The aim was to evaluate whether standardised exercise performance during the incremental shuttle walk test (ISWT) can be used to assess disease severity in children and young people (CYP) with chronic conditions, through (1) identifying the most appropriate paediatric normative reference equation for the ISWT, (2) assessing how well CYP with haemophilia and cystic fibrosis (CF) perform against the values predicted by the best fit reference equation and (3) evaluating the association between standardised ISWT performance and disease severity.

A cross-sectional analysis was carried out using existing data from two independent studies (2018–2019) at paediatric hospitals in London,UK. CYP with haemophilia (n=35) and CF (n=134) aged 5–18 years were included. Published reference equations for standardising ISWT were evaluated through a comparison of populations, and Bland-Altman analysis was used to assess the level of agreement between distances predicted by each equation. Associations between ISWT and disease severity were assessed with linear regression.

Three relevant reference equations were identified for the ISWT that standardised performance based on age, sex and body mass index (Vardhan, Lanza, Pinho). A systematic proportional bias of standardised ISWT was observed in all equations, most pronounced with Vardhan and Lanza; the male Pinho equation was identified as most appropriate. On average, CYP with CF and haemophilia performed worse than predicted by the Pihno equation, although the range was wide. Standardised ISWT, and not ISWT distance alone, was significantly associated with forced expiratory volume in 1 s in CYP with CF. Standardised ISWT in CYP with haemophilia was slightly associated with haemophilia joint health score, but this was not significant.

ISWT performance may be useful in a clinic to identify those with worsening disease, but only when performance is standardised against a healthy reference population. The development of validated global reference equations is necessary for more robust assessment.

Public policymakers are increasingly engaged in participatory model building processes, such as group model building. Understanding the impacts of policymaker participation in these processes on policymakers is important given that their decisions often have significant influence on the dynamics of complex systems that affect health. Little is known about the extent to which the impacts of participatory model building on public policymakers have been evaluated or the methods and measures used to evaluate these impacts.

A scoping review protocol was developed with the objectives of: (1) scoping studies that have evaluated the impacts of facilitated participatory model building processes on public policymakers who participated in these processes; and (2) describing methods and measures used to evaluate impacts and the main findings of these evaluations. The Joanna Briggs Institute’s Population, Concept, Context framework was used to formulate the article identification process. Seven electronic databases—MEDLINE (Ovid), ProQuest Health and Medical, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase (Ovid), CINAHL Complete and PsycInfo—will be searched. Identified articles will be screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist for scoping reviews will be used and reported. A data extraction tool will collect information across three domains: study characteristics, methods and measures, and findings. The review will be conducted using Covidence, a systematic review data management platform.

The scoping review produced will generate an overview of how public policymaker engagement in participatory model building processes has been evaluated. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and to communities of practice that convene policymakers in participatory model building processes. This review will not require ethics approval because it is not human subject research.

Decision coaching is a non-directive approach to support patients to prepare for making health decisions. It is used to facilitate patients’ involvement in informed values-based decision-making and use of evidence-based health information. A recent systematic review revealed low certainty evidence for its effectiveness with and without evidence-based information. However, there may be opportunities to improve the study and use of decision coaching in clinical practice by systematically investigating its determinants of practice. We aim to conduct a systematic review to identify and synthesise the determinants of practice for providing decision coaching to facilitate patient involvement in decision-making from multiple perspectives that influence its use.

We will conduct a mixed-methods systematic review guided by the Cochrane’ Handbook of Systematic Reviews. We will include studies reporting determinants of practice influencing decision coaching with or without evidence-based patient information with adults making a health decision for themselves or a family member. Systematic literature searches will be conducted in Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and PsycINFO via Ovid and CINAHL via EBSCO including quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods study designs. Additionally, experts in the field will be contacted.

Two reviewers will independently screen and extract data. We will synthesise determinants using deductive and inductive qualitative content analysis and a coding frame developed specifically for this review based on a taxonomy of barriers and enablers of shared decision-making mapped onto the major domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We will assess the quality of included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

Ethical approval is not required as this systematic review involves only previously published literature. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at scientific conferences and disseminated to relevant consumer groups.

CRD42022338299.