Adverse pregnancy and perinatal outcomes (APPOs), including pre-term birth, pre-eclampsia and gestational diabetes, can result in maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality, parental anxiety and increased healthcare costs. A better understanding of the causes of APPOs is essential to inform lifestyle and pharmaceutical interventions for their prevention and management. Given the difficulty of undertaking randomised controlled trials in pregnant women, triangulating evidence from across methods with different sources of bias may improve causal inference for APPOs. The purpose of the Mendelian randomisation in pregnancy (MR-PREG) collaboration is to support such triangulation using genetic (eg, Mendelian randomisation (MR)) and non-genetic (eg, partner negative controls) approaches to investigate the causal effects of maternal exposures on a comprehensive set of APPOs.

The MR-PREG collaboration includes individual participant data from three birth cohorts (two from the UK and one from Norway) and UK Biobank, as well as summary data from FinnGen and publicly available genome-wide association studies (GWAS). Data have been harmonised across studies and currently include information on up to 35 APPOs in up to 707 797 women.

The main aims of MR-PREG are to strengthen the evidence base for (1) prevention, by advancing understanding of maternal lifestyle factors on APPOs, (2) the role of pre-conceptional health, by improving understanding of the effect of maternal pre-existing conditions on APPOs, and (3) treatments, by evaluating the efficacy and safety of existing medications used for pre-existing conditions, and by identifying and testing novel or repurposed therapies for APPOs. To date, our published work has mainly addressed aims 1 and 3. Examples include triangulation of evidence from MR, conventional multivariable regression and paternal negative control, showing that higher maternal body mass index increases the risk of multiple APPOs, as well as the identification of maternal circulating metabolites and proteins that may influence birth weight.

Future priorities include increasing diversity within the MR-PREG collaboration by expanding representation of participants from non-European ancestries. We are also integrating molecular data, including circulating protein levels and placental transcriptomics, to better characterise the molecular mechanisms underlying APPOs. Additionally, we are using whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing to identify novel causal genes and to inform the prioritisation of candidate therapeutic targets for APPOs.

To examine differences in physical health conditions among female veterans compared with male veterans and female civilians.

Cohort analysis using data from the UK Biobank, incorporating self-reported and hospital-derived health information.

Veteran status was identified using Standard Occupational Classification codes. The study included female veterans (n=546), male veterans (n=2722) and female civilians (n=66 305).

Physical health conditions were identified through self-report and hospital records. Multivariable logistic regression models estimated associations between veteran status and selected health conditions, adjusting for age, sociodemographic factors, time in service, body mass index and current smoking status.

Compared with female civilians, female veterans had increased odds of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.79, 95% CI 1.04 to 3.08) and lower odds of hypertension (aOR 0.74, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.93), with no significant difference in musculoskeletal conditions or osteoarthritis. Compared with male veterans, female veterans had significantly higher odds of osteoarthritis (aOR 1.61, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.08), migraine (aOR 2.63, 95% CI 1.66 to 4.19) and thyroid disorders (aOR 4.42, 95% CI 2.83 to 6.89).

Female veterans have distinct physical health profiles, including a greater burden of musculoskeletal and respiratory conditions compared with male veterans and female civilians. These findings highlight the need for targeted prevention and clinical interventions for women with a history of military service.

To assess diagnostic concordance and reclassification following an India-led, multinational virtual multidisciplinary discussion (V-MDD) platform for interstitial lung disease (ILD).

Prospective, multicentre service-evaluation study.

Twenty-four Indian referral centres connected through a secure virtual platform, with international faculty participation from the UK, Greece and Sri Lanka.

A total of 127 anonymised ILD cases discussed across 29 V-MDD sessions (February 2024–February 2025). Each panel included ≥4 pulmonologists, two pulmonary pathologists, one of three rotating thoracic radiologists and one of two rheumatologists, along with international experts.

The cohort (mean age 52.6±16.1 years; 53.5% female (68/127)) most frequently presented with dyspnoea (82.6%) and cough (73.2%). Pre-V-MDD diagnoses included hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP) and sarcoidosis as distinct disease entities, and usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) and non-specific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP) as radiological patterns, along with connective tissue disease (CTD)-ILD and other ILDs. Concordance between pre- and post-V-MDD CT diagnoses was substantial (=0.658; 95% CI 0.562 to 0.754; p

The India-led, multinational V-MDD model demonstrated substantial diagnostic concordance and refined nearly one-quarter of ILD diagnoses. This virtual, scalable framework expands access to subspecialty expertise and offers a practical blueprint for standardising ILD care in resource-limited and cross-border settings.

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) are both efficacious treatments for depression, but it is less clear how both compare on outcome domains other than depression and in the longer term. Moreover, it is unclear which of these two psychotherapies works better for whom. This article describes the protocol for a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis that aims to compare the efficacy of CBT and IPT for adults with depression on a range of outcomes in both the short and long term, and to explore moderators of the treatment effect. This study can enhance our understanding of treatments for depression and inform treatment personalisation.

Systematic literature searches will be conducted in PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from inception to 1 January 2026, to identify randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing CBT and IPT for adult depression. Researchers of eligible studies will be invited to contribute their participant-level data. One-stage IPD meta-analyses will be conducted with mixed-effects models to examine (a) treatment efficacy on all outcome measures that are assessed at post-treatment or follow-up in at least two studies, and (b) various baseline participant characteristics as potential moderators of depressive symptom level at treatment completion.

Ethical approval is not required for this study since it will be based on anonymised data from RCTs that have already been completed. The findings of the present study will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal or conference presentation.

In Canada, many families want to breastfeed, but there are several common challenges they may encounter. Currently, 91% of Canadian families initiate breastfeeding after giving birth, yet only 38% of babies are breastfed exclusively to 6 months. In 1991, the Breastfeeding Committee for Canada (BCC) was established to implement the World Health Organization’s Ten-Step Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative, a series of evidence-based in-hospital practices to support families to breastfeed. Then, in recognition of the need to support breastfeeding beyond the hospital setting, the BCC expanded the Baby-Friendly Initiative (BFI) to apply the Ten Steps to both hospitals and community health settings. However, uptake of the BFI Ten Steps in community settings has been low and methodology on how to optimise implementation of the Ten Steps in community is not well developed. Therefore, the objective of this project is to develop and evaluate a quality improvement collaborative with 25 community health services from across Canada to learn how to best support the implementation of the BFI Ten Steps in community, with the ultimate goal of improving breastfeeding outcomes.

This protocol describes the activities of the Community Baby-Friendly Initiative Collaborative (CBFI-C) and the methods used to evaluate its effectiveness. We will use the Institute for Healthcare Information Breakthrough Series (IHI-BTS) model, a proven quality improvement model that has been widely used in clinical settings, but is not yet widely used in community settings. The IHI-BTS combines three virtual learning sessions with action cycles that allow the participating sites time to test and track small practice changes. Sites will be asked to track care indicator and breastfeeding outcome data, engage in monthly webinars, receive coaching from trained mentors, participate in focus groups and participate in a final summative workshop. We will use a multi-site case study approach, combining aggregate care indicator data and qualitative data from webinars, focus groups and workshops to evaluate how the CBFI-C model supports community sites in the process of implementing the BFI Ten Steps.

Ethics approval for this evaluation was obtained from the CHIPER Health Research Ethics Board (Number HS26947-H2025:157)). The results of the CBFI-C evaluation will be shared in a report, peer-reviewed publications and presentations to government and academic audiences. The findings will inform effective quality improvement strategies to enhance uptake of the BFI in community health settings.

Adults living with multiple long-term conditions (MLTC)—defined as the presence of two or more physical or mental health conditions—often face fragmented and complex care. Digital tools offer scalable self-management solutions but may exacerbate inequities due to the digital divide and other factors. The aim of this scoping review is to map and summarise the existing literature on digital self-management tools used in MLTC, with a particular focus on how equity of access is considered in their development, implementation and evaluation.

Scoping review methodology will be based on the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for scoping reviews and Arskey and O’Malley’s framework and will be reported in alignment with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Comprehensive search terms based on ‘multimorbidity’, ‘digital tools’ and ‘self-management’ have been developed. Peer-reviewed publications will be identified using MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, Scopus, CINAHL and PubMed. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts, with subsequent full text review also being performed in duplicate to ensure they meet the eligibility criteria. Discrepancies will be resolved by discussion with a third reviewer. Included studies will focus on digital tools for the self-management of MLTC in adults (≥18 years old) in any setting. Equity dimensions will include, but are not limited to, digital literacy, treatment burden, socioeconomic status, polypharmacy and access disparities.

Ethical approval is not required for this scoping review. The results of the scoping review will be published in an open access, peer-reviewed journal for wider dissemination. Additionally, findings will contribute to topic guides and mapping of a research networking event with key stakeholders (including patient and public involvement and engagement members, clinicians, researchers and industry) in MLTC, around the same subject area.

Post-surgical care following cochlear implantation is a pivotal part of the rehabilitation journey for cochlear implant (CI) recipients. However, frequent in-clinic visits, particularly in the first year following CI activation, can place a significant burden on CI recipients. Moreover, the growing number of CI recipients may pose a challenge for CI clinics to provide consistent and lifelong care. Cochlear Remote Care is a platform that enables the delivery of post-surgical care through remote hearing assessments and remote video appointments, offering an opportunity to enhance clinic efficiency, eliminate geographical barriers, reduce financial burdens and provide flexible post-surgical options. The primary objective of this study is to compare self-reported hearing ability in daily life among CI recipients who receive post-surgical care through Remote Care with those receiving routine in-clinic care during the first year following CI activation. Additionally, the study will assess the time and costs associated with these care models for both the clinic and patients.

This multi-centre randomised controlled trial is set to be conducted across 11 clinics in the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Australia, with an anticipated sample size of 148 participants. All participants will be adults with post-lingual deafness and unilateral CIs. Following baseline measurements at 3 months post-activation, participants will be randomly assigned to either in-clinic visits or Remote Care appointments. At six and 12 months after activation, participants will complete a comprehensive battery of audiometric tests and questionnaires on patient-reported outcomes, usability and resource utilisation.

Ethics approval has been obtained for each clinical site. Study findings will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publications, lay language summaries and conference presentations.

NCT05552118.

To quantify the costs associated with a stepped model of depression care—Integrated Chronic Care Clinics-Depression Module (IC3D)—in rural Malawi.

Cross-sectional cost analysis.

Integrated chronic care clinics (n=14) throughout Neno District, Malawi.

The stepped model of depression care provided behavioural therapy (Problem Management Plus (PM+)) to adults (aged 18+) with moderate depression and joint PM+ and antidepressant therapy (ADT) to those with moderate-to-severe and severe depression. The model incorporated two cost-saving features: treatment was integrated into existing chronic care services within the health system, and PM+ was group-based rather than one-on-one.

We conducted time-driven activity-based costing to quantify the marginal economic cost of implementing PM+ and ADT, inclusive of training and supervision. We measured all costs in 2025 US dollars and quantified costs from a societal perspective—including human resources, infrastructure, equipment, consumables, indirect costs and opportunity costs.

The marginal cost of PM+ was $90 per patient treated for five sessions over 2 months, while ADT was $138 for eight sessions over 8 months. In both instances, human resources (45% from PM+, 52% for ADT) and consumables (30% for PM+, 31% for ADT) represented primary health system cost drivers. In the first year of implementation, 15 002 depression screenings were conducted, 724 adults were evaluated with a diagnostic tool and 398 adults subsequently received care: 263 received PM+ alone, 31 received ADT alone and 104 received both PM+ and ADT. The total cost of introducing operations throughout Neno District was $62 806.

These findings indicate that integrating depression care services into the Malawian health system is financially feasible and successfully reached many individuals with major depressive disorder.

NCT04777006.

Scoping reviews, mapping reviews and evidence and gap maps (collectively known as ‘big picture reviews’) in health continue to gain popularity within the evidence ecosystem. These big-picture reviews are beneficial for policy-makers, guideline developers and researchers within the field of health for understanding the available evidence, characteristics, concepts and research gaps, which are often needed to support the development of policies, guidelines and practice. However, these reviews often face criticism related to poor and inconsistent methodological conduct and reporting. There is a need to understand which areas of these reviews require further methodological clarification and exploration. The aim of this project is to develop a research agenda for scoping reviews, mapping reviews and evidence and gap maps in health by identifying and prioritising specific research questions related to methodological uncertainties.

A modified e-Delphi process will be adopted. Participants (anticipated N=100) will include patients, clinicians, the public, researchers and others invested in creating a strategic research agenda for these reviews. This Delphi will be completed in four consecutive stages, including a survey collecting the methodological uncertainties for each of the big picture reviews, the development of research questions based on that survey and two further surveys and four workshops to prioritise the research questions.

This study was approved by the University of Adelaide Human Research Ethics Committee (H-2024-188). The results will be communicated through open-access peer-reviewed publications and conferences. Videos and infographics will be developed and placed on the JBI (previously Joanna Briggs Institute) Scoping Review Network webpage.

SARS-CoV-2 is now endemic and expected to remain a health threat, with new variants continuing to emerge and the potential for vaccines to become less effective. While effective vaccines and natural immunity have significantly reduced hospitalisations and the need for critical care, outpatient treatment options remain limited, and real-world evidence on their clinical and cost-effectiveness is lacking. In this paper, we present the design of the Canadian Adaptive Platform Trial of Treatments for COVID in Community Settings (CanTreatCOVID). By evaluating multiple treatment options in a pragmatic adaptive platform trial, this study will generate high-quality, generalisable evidence to inform clinical guidelines and healthcare decision-making.

CanTreatCOVID is an open-label, individually randomised, multicentre, national adaptive platform trial designed to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of therapeutics for non-hospitalised SARS-CoV-2 patients across Canada. Eligible participants must present with symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, confirmed by PCR or rapid antigen testing (RAT), within 5 days of symptom onset. The trial targets two groups that are expected to be at higher risk of more severe disease: (1) individuals aged 50 years and older and (2) those aged 18–49 years with one or more comorbidities. CanTreatCOVID uses numerous approaches to recruit participants to the study, including a multifaceted public communication strategy and outreach through primary care, outpatient clinics and emergency departments. Participants are randomised to receive either usual care, including supportive and symptom-based management, or an investigational therapeutic selected by the Canadian COVID-19 Outpatient Therapeutics Committee. The first therapeutic arm evaluates nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid), administered two times per day for 5 days. The second therapeutic arm investigates a combination antioxidant therapy (selenium 300 µg, zinc 40 mg, lycopene 45 mg and vitamin C 1.5 g), administered for 10 days. The primary outcome is all-cause hospitalisation or death within 28 days of randomisation.

The CanTreatCOVID master protocol and subprotocols have been approved by Health Canada and local research ethics boards in the participating provinces across Canada. The results of the study will be disseminated to policy-makers, presented at conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals to ensure that findings are accessible to the broader scientific and medical communities. This study was approved by the Unity Health Toronto Research Ethics Board (#22-179) and Clinical Trials Ontario (Project ID 4133).

NCT05614349