Geriatric Fracture Centers (GFCs) are dedicated treatment units where care is tailored towards elderly patients who have suffered fragility fractures. The primary objective of this economic analysis was to determine the cost-utility of GFCs compared with usual care centres.

The primary analysis was a cost-utility analysis that measured the cost per incremental quality-adjusted life-year gained from treatment of hip fracture in GFCs compared with treatment in usual care centres from the societal perspective over a 1-year time horizon. The secondary analysis was a cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective over a lifetime time horizon. We evaluated these outcomes using a cost-utility analysis using data from a large multicentre prospective cohort study comparing GFCs versus usual care centres that took place in Austria, Spain, the USA, the Netherlands, Thailand and Singapore.

GFCs may be cost-effective in the long term, while providing a more comprehensive care plan. Patients in usual care centre group were slightly older and had fewer comorbidities. For the 1-year analysis, the costs per patient were slightly lower in the GFC group (–$646.42), while the quality-adjusted life-years were higher in the usual care centre group (+0.034). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $18 863.34 (US$/quality-adjusted life-year). The lifetime horizon analysis found that the costs per patient were lower in the GFC group (–$7210.35), while the quality-adjusted life-years were higher in the usual care centre group (+0.02). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $320 678.77 (US$/quality-adjusted life-year).

This analysis found that GFCs were associated with lower costs compared with usual care centres. The cost-savings were greater when the lifetime time horizon was considered. This comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis, using data from an international prospective cohort study, found that GFC may be cost-effective in the long term, while providing a more comprehensive care plan. A greater number of major adverse events were reported at GFC, nevertheless a lower mortality rate associated with these adverse events at GFC. Due to the minor utility benefits, which may be a result of greater adverse event detection within the GFC group and much greater costs of usual care centres, the GFC may be cost-effective due to the large cost-savings it demonstrated over the lifetime time horizon, while potentially identifying and treating adverse events more effectively. These findings suggest that the GFC may be a cost-effective option over the lifetime of a geriatric patient with hip fracture, although future research is needed to further validate these findings.

Economic, level 2.

NCT02297581.

Digital health is now routinely being applied in clinical care, and with a variety of clinician-facing systems available, healthcare organisations are increasingly required to make decisions about technology implementation and evaluation. However, few studies have examined how digital health research is prioritised, particularly research focused on clinician-facing decision support systems. This study aimed to identify criteria for prioritising digital health research, examine how these differ from criteria for prioritising traditional health research and determine priority decision support use cases for a collaborative implementation research programme.

Drawing on an interpretive listening model for priority setting and a stakeholder-driven approach, our prioritisation process involved stakeholder identification, eliciting decision support use case priorities from stakeholders, generating initial use case priorities and finalising preferred use cases based on consultations. In this qualitative study, online focus group session(s) were held with stakeholders, audiorecorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.

Fifteen participants attended the online priority setting sessions. Criteria for prioritising digital health research fell into three themes, namely: public health benefit, health system-level factors and research process and feasibility. We identified criteria unique to digital health research as the availability of suitable governance frameworks, candidate technology’s alignment with other technologies in use,and the possibility of data-driven insights from health technology data. The final selected use cases were remote monitoring of patients with pulmonary conditions, sepsis detection and automated breast screening.

The criteria for determining digital health research priority areas are more nuanced than that of traditional health condition focused research and can neither be viewed solely through a clinical lens nor technological lens. As digital health research relies heavily on health technology implementation, digital health prioritisation criteria comprised enablers of successful technology implementation. Our prioritisation process could be applied to other settings and collaborative projects where research institutions partner with healthcare delivery organisations.

Despite significant advances in managing acute stroke and reducing stroke mortality, preventing complications like post-stroke epilepsy (PSE) has seen limited progress. PSE research has been scattered worldwide with varying methodologies and data reporting. To address this, we established the International Post-stroke Epilepsy Research Consortium (IPSERC) to integrate global PSE research efforts. This protocol outlines an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) to determine outcomes in patients with post-stroke seizures (PSS) and develop/validate PSE prediction models, comparing them with existing models. This protocol informs about creating the International Post-stroke Epilepsy Research Repository (IPSERR) to support future collaborative research.

We utilised a comprehensive search strategy and searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases until 30 January 2023. We extracted observational studies of stroke patients aged ≥18 years, presenting early or late PSS with data on patient outcome measures, and conducted the risk of bias assessment. We did not apply any restriction based on the date or language of publication. We will invite these study authors and the IPSERC collaborators to contribute IPD to IPSERR. We will review the IPD lodged within IPSERR to identify patients who developed epileptic seizures and those who did not. We will merge the IPD files of individual data and standardise the variables where possible for consistency. We will conduct an IPD-MA to estimate the prognostic value of clinical characteristics in predicting PSE.

Ethics approval is not required for this study. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals. This study will contribute to IPSERR, which will be available to researchers for future PSE research projects. It will also serve as a platform to anchor future clinical trials.

NCT06108102

Trans young people are at a higher risk of mental health difficulties such as depression, anxiety and suicidality than their cisgender peers, due in part to their experiences of minority stress. This protocol describes a feasibility trial and subsequent pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a codesigned group cognitive–behavioural therapy intervention for trans young people, named Trans Adolescent Group ThErapy for Alleviating Minority stress (TAG TEAM).

To evaluate TAG TEAM, we will conduct a feasibility trial followed by a pilot RCT with trans young people aged 14–16 years who have been referred to the Royal Children’s Hospital Gender Service in Melbourne, Australia. In the feasibility trial, we aim to enrol 32 participants who will be randomised at a 1:1 ratio to either in-person or online intervention arms. Participants will be assessed at baseline and post-treatment, with a nested qualitative evaluation post-treatment. Primary outcomes are the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and the study design and associated procedures, including comparison of the in-person and online delivery modes. In the subsequent pilot RCT, we aim to enrol 64 participants who will be randomised at a 1:1 ratio to an intervention or waitlist control arm, with delivery mode determined by the feasibility trial. Participants will complete assessments at baseline, post-treatment and 3-month follow-up. Primary outcomes are the feasibility and acceptability of the RCT study design. In both the feasibility trial and pilot RCT, participants will complete assessments related to mood, anxiety, suicidality, quality of life, minority stress, family support and social transition. Quantitative data will be analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data will be analysed using thematic and interpretive analysis.

The Royal Children’s Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee has approved this study (#91162). Informed consent will be obtained in writing from all participants and a legal guardian. Findings will inform the development of a full-scale RCT to evaluate the efficacy of TAG TEAM and will be disseminated through conferences and peer-reviewed journals.

ACTRN12623000302651, ACTRN12623000318684.

Recently published studies support the beneficial effects of consuming fibre-rich legumes, such as cooked dry beans, to improve metabolic health and reduce cancer risk. In participants with overweight/obesity and a history of colorectal polyps, the Fibre-rich Foods to Treat Obesity and Prevent Colon Cancer randomised clinical trial will test whether a high-fibre diet featuring legumes will simultaneously facilitate weight reduction and suppress colonic mucosal biomarkers of colorectal cancer (CRC).

This study is designed to characterise changes in (1) body weight; (2) biomarkers of insulin resistance and systemic inflammation; (3) compositional and functional profiles of the faecal microbiome and metabolome; (4) mucosal biomarkers of CRC risk and (5) gut transit. Approximately 60 overweight or obese adults with a history of noncancerous adenomatous polyps within the previous 3 years will be recruited and randomised to one of two weight-loss diets. Following a 1-week run-in, participants in the intervention arm will receive preportioned high-fibre legume-rich entrées for two meals/day in months 1–3 and one meal/day in months 4–6. In the control arm, entrées will replace legumes with lean protein sources (eg, chicken). Both groups will receive in-person and written guidance to include nutritionally balanced sides with energy intake to lose 1–2 pounds per week.

The National Institutes of Health fund this ongoing 5-year study through a National Cancer Institute grant (5R01CA245063) awarded to Emory University with a subaward to the University of Pittsburgh. The study protocol was approved by the Emory Institutional Review Board (IRB approval number: 00000563).

NCT04780477.