Palliative care supports the physical, emotional, social and spiritual needs of people with serious life-limiting illness. Future research must align with the priorities of people approaching the end of their lives, and those close to them.

To undertake a refresh of the James Lind Alliance Palliative and End of Life Care Priority Setting Partnership, to identify and prioritise areas for future research.

The James Lind Alliance process was applied, between May 2023 and February 2025. An initial online survey collected areas for future research from participants. These were synthesised into a long list of questions and shortlisted through a second online survey. Final ranking of priorities was achieved using an adapted Nominal Group Technique within a prioritisation workshop.

People living with serious life-limiting illnesses, carers, friends and family members supporting them, bereaved people, health and social care professionals, volunteers working in palliative and end-of-life care and members of the public.

1032 and 626 responses were received to survey 1 and 2, respectively. 20 people with lived and professional experience attended the prioritisation workshop. An updated list of 24 priorities for palliative and end-of-life care research was produced.

The priorities reflect the range of issues shaping end-of-life experiences and serve as a call to action for researchers and funders.

The objective of this study was to examine patient experiences with virtual (telephone and video) encounters in primary care and make recommendations to inform the broader adoption of virtual care.

A descriptive qualitative study using semi-structured interviews for data collection.

Ontario, Canada.

Fifty-five primary care patients across Ontario, Canada, who had experienced at least one virtual (telephone or video) encounter with a healthcare provider in primary care, participated in semi-structured individual interviews conducted between 15 January 2021 and 22 March 2021.

With respect to patients’ experiences with virtual care appointments, we identified the following seven themes: (1) Enhancing access, (2) Importance of patient-provider relationship, (3) Active communication and attunement, (4) Assuring privacy and confidentiality, (5) Shorter appointments, (6) Asynchronous technologies being underutilised and (7) Strengthening the future of virtual care. Despite the rapid adoption of synchronous virtual care, participants generally reported positive experiences. Virtual care enhanced access to care and was overwhelmingly supported for continued use. While new patient-provider relationships faced challenges, pre-existing, positive relationships thrived. Concerns about the shortness of virtual care appointments were reported.

Virtual care offers a promising modality for patients to experience care. Moving forward, primary care practices should consider expanding options for asynchronous virtual care, consider the length of virtual care appointments and offer patients greater choice in the modality of their care appointments.

To develop prediction models for short-term outcomes following a first acute myocardial infarction (AMI) event (index) or for past AMI events (prevalent) in a national primary care cohort.

Retrospective cohort study using logistic regression models to estimate 1-year and 5-year risks of all-cause mortality and composite cardiovascular outcomes.

Primary care practices in England contributing data to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum and CPRD GOLD databases between 2006 and 2019.

Patients with an incident (index) or prevalent AMI event. Models were trained on a random 80% sample of CPRD Aurum (n=1018 practices), internally validated on the remaining 20% (n=255) and externally validated using CPRD GOLD (n=248).

Discrimination assessed using sensitivity, specificity and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Calibration assessed using calibration plots.

In the index (prevalent) cohorts, 94 241 (64 789) patients were included in the training and internal validation sets, and 16 832 (7479) in the external validation set. For the index cohort, AUCs for 1-year [5-year] all-cause mortality were 0.802 (95% CI 0.793 to 0.812) [0.847 (0.841 to 0.853)] internally and 0.800 (0.790 to 0.810) [0.841 (0.835 to 0.847)] externally. For the primary composite outcome (stroke, heart failure and all-cause death), AUCs were 0.763 (0.756 to 0.771) [0.824 (0.818 to 0.830)] internally and 0.748 (0.739 to 0.756) [0.808 (0.801 to 0.815)] externally. Discrimination was higher in the prevalent cohort, particularly for 1-year mortality (AUC: 0.896, 95% CI 0.887 to 0.904). Models excluding treatment variables showed slightly lower but comparable performance. Calibration was acceptable across models.

These models can support clinicians in identifying patients at increased risk of short-term adverse outcomes following AMI, whether newly diagnosed or with a prior history. This can inform monitoring strategies and secondary prevention and guide patient counselling on modifiable risk factors.

In the UK, approximately 5.4 million adults live with asthma, of whom one in five have an uncontrolled form. Uncontrolled asthma reduces quality of life and increases healthcare use. Engaging with peers through online health communities (OHCs) can empower patients to self-manage their long-term condition. While OHCs have been in existence for several years and growing numbers of patients access them, the role of primary care in signposting patients to them has been minimal and ad hoc. We have co-developed with patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) an intervention for adult patients with asthma, consisting of an appointment with a primary care HCP to introduce online peer support and sign patients up to an established asthma OHC, followed by OHC engagement. Feasibility work found the intervention acceptable to patients and HCPs. This protocol outlines our plan to test the intervention’s effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

An individual randomised controlled trial will be carried out. Eligible participants will be recruited via an online survey sent to adult patients on the asthma register in 50–70 general practices in several UK locations. Participants will be invited to attend a one-off, face-to-face appointment with a primary care HCP, during which they will be individually randomised to the intervention or usual care. An asthma control test (primary outcome) and other measures of clinical effectiveness will be collected at baseline and every 3 months over a 12-month follow-up period. Descriptive and inferential statistics will be used to compare outcome measures between study arms. Cost-effectiveness assessment of the intervention compared with current standard of asthma management in primary care will be reported. A sample of patients and HCPs will be interviewed at study exit and the data analysed thematically.

The study was approved by a National Health Service Research Ethics Committee (reference: 25/NE/0006). Written consent will be obtained from all participants. Findings will be disseminated through various means, including sharing with general practices, conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications.

NCT06849245.