Opioid analgesic medications play a critical role in pain management but are associated with significant risks, including addiction. General practitioners in primary care account for a substantial proportion of opioid prescriptions, and prescribing practices may not always fully align with clinical guidelines. Given the limited evidence supporting long-term opioid use for chronic non-cancer pain, there is a pressing need for interventions that promote safer, guideline-concordant prescribing. The Smarta Val (Smart Choices) trial will evaluate whether a new multicomponent intervention, comprising an educational seminar, written materials and feedback on prescribing over 12 months, can improve opioid prescribing practices in primary care.

This cluster randomised pragmatic trial will assess changes in opioid prescribing across primary healthcare centres (PHCCs) in Stockholm, Sweden. Consenting PHCCs will be randomised 1:1 to either the intervention group, receiving the multicomponent intervention, or the active control group, receiving a leaflet on prescribing recommendations. A sample size of 24 PHCCs per group is required to detect differences in opioid prescribing between groups. A third group of non-randomised observational reference PHCCs will be included to provide contextual information on prescribing practices during the study period. Data sources include regional healthcare databases, baseline and 12-month follow-up questionnaires, and an intervention delivery form. The primary outcome is the change in prescription of opioids at 12 months. Secondary outcomes are the change in prescription of opioids at 24 months and the change in the specific opioid substances prescribed at 12 months.

The study has been approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (Dnr 2021-06739-01). Participation in the study requires informed consent from PHCC managers in the intervention and active control groups. Results will be disseminated through international peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations.

NCT05577026.

To further elucidate the effects of rare systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARD) and their treatment on antibody development after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, we compared patients with and without immunosuppressive therapy to healthy controls in an observational cohort study.

We enrolled 52 patients with SARD and 72 healthy subjects in a prospective, observational study at the Medical University of Vienna and measured the humoral response 6 months after two mRNA vaccinations and 2–6 weeks after a third dose.

Patients with vasculitis showed significantly (p=0.02) lower antibody titres 6 months after vaccination (median 247 BAU/mL, IQR [185–437]), as compared with healthy controls (median 514 BAU/mL, [185–437], IQR 323; 928, vasculitis patients: 247, IQR [185; 437], p

Patients with SARD displayed lower antibody development after booster vaccination, even if antibody levels after two immunisations were comparable to healthy controls. Our data may be limited due to sample size, but it provides pointers for a more individualised, antibody-titre-oriented approach and earlier booster vaccination in patients with SARD.

The quality of paid disability support services has significant implications for the autonomy, well-being and community participation of adults with disability. However, variability in service provision and evaluation persists. Despite the growing public investment and focus on improving support quality, there appears to remain a lack of comprehensive tools and measures to evaluate the quality of paid disability support. This scoping review aims to systematically identify and map the existing tools and measures used to evaluate the quality of paid disability support for adults with disability.

This scoping review will be conducted following the methodology outlined by Arksey and O’Malley, enhancements proposed by Levac et al and the Joanna Briggs Institute along with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis: Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. The research question guiding the review is: ‘What existing tools and measures are available to evaluate the quality of paid disability support services?’ Comprehensive searches will be conducted in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus to identify peer-reviewed articles published in English since 2014. Supplementary grey literature searches will also be conducted, alongside an online survey to obtain stakeholder input. Articles or grey literature sources that report on tools or measures for evaluating paid disability support for adults (aged 18–65 years) with disability will be included. Data extraction will focus on study characteristics, participant demographics and the characteristics of the quality of support measurement tools. A narrative synthesis will be used to present the findings.

Ethical approval will be obtained for the online stakeholder survey component of the review. No ethical approval is required for the scoping review of the literature. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and accessible formats to ensure a wide audience is reached, including researchers, policymakers and disability service providers.