Life expectancy and rates of premature death are fundamental markers of health and social equity globally, and measures on which people experiencing homelessness face enormous disparities. However, unlike for other population groups with similar disparities, concerted government action to reduce homeless mortality is rare, partly due to a lack of reliable, timely data. Contemporaneous tracking of homeless deaths is required to render such deaths less invisible and measure trends over time. Drawing on multiple data sources as recommended by the US National Health Care for the Homeless Council’s seminal Homeless Mortality Data Toolkit, we routinely and contemporaneously capture, verify and report on deaths occurring among people who have experienced homelessness in the Australian city of Perth.

Dynamic cohort study.

Perth, Western Australia, Australia, between 2016 and 2022, with deaths examined between 2020 and 2022.

For this study, the cohort comprised 8753 people who experienced homelessness in Perth, with ‘recruitment’ into the cohort governed by engagement with one or more local homelessness services and programmes over the period.

Number and median age-at-death statistics.

There were 360 deaths over the 3-year period, which is likely an undercount. The median age at death was 50 years, >3 decades below the current Australian median age at death of 82 years. Aboriginal people accounted for 30% of the deaths.

The ongoing poor health and premature death of people who have experienced homeless are indictments on our society. Triangulation of multiple data sources is required to identify and monitor deaths among homeless populations. Timely, verified data on homeless mortality are important for galvanising action and accountability, and targets should be set to reduce the observed three-decade life expectancy chasm.

Obesity is associated with lower treatment response in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In patients with obesity, abatacept was suggested as a preferable option to tumour necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors. We aimed to assess the comparative effectiveness of etanercept, infliximab and abatacept, compared with adalimumab, in patients with RA with obesity. Secondarily, we also investigated this in patients with overweight and normal weight for completeness.

Observational cohort study.

Swiss Clinical Quality Management in Rheumatic Diseases (SCQM) registry (1997–2019).

Adult patients with RA from the SCQM registry who received etanercept, infliximab, abatacept or adalimumab as their first biological or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug were classified based on their body mass index (BMI) at the start of that treatment in three cohorts: obese, overweight, normal weight. They were followed for a maximum of 1 year.

The study exposure of interest was the patients’ first biological, particularly: etanercept, infliximab and abatacept, compared with adalimumab.

The primary study outcome was remission within 12 months, defined as 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28)

The study included 443 obese, 829 overweight and 1243 normal weight patients with RA. There were no statistically significant differences in the odds of DAS28-remission at ≤12 months for etanercept, infliximab and abatacept, compared with adalimumab, in any of the BMI cohorts.

No differences in DAS28-remission were found between the study drugs and adalimumab as first biologic in patients with RA, independently of the BMI cohort. We did not find evidence that treatment with abatacept increased the likelihood of remission compared with adalimumab among obese patients with RA.

Obesity is one of the main threats to public health in western countries and increases the risk of several diseases, overall morbidity and mortality. Sustained weight loss will reduce risk factors and improve several obesity comorbidities. Options are conservative treatment such as lifestyle changes, bariatric surgery or medications. Conservative treatment has a low success rate, and bariatric surgery is typically not reversible, with the risk of complications and recurrences. Treatment of obesity with medications has in recent years shown great promise, but the side effects are many, and the long-term effect is unknown. There is also a need for an option for patients where surgery has contraindications and conservative follow-up does not succeed.

The research on obesity and gut microbiota has yielded promising results regarding weight reduction and metabolic health, but more research is needed to better understand the relationship between gut microbiota and severe obesity. This study could show proof of concept that gut microbiota from a lean donor could, in addition to lifestyle intervention, contribute to weight reduction in people suffering from severe obesity.

This study aims to investigate if a fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) from a lean donor leads to weight reduction in participants suffering from severe obesity. The study is a single-centre, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study with 60 participants. Participants will be randomised 1:1 for FMT from a lean donor or placebo. FMT or placebo will be delivered once by enema.

We will include participants from the outpatient clinic for severe obesity, at the Medical Department, University Hospital of North Norway, Harstad, by invitation only. The study has a follow-up period of 12 months, with study visits of 3, 6 and 12 months post FMT. The primary endpoint is a weight reduction of ≥10%, 12 months after intervention.

The results of the study will be published in open access journals. At the end of the study, the participants will receive information on which treatment group they belong to.

The Regional Ethical Committee in North Norway (REK) approved the study protocol (2017/1655/REK Nord). We plan to present the results from the study at (inter)national conferences and publish in open-access general peer-reviewed journals. The enema method for FMT administration used in this study was developed by our study team.

NCT03273855.

We aimed to identify all available studies describing measures or indicators used to monitor 41 intrapartum care practices described in the 2018 WHO intrapartum care recommendations, with a view to informing development of standardised measurement of implementing these recommendations.

Systematic scoping review.

We conducted a scoping review to identify studies reporting measures of intrapartum care published between 1 January 2000 and 28 June 2021. Primary and secondary outcome measures included study characteristics (publication year, journal, country and World Bank classification) and intrapartum care measure characteristics (definition, numerator, denominator, measurement level and measurement approach). We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, the Maternity and Infant Care Database, Global Index Medicus and grey literature using structured search terms related to included recommendations, focusing on respectful and supportive care, and clinical practices performed throughout labour and birth. The measures identified were classified by the WHO recommendation and their characteristics reported.

We identified 150 studies which described 1331 intrapartum care measures. These measures corresponded to 35 of the 41 included WHO recommendations, and represented all domains of the WHO recommendations (care throughout labour and birth, first stage of labour, second stage of labour, third stage of labour). A total of 40.1% (534 of 1331 measures) of measures were related to respectful maternity care. Most studies used a questionnaire or survey measurement approach (522 of 1331 measures, 39.2%).

This scoping review presents a database of existing intrapartum care measures used to monitor the quality of intrapartum care globally. There is no clear consensus on a core set of measures for evaluating the practice of the WHO’s intrapartum care recommendations. This review provides a foundation to support the development of a core set of internationally standardised intrapartum care measures for the WHO intrapartum care recommendations, highlighting key areas requiring consensus and validation, and measure development.

The objective of this study was to explore the outcomes of research engagement (patient engagement, PE) in the context of qualitative research.

We observed engagement in two groups comprised of patients, clinicians and researchers tasked with conducting a qualitative preference exploration project in inflammatory bowel disease. One group was led by a patient research partner (PLG, partner led group) and the other by an academic researcher (RLG, researcher led group). A semistructured guide and a set of critical outcomes of research engagement were used as a framework to ground our analysis.

The study was conducted online.

Patient research partners (n=5), researchers (n=5) and clinicians (n=4) participated in this study.

Transcripts of meetings, descriptive and reflective observation data of engagement during meetings and email correspondence between group members were analysed to identify the outcomes of PE.

Both projects were patient-centred, collaborative, meaningful, rigorous, adaptable, ethical, legitimate, understandable, feasible, timely and sustainable. Patient research partners (PRPs) in both groups wore dual hats as patients and researchers and influenced project decisions wearing both hats. They took on advisory and operational roles. Collaboration seemed easier in the PLG than in the RLG. The RLG PRPs spent more time than their counterparts in the PLG sharing their experience with biologics and helping their group identify a meaningful project question. A formal literature review informed the design, project materials and analysis in the RLG, while the formal review informed the project materials and analysis in the PLG. A PRP in the RLG and the PLG lead leveraged personal connections to facilitate recruitment. The outcomes of both projects were meaningful to all members of the groups.

Our findings show that engagement of PRPs in research has a positive influence on the project design and delivery in the context of qualitative research in both the patient-led and researcher-led group.