The Clinical Frailty Scale is an ordinal scale from 1 (very fit) to 9 (terminally ill) commonly used to assess frailty in older patients. It is simple for clinicians to apply and can help identify patients who may benefit from discussions around end-of-life care. We externally validated the Scale to assess its performance for predicting 90-day mortality in a cohort of admitted older patients who had screened positive for being at risk of nearing the end of life.

We used data from a randomised controlled trial assessing a tailored feedback loop for reducing non-beneficial care. Our study included patients aged 75 and above admitted between May 2020 and June 2021 from 3 Australian hospitals. We assessed whether the Scale could be used in a frail population to identify patients who were at risk of short-term mortality. Predictive performance was assessed using the c-statistic, smoothed calibration curves and decision curves. Models were tested for coefficient stability.

Our dataset contained 4639 patients and 956 deaths within 90 days. The Clinical Frailty Scale had a c-statistic of 0.62 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.64) or 0.63 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.65) by adding age and transforming the Scale using a cubic spline. Risks were underestimated without a non-linear transformation as scores of 8 and 9 had a higher risk that diverged from a linear association. The net benefit of using the tool was greatest between 5 and 8 on the Scale.

The utility of the Clinical Frailty Scale may be as a flag to encourage clinicians to become more comfortable with discussing ageing and death, rather than as a highly discriminating model to classify patients as high risk or low risk. Statistical uncertainty over mortality should not be a barrier to initiating end-of-life care discussions with frail older patients.

Most clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for assessing and managing people’s chronic pain focus on specific pain conditions, body sites or life course stages. This creates complexity for clinicians making care choices in the absence of a diagnosis and/or where a person experiences more than one pain condition. Specific to this context is the ICD-11 classification of chronic primary pain where an experience of pain cannot be better accounted for by another condition. CPGs for chronic primary pain, agnostic to condition or body part, may support clinicians towards best pain care since many of the principles of person-centred chronic pain care are transdiagnostic. The two aims of this systematic review are to (1) identify and appraise CPGs for chronic primary pain, relevant across the life course and (2) map the CPG content against a pain care priority framework to evaluate the extent to which the CPG content aligns with the priorities of people with lived chronic pain experience.

We will systematically search nine scholarly databases, the Epistemonikos database and international and national guidelines clearinghouses. CPGs published within 2015–2025, in any language, that offer recommendations about assessment and/or management of chronic primary pain for people of any age, excluding hospitalised inpatients or institutionalised populations, will be included. Pairs of reviewers will independently screen citations for eligibility and appraise CPG quality and implementation potential using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE)-II and the AGREE-Recommendations Excellence tools, respectively. Data extraction will include the citation and scope characteristics of each CPG, methods used to develop recommendations, verbatim recommendations, guiding principles or practice information and narrative excerpts related to the GRADE Evidence-to-Decision (EtD) considerations (or equivalent). We will use the PROGRESS-PLUS framework as a checklist to identify whether determinants of health equity were considered by guideline developers. CPG recommendations will be organised according to common topics and categorised in a matrix according to strength and direction. Qualitative content analysis will be used to synthesise excerpts relating to GRADE EtD considerations (or equivalent), and we will map extracted data against an established chronic pain care priority framework to determine the extent to which the CPGs align with values and preferences of people with lived experience. Interpretation will be informed by an interdisciplinary Advisory Group, including lived experience partners.

Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review. Results will be disseminated through publication in an open-access peer-reviewed journal, through professional societies, and integrated into education curricula and public-facing resources. Reporting will be consistent with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement.

CRD420251000482.

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 was a crucial public health measure during the COVID-19 pandemic. Among the multiple strategies developed to increase vaccine uptake, governments often employed vaccine mandates. However, little evidence exists globally about the impact of these mandates and their subsequent removal on vaccine uptake, including in Australia, France, Italy and the USA. The aim of this study is to provide a protocol to evaluate and quantify the impact of COVID-19 vaccine mandates and removals on vaccine uptake in these countries, with a specific focus on comparing Australian policies with those from Europe and the USA. Actualising the work outlined in this protocol will help to provide policy and technical guidance for future pandemic preparedness and routine immunisation programmes.

This protocol outlines a retrospective study using existing data sources including Australian Immunisation Register-Person Level Integrated Data Asset for Australia and publicly available data for France, Italy and California (USA). Causal inference methods such as interrupted time series, regression discontinuity design, difference-in-differences, matching and synthetic control will be employed to assess the estimated effects of vaccine mandates and removals on vaccine uptake.

The University of Newcastle’s human research ethics committee has approved the study (reference number: H-2024-0160). Peer-reviewed papers will be submitted, and results will be presented at public health, immunisation and health economic conferences nationally and internationally. A lay summary will be published on the MandEval website.