic use, and collection of research samples for analysis of N. gonorrhoeae-specific systemic and mucosal immune responses. The primary outcome is the incidence of the first episode of N. gonorrhoeae infection, as determined by nucleic acid amplification tests, post month 4. Additional outcomes consider the incidence of symptomatic or asymptomatic N. gonorrhoeae infection at different anatomical sites (ie, urogenital, anorectum or oropharynx), incidence by N. gonorrhoeae genotype and antimicrobial resistance phenotype, and level and functional activity of N. gonorrhoeae-specific antibodies.

Ethical approval was obtained from the St Vincent’s Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee, St Vincent’s Hospital Sydney, NSW, Australia (ref: 2020/ETH01084). Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and via presentation at national and international conferences.

NCT04415424.

To determine General Practice (GP) recording of carer status and the number of patients self-identifying as carers, while self-completing an automated check-in screen prior to a GP consultation.

A descriptive cross-sectional study.

11 GPs in the West Midlands, England. Recruitment commenced in September 2019 and concluded in January 2020.

All patients aged 10 years and over, self-completing an automated check-in screen, were invited to participate during a 3-week recruitment period.

The current coding of carers at participating GPs and the number of patients identifying themselves as a carer were primary outcome measures. Secondary outcome measures included the number of responses attained from automated check-in screens as a research data collection tool and whether carers felt supported in their carer role.

80.3% (n=9301) of patients self-completing an automated check-in screen participated in QUantifying the identification Of carers in general practice (STATUS QUO Study) (62.6% (n=5822) female, mean age 52.9 years (10–98 years, SD=20.3)). Prior to recruitment, the clinical code used to denote a carer was identified in 2.7% (n=2739) of medical records across the participating GPs.

10.1% (n=936) of participants identified themselves as a carer. They reported feeling supported with their own health and social care needs: always 19.3% (n=150), a lot of the time 13.2% (n=102), some of the time 40.8% (n=317) and never 26.7% (n=207).

Many more participants self-identified as a carer than were recorded on participating GP lists. Improvements in the recording of the population’s caring status need to be actioned, to ensure that supportive implementation strategies for carers are effectively received. Using automated check-in facilities for research continues to provide high participation rates.

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).

This study set out to understand how (which elements), in what context and why (which mechanisms) interventions are successful in reducing (problematic) alcohol use among older adults, from the perspective of professionals providing these interventions.

Guided by a realist evaluation approach, an existing initial programme theory (IPT) on working elements in alcohol interventions was evaluated by conducting semistructured interviews with professionals.

These professionals (N=20) provide interventions across several contexts: with or without practitioner involvement; in-person or not and in an individual or group setting. Data were coded and links between contexts, elements, mechanisms and outcomes were sought for to confirm, refute or refine the IPT.

From the perspective of professionals, there are several general working elements in interventions for older adults: (1) pointing out risks and consequences of drinking behaviour; (2) paying attention to abstinence; (3) promoting contact with peers; (4) providing personalised content and (5) providing support. We also found context-specific working elements: (1) providing personalised conversations and motivational interviewing with practitioners; (2) ensuring safety, trust and a sense of connection and a location nearby home or a location that people are familiar with in person and (3) sharing experiences and tips in group interventions. Furthermore, the mechanisms awareness and accessible and low threshold participation were important contributors to positive intervention outcomes.

In addition to the IPT, our findings emphasise the need for social contact and support, personalised content, and strong relationships (both between client and practitioner, and client and peers) in interventions for older adults.

To analyse the effectiveness of rapid diagnostic clinics (RDCs) as an alternative pathway for patients with concerning symptoms and a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) result

A retrospective and prospective cohort study.

GSTT RDC, one of England’s largest single-centre RDCs. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of FIT

Patients with an FIT result

A total of 1299 patients with an FIT

This study demonstrates the effectiveness of RDCs as an alternate pathway for FIT

The new WHO Labour Care Guide (LCG), also regarded as the ‘next-generation partograph’, is a core component of 2018 WHO consolidated guidelines on intrapartum care for positive childbirth experience. The Ugandan Ministry of Health is in the process of adopting the new WHO LCG with no local context-specific data to inform this transition. We will explore potential barriers and facilitators to healthcare providers’ (HCPs) sustained engagement in labour monitoring in Mbarara city, Southwestern Uganda, and use the data to refine the new WHO LCG and develop a suitable implementation strategy to effectively integrate LCG into routine maternity care in Uganda. We shall then assess effectiveness, validity and other preliminary implementation outcomes of using the new LCG in detecting prolonged labour.

The study will use a mixed-methods approach to identify key LCG user perspectives to refine and customise the WHO LCG among 120 HCPs and stakeholders involved in maternity care and labour monitoring within facilities in Southwestern Uganda. The refined prototype will be deployed and used to monitor labour in all 14 basic and comprehensive emergency obstetric and newborn care facilities in the study area. We will review labour outcomes of 520 patients monitored using the new LCG and compare these outcomes with a historical cohort of 520 patients monitored using the partograph. The main effectiveness outcome will be the proportion of women diagnosed with prolonged labour and/or obstructed labour.

Ethical approval was obtained from the Mbarara University of Science and Technology Research Ethics Committee (MUST-2023-808) and Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (HS2864ES). We shall obtain written informed consent from each participant. The results of this study will be published in international peer-reviewed journals and presented to the Ugandan Ministry of Health as policy briefs and at selected national/international conferences.

NCT05979194.