The goals of this rapid realist review were to ask: (a) what are the key mechanisms that drive successful interventions for long COVID in long-term care (LTC) and (b) what are the critical contexts that determine whether the mechanisms produce the intended outcomes?

Rapid realist review.

Medline, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science for peer-reviewed literature and Google for grey literature were searched up to 23 February 2023.

We included sources focused on interventions, persons in LTC, long COVID or post-acute phase at least 4 weeks following initial COVID-19 infection and ones that had a connection with source materials.

Three independent reviewers searched, screened and coded studies. Two independent moderators resolved conflicts. A data extraction tool organised relevant data into context-mechanism-outcome configurations using realist methodology. Twenty-one sources provided 51 intervention data excerpts used to develop our programme theory. Synthesised findings were presented to a reference group and expert panel for confirmatory purposes.

Fifteen peer-reviewed articles and six grey literature sources were eligible for inclusion. Eleven context-mechanism-outcome configurations identify those contextual factors and underlying mechanisms associated with desired outcomes, such as clinical care processes and policies that ensure timely access to requisite resources for quality care delivery, and resident-centred assessments and care planning to address resident preferences and needs. The underlying mechanisms associated with enhanced outcomes for LTC long COVID survivors were: awareness, accountability, vigilance and empathetic listening.

Although the LTC sector struggles with organisational capacity issues, they should be aware that comprehensively assessing and monitoring COVID-19 survivors and providing timely interventions to those with long COVID is imperative. This is due to the greater care needs of residents with long COVID, and coordinated efficient care is required to optimise their quality of life.

Many people with Parkinson’s (PwP) are not given the opportunity or do not have adequate access to participate in clinical research. To address this, we have codeveloped with users an online platform that connects PwP to clinical studies in their local area. It enables site staff to communicate with potential participants and aims to increase the participation of the Parkinson’s community in research. This protocol outlines the mixed methods study protocol for the usability testing of the platform.

We will seek user input to finalise the platform’s design, which will then be deployed in a limited launch for beta testing. The beta version will be used as a recruitment tool for up to three studies with multiple UK sites. Usability data will be collected from the three intended user groups: PwP, care partners acting on their behalf and site study coordinators. Usability questionnaires and website analytics will be used to capture user experience quantitatively, and a purposive sample of users will be invited to provide further feedback via semistructured interviews. Quantitative data will be analysed using descriptive statistics, and a thematic analysis undertaken for interview data. Data from this study will inform future platform iterations.

Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Plymouth (3291; 3 May 2022). We will share our findings via a ‘Latest News’ section within the platform, presentations, conference meetings and national PwP networks.

Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a debilitating neurological disorder for which the identification of disease-modifying interventions represents a major unmet need. Diverse trial designs have attempted to mitigate challenges of population heterogeneity, efficacious symptomatic therapy and lack of outcome measures that are objective and sensitive to change in a disease modification setting. It is not clear whether consensus is emerging regarding trial design choices. Here, we report the protocol of a scoping review that will provide a contemporary update on trial design variability for disease-modifying interventions in PD.

The Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome and Study design (PICOS) framework will be used to structure the review, inform study selection and analysis. The databases MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane and the trial registry ClinicalTrials.gov will be systematically searched to identify published studies and registry entries in English. Two independent reviewers will screen study titles, abstracts and full text for eligibility, with disagreements being resolved through discussion or by a third reviewer where necessary. Data on general study information, eligibility criteria, outcome measures, trial design, retention and statistically significant findings will be extracted into a standardised form. Extracted data will be presented in a descriptive analysis. We will report our findings using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Scoping Review extension.

This work will provide an overview of variation and emerging trends in trial design choices for disease-modifying trials of PD. Due to the nature of this study, there are no ethical or safety considerations. We plan to publish our findings in a peer-reviewed journal.