Effective prevention of maternal-fetal transmission of hepatitis B virus (HBV) in highly endemic settings depends on targeting vaccination efforts to key priority groups, including pregnant women. However, the extent of HBV vaccination and determinants of uptake in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) have not been systematically examined. This systematic review aims to estimate HBV vaccination among pregnant women in SSA and identify the broader factors influencing uptake.

This review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive literature search will be conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, African Journals Online and Google Scholar in November 2025. We will include published observational studies that assess HBV vaccination among pregnant women in SSA countries from database inception to October 2025. A meta-analysis will be conducted using random-effects models to pool estimates of HBV vaccination and multivariable-adjusted ORs for vaccination-associated factors. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed using the I² statistic.

Ethical approval is not required as this review will not involve primary data collection. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at regional and international public health conferences, and, where applicable, shared with policymakers and health authorities in SSA.

This protocol is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, registration number CRD420251120357.

To compare elective surgeries rates and waiting times between Indigenous and non-Indigenous patients in Queensland.

Aggregated annual data analysis from July 2013 to December 2022 on elective surgeries and waiting times.

Public hospitals across Queensland.

All patients who had elective surgery in Queensland public hospitals between 2013 and 2022.

Rates and clinically recommended timeframes for elective surgeries.

Between 2013 and 2022, the overall estimated average rate of elective surgeries for Indigenous patients was 286 per 100 000 population, compared with 221 per 100 000 for non-Indigenous patients. Indigenous patients had higher rates of most elective surgeries except plastic and urological surgeries, where non-Indigenous patients had higher rates. Across all urgency categories, the percentages of elective surgery performed within clinically recommended timeframes were similar between Indigenous and non-Indigenous patients.

Our findings may point to the efficacy of specific policy and service delivery innovations undertaken in Queensland. Due to the limitations of our aggregated data, this inference warrants careful interpretation. More studies with disaggregated data are needed.

The Validating Outcomes by Including Consumer Experience (VOICE) project is developing patient reported experience measure (PREM) tools to collect consumer feedback for Indigenous primary healthcare (IPHC) services’ accreditation and quality improvement processes. This study aimed to explore the views of health service staff about: (1) optimising the feasibility of collection, analysis and interpretation of findings; and (2) resourcing requirements for implementation of the PREM.

A participatory action research qualitative study design, guided by an Indigenous advisory group. Our team of Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers conducted semistructured focus groups and individual interviews with IPHC staff. Focus groups and interviews were recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. Multiple sense-making meetings were conducted with the Indigenous advisory group.

Eight partner IPHC services across four Australian states and territories.

All staff were eligible and invited to participate in the study via purposive and snowball sampling. Administrative staff (eg, receptionist, programme facilitator), clinicians/practitioners (eg, general practitioner, nurse, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health workers and practitioners) and service managers (eg, CEO, practice manager) from partner health services participated.

63 staff participated; 44 attended across 13 focus groups, with the remainder participating in individual interviews. The majority of participants were between 35 years and 55 years old (52%), female (66%) and working in frontline IPHC service delivery roles (56%). Equal numbers identified as Indigenous (50%) and non-Indigenous (50%). Many had worked in the Indigenous health and well-being sector for over 10 years (40%). ‘Culturally safe care’ and ‘accountability’ were identified as primary themes and key reasons for gathering consumer feedback. Subthemes identified were ‘Relationships’, ‘trust and respect’, ‘communication about consumer feedback’, ‘timing and frequency of requesting consumer feedback’, ‘health service systems’, ‘health service and staff capacity’, ‘staff skills’ and ‘structure and administration of the PREM’. All themes and subthemes need to be considered for the successful design and implementation of PREMs in IPHC settings.

Many of the issues identified are not currently considered in the process of collecting PREM data for accreditation yet, if addressed, would likely improve the quality and relevance of data collected. The findings from this study will inform the co-design and validation of Indigenous-specific PREM tools to collect consumer feedback. Critically, service and community input will ensure the PREM tools meet service needs for continuous quality improvement and accreditation and reflect the priorities and values of Indigenous peoples.