Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a global public health crisis impacting low-income and middle-income countries such as Bangladesh. While self-management is encouraged for individuals with T2DM, there is a significant lack of knowledge regarding the factors of facilitators, barriers and expectations associated with T2DM self-management in Bangladesh. This research aims to investigate the potential elements that support, impede and are anticipated in the effective practice of self-management for T2DM in rural areas of Bangladesh.

This study will use an exploratory qualitative approach. 16 focus group discussions, 13 in-depth interviews and 9 key informant interviews will be conducted among multilevel stakeholders, including people with T2DM, their caregivers, healthcare providers, health managers/administrators and policy planners. Interviews will be audio-recorded, transcribed, translated and analysed using thematic analysis.

This research project has been approved by the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (project reference number: 39483) and the Ethical Review Committee of the Centre for Injury Prevention and Research, Bangladesh (Memo: CIPRB/ERC/2023/14). Research findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations. Published reports will include group data. Individual data privacy will be strictly maintained.

This study aims to assess risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection by combined design; first comparing positive cases to negative controls as determined by PCR testing and then comparing these two groups to an additional prepandemic population control group.

Test-negative design (TND), multicentre case–control study with additional population controls in South-Eastern Norway.

Adults who underwent SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing between February and December 2020. PCR-positive cases, PCR-negative controls and additional age-matched population controls.

The associations between various risk factors based on self- reported questionnaire and SARS-CoV-2 infection comparing PCR-positive cases and PCR-negative controls. Using subgroup analysis, the risk factors for both PCR-positive and PCR-negative participants were compared with a population control group.

In total, 400 PCR-positive cases, 719 PCR-negative controls and 14 509 population controls were included. Male sex was associated with the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection only in the TND study (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.4 to 2.6), but not when PCR-positive cases were compared with population controls (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.9. to 1.5). Some factors were positively (asthma, wood heating) or negatively (hypertension) associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection when PCR-positive cases were compared with population controls, but lacked convincing association in the TND study. Smoking was negatively associated with the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in both analyses (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.8 and OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.4 to 0.8).

Male sex was a possible risk factor for SARS-CoV-2 infection only in the TND study, whereas smoking was negatively associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in both the TND study and when using population controls. Several factors were associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection when PCR-positive cases were compared with population controls, but not in the TND study, highlighting the strength of combining case–control study designs during the pandemic.