Low back pain (LBP) is the leading contributor to disability globally. It has a substantial impact on the lives of those who experience it, and places considerable economic burden on healthcare systems. Despite these impacts, and the consistency of guideline recommendations, many individuals do not receive recommended LBP management. Structural barriers to accessing timely, evidence-based care, as well as public uncertainty about where to seek appropriate management, can influence the care individuals receive. Telephone and digitally based helplines assist to overcome many traditional barriers to accessing care and offer a scalable platform to improve the delivery of guideline recommended management for LBP. However, uptake of such services can be limited without targeted promotion and patient-centred design. This project aims to codesign, implement and evaluate an upgraded component of an existing Australian helpline service, tailored for people with back pain and supported by a media awareness campaign. This protocol outlines the codesign process, implementation and planned evaluation of the helpline.

This protocol uses three complementary frameworks—an iterative codesign process, the Practical Robust Implementation Sustainability Model, and the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance framework—to guide the codesign and development, implementation and evaluation of an upgraded helpline for people with LBP. The codesign process involves key stakeholders, including consumers and clinicians, to inform the development and implementation of both the upgraded helpline service and the media campaign to raise awareness and uptake of the helpline. Data sources will include a pre–post cohort of helpline service users, routinely collected service data (eg, monthly call rate) and health system data to evaluate the broader population level impact (eg, rates of emergency department presentations for LBP in the Australian region targeted by the media campaign). Implementation evaluation will include Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance as well as internal and external environmental factors that influence the success of these outcome measures.

The project was approved by the University of Sydney’s Human Research Ethics Committee (HE001081). This project involves collaboration with consumers, clinicians and other stakeholders to interpret, translate and disseminate research findings to relevant audiences.

To externally validate and subsequently repurpose/recalibrate the easily accessible kidney failure risk equation (KFRE) for a prevalent transplant population with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)

Retrospective cohort study using UK Renal Registry data.

68 adult UK kidney centres.

4092 patients with grafts at least 2 years old and eGFR2 from 2009 to 2018.

Death-censored allograft failure at 2 years, defined as dialysis initiation, re-transplantation or, in the absence of the former two, the recorded date of transplant failure.

The KFRE was calculated at baseline using the 2-year, 8-variable non-North American KFRE, and performance was assessed using Harrell’s C-statistic and calibration plots. The model was recalibrated using Cox Regression (2009–2013 cohort) and temporally validated using the 2014–2018 cohort. Clinical utility was assessed using decision-curve analysis, estimating per-100-patient gains in timely planning and reductions in unnecessary interventions compared with eGFR triggers.

The original KFRE had excellent discrimination but was miscalibrated, underpredicting graft failure. Temporal validation demonstrated that the performance of the recalibrated KFRE could be maintained across time periods (Harrell’s C-index of 0.81 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.83); O/E (Observed/Expected events) ratio 1.00 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.07). It identified 9/100 more patients for timely intervention and 13/100 more for whom intervention could be delayed compared with a late clinical trigger of an eGFR2.

While there are other prognostic models, this is the first study to focus on the understudied and clinically important cohort of patients with an eGFR

Physical activity is crucial for young children’s health and development. Many young children do not meet the recommended 3 hours of daily physical activity, including 60 min of energetic play. Early childhood education and care (ECEC/childcare) is a key setting to intervene to improve children’s physical activity. The Play Active programme is a scalable evidence-informed ECEC-specific physical activity policy intervention with implementation support strategies to improve educators’ physical activity-related practices.

This hybrid type III effectiveness-implementation trial will use a quasi-experimental repeated measures design to assess the real-world effectiveness of Play Active’s scalable implementation support strategies in helping ECEC services adopt the practices included in the Play Active policy. Secondary aims will examine changes in educator-reported and device-measured children’s physical activity; assess the sustainability of the programme; identify effective dissemination strategies; assess cost-effectiveness; and involve comprehensive process evaluation. All ECEC services in Western Australia (n=776), Queensland (n=1744) and South Australia (n=445) will be invited to participate. Data will be collected at baseline, 6, 12, 18, 24 and 30 months.

Ethics approval has been provided by The University of Western Australia Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) (2023/ET000187), the University of Queensland HREC (2024/HE000076) and the University of South Australia HREC (206023). This real-world trial of Play Active is vital for understanding its implementation in practice and to generate evidence for further scale-up and roll-out nationally. Key findings will be disseminated to stakeholders, collaborators, policy-makers as well as families and practitioners in the ECEC sector.

ACTRN12624000406505.

This scoping review aimed to map studies on behaviour change interventions that address antibiotic treatment-seeking behaviour for respiratory tract infections in primary and community care settings.

This review is based on the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines for scoping reviews, guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews.

A literature search in January 2024 and May 2024 was performed across Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, EThOS and Google Scholar was performed.

Eligible studies described behaviour change interventions in primary and community care settings, published from 2000 onward across all countries.

Descriptive data relating to study details and intervention functions were gathered and organised according to the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behaviour change framework in a predeveloped data extraction sheet. Dual data extraction occurred, and inter-rater reliability results are reported (K=0.83).

The scoping review identified 38 eligible studies, which consisted of randomised controlled trials (7/38), cluster randomised controlled trials (6/38), randomised experiments (5/38), cross-sectional studies (5/38), qualitative investigations (5/38) and quasi-experimental designs (4/38). Most interventions focused on educational resources (15/38), digital tools (7/38) and community campaigns (6/38), with fewer targeting decision-making processes (4/38) or psychological drivers of antibiotic-seeking behaviour (3/38). Only one study was conducted in low-income and middle-income countries, and only one separately assessed behaviour change as a measured outcome.

This scoping review highlights a wide range of research methodologies within the topic area. There was some limited evidence of intervention efficacy for antibiotic prescription rates, particularly interventions focused on enhancing knowledge and access to resources. However, more emphasis is needed on standardising outcome measures and evaluating long-term outcomes.