The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated changes to clinical research methodology, with clinical studies being carried out via online/remote means. This mixed-methods study aimed to identify which digital tools are currently used across all stages of clinical research by stakeholders in clinical, health and social care research and investigate their experience using digital tools.

Two online surveys followed by semistructured interviews were conducted. Interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.

To explore the digital tools used since the pandemic, survey participants (researchers and related staff (n=41), research and development staff (n=25)), needed to have worked on clinical, health or social care research studies over the past 2 years (2020–2022) in an employing organisation based in the West Midlands region of England (due to funding from a regional clinical research network (CRN)). Survey participants had the opportunity to participate in an online qualitative interview to explore their experiences of digital tools in greater depth (n=8).

Six themes were identified in the qualitative interviews: ‘definition of a digital tool in clinical research’; ‘impact of the COVID-19 pandemic’; ‘perceived benefits/drawbacks of digital tools’; ‘selection of a digital tool’; ‘barriers and overcoming barriers’ and ‘future digital tool use’. The context of each theme is discussed, based on the interview results.

Findings demonstrate how digital tools are becoming embedded in clinical research, as well as the breadth of tools used across different research stages. The majority of participants viewed the tools positively, noting their ability to enhance research efficiency. Several considerations were highlighted; concerns about digital exclusion; need for collaboration with digital expertise/clinical staff, research on tool effectiveness and recommendations to aid future tool selection. There is a need for the development of resources to help optimise the selection and use of appropriate digital tools for clinical research staff and participants.

Given the increasing prevalence of obesity and need for effective interventions, there is a growing interest in understanding how an individual’s body image can inform obesity prevention and management. This study’s objective was to examine the use of silhouette showcards to measure body size perception compared with measured body mass index, and assess body size dissatisfaction, in three different African-origin populations spanning the epidemiological transition. An ancillary objective was to investigate associations between body size perception and dissatisfaction with diabetes and hypertension.

Research visits were completed in local research clinics in respective countries.

Seven hundred and fifty-one African-origin participants from the USA and the Republic of Seychelles (both high-income countries), and Ghana (low/middle-income country).

Silhouette showcards were used to measure perceived body size and body size dissatisfaction. Objectively measured body size was measured using a scale and stadiometer. Diabetes was defined as fasting blood glucose ≥126 mg/dL and hypertension was defined as ≥130 mm Hg/80 mm Hg.

Most women and men from the USA and Seychelles had ‘Perceived minus Actual weight status Discrepancy’ scores less than 0, meaning they underestimated their actual body size. Similarly, most overweight or obese men and women also underestimated their body size, while normal weight men and women were accurately able to estimate their body size. Finally, participants with diabetes were able to accurately estimate their body size and similarly desired a smaller body size.

This study highlights that overweight and obese women and men from countries spanning the epidemiological transition were unable to accurately perceive their actual body size. Understanding people’s perception of their body size is critical to implementing successful obesity prevention programmes across the epidemiological transition.

Iron deficiency is a major public health problem that affects the physical and cognitive development of children under 5 years of age (under-5 children) in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). However, the factors associated with the limited consumption of iron-rich foods in the region are poorly understood.

This study examined the prevalence and determinants of iron-rich food deficiency among under-5 children in 26 SSA countries.

This nationally representative quantitative study employed pooled data from Demographic and Health Surveys conducted between 2010 and 2019.

Representative samples comprising 296 850 under-5 children from the various countries were used. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to determine the associations between the lack of iron-rich food uptake and various sociodemographic factors.

The overall prevalence of iron-rich food deficiency among the children in the entire sample was 56.75%. The prevalence of iron-rich food deficiency varied widely across the 26 countries, ranging from 42.76% in Congo Democratic Republic to 77.50% in Guinea. Maternal education, particularly primary education (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.68) and higher education (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.64), demonstrated a reduced likelihood of iron-rich food deficiency in the sample. Likewise, paternal education, with both primary education (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.75) and higher education (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.73) showed decreased odds of iron-rich food deficiency. Postnatal visits contributed significantly to reducing the odds of iron-rich food deficiency (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.95), along with antenatal visits, which also had a positive impact (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.95). Finally, residents in rural areas showed slightly higher odds of iron-rich food deficiency (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.28).

Based on the findings, interventions targeting iron-food deficiency in the SSA region should take into strong consideration the key determinants highlighted in this study.

To engage children who have experienced cancer, childhood cancer survivors, their families and professionals to systematically identify and prioritise research questions about childhood cancer to inform the future research agenda.

James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

UK health service and community.

A steering group oversaw the initiative. Potential research questions were collected in an online survey, then checked to ensure they were unanswered. Shortlisting via a second online survey identified the highest priority questions. A parallel process with children was undertaken. A final consensus workshop was held to determine the Top 10 priorities.

Children and survivors of childhood cancer, diagnosed before age 16, their families, friends and professionals who work with this population.

Four hundred and eighty-eight people submitted 1299 potential questions. These were refined into 108 unique questions; 4 were already answered and 3 were under active study, therefore, removed. Three hundred and twenty-seven respondents completed the shortlisting survey. Seventy-one children submitted questions in the children’s surveys, eight children attended a workshop to prioritise these questions. The Top 5 questions from children were taken to the final workshop where 23 questions in total were discussed by 25 participants (young adults, carers and professionals). The top priority was ‘can we find effective and kinder (less burdensome, more tolerable, with fewer short and long-term effects) treatments for children with cancer, including relapsed cancer?’

We have identified research priorities for children’s cancer from the perspectives of children, survivors, their families and the professionals who care for them. Questions reflect the breadth of the cancer experience, including diagnosis, relapse, hospital experience, support during/after treatment and the long-term impact of cancer. These should inform funding of future research as they are the questions that matter most to the people who could benefit from research.