To describe the prevalence and characteristics of traditional, complementary and integrative medicine (TCIM) practice and product use by the population of the UK providing up-to-date data on the landscape of TCIM use in the UK.

A cross-sectional online survey, administered using the Qualtrics platform, among adults (aged 18 years and over) residing in the UK (England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland). Data were collected between May and October 2024. The 40-item instrument covered four domains: demographics, health status, use of health products and practices, and use of health services. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise survey responses, and ² tests were applied to assess associations between participant characteristics and TCIM use. Backwards stepwise logistic regression was conducted to identify predictors of TCIM use across four outcome categories (p≤0.05).

The sample (n=1559) was broadly representative of the UK population. Prevalence of any TCIM use over a 12-month period was 65.9% with 19.1% consulting a TCIM practitioner and 63.3% using any TCIM product or practice. Bodywork therapists (massage therapists 9.4%, chiropractors 7.9%, yoga teachers 5.0%) and homeopaths (4.1%) were the most commonly consulted TCIM practitioners and Anthroposophic doctors were the least commonly consulted (2.1%). Among TCIM products, vitamin and mineral supplements were the most commonly used (37.3%) and relaxation or meditation practices were reported by 19.4% of respondents. TCIM users were more likely to be female, identify as Asian or Black, have a chronic disease diagnosis, report good health, possess private health insurance, have a higher education level, be employed (or seeking employment) and sometimes experience financial management difficulties.

There is substantial use of TCIM across the UK adult population and there is a need for more research on integrating TCIM into mainstream healthcare and the National Health Service. Clear strategies are necessary to enhance communication between TCIM and conventional healthcare providers, ensure patient safety and promote person-centred, coordinated models of care.

Drug poisoning, caused predominantly by fentanyl in the unregulated drug supply, is the leading cause of death among persons 10–59 years in British Columbia (BC), Canada. In March 2020, in response to the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, the province of BC released the Risk Mitigation Guidance (RMG) as a clinical tool for physicians and nurse practitioners, allowing prescribers to provide selective withdrawal management medications, such as hydromorphone, dextroamphetamine, diazepam and others, as a legal and regulated supply of pharmaceutical alternatives to individuals who were at-risk of COVID-19 and overdose. In July 2021, the government of BC released the prescribed safer supply (PSS) policy, extending the scope beyond the COVID-19 pandemic and initial medications offered under the RMG. Recent studies have shown clear benefits among people with a diagnosed opioid use disorder who were prescribed PSS, in reducing mortality, as well as improving retention on opioid agonist treatment for those who were coprescribed PSS medications. The objective of the analysis detailed in this protocol is to use a cross-model comparison approach, comparing two independently developed models which are currently used in public health institutions in BC, to estimate the impact of this policy on opioid overdose-related mortality, while also considering the potential negative impacts of PSS medication diversion to those who are opioid naïve. This project will add to the limited evidence-base on the population-level impact of pharmaceutical alternatives interventions to date.

We have identified two appropriate mathematical models to evaluate the impact of PSS on the number of opioid overdose-related deaths within BC from the inception of the programme (March 2020) until December 2022. We will use recently established guidelines on conducting a cross-model comparison to identify structural and parameter differences between the models and perform adaptation steps to generate the counterfactual scenarios. These will include creating additional health states for the population representing individuals receiving PSS, and parameterising the overdose risk, mortality and retention in the new compartments from a comprehensive population-level data set. Harmonisation will be conducted to ensure that both models evaluate the same scenarios with the same data. Further sensitivity analyses will be conducted to consider alternative counterfactual scenarios and changes to the population following the implementation of the intervention.

This study is exempt from research ethics board review, as outlined in the Tri-Council Policy Statement, because it relies on data that is available in the public domain and there is no possibility of identifying individual persons. Results of the model validation analysis will be distributed through peer-reviewed journals and knowledge translation materials posted on the websites of the BC Centre for Disease Control and Centre for Advancing Health Outcomes.

https://osf.io/kju2p/overview.

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.

Global migration has steadily risen, with 16% of the UK population born abroad. Migrants (defined here as foreign-born individuals) face unique health risks, including potential higher rates and delays in diagnosis of infectious and non-communicable diseases, compounded by significant barriers to healthcare. UK Public Health guidelines recommend screening at-risk migrants, but primary care often faces significant challenges in achieving this, exacerbating health disparities. The Health Catch-UP! tool was developed as a novel digital, multidisease screening and catch-up vaccination solution to support primary care to identify at-risk adult migrants and offer individualised care. The tool has been shown to be acceptable and feasible and to increase migrant health screening in previous studies, but to facilitate use in routine care requires the development of an implementation package. This protocol describes the development and optimisation of an implementation package for Health Catch-UP! following the person-based approach (PBA), a participatory intervention development methodology, and evaluates our use of this methodological approach for migrant participants.

Through engagement with both migrants and primary healthcare professionals (approximately 80–100 participants) via participatory workshops, focus groups and think-aloud interviews, the study aims to cocreate a comprehensive Health Catch-UP! implementation package. This package will encompass healthcare professional support materials, patient resources and potential Health Catch-UP! care pathways (delivery models), developed through iterative refinement based on user feedback and behavioural theory. The study will involve three linked phases (1) planning: formation of an academic–community coalition and cocreation of guiding principles, logic model and intervention planning table, (2) intervention development: focus groups and participatory workshops to coproduce prototype implementation materials and (3) intervention optimisation: think-aloud interviews to iteratively refine the final implementation package. An embedded mixed-methods evaluation of how we used the PBA will allow shared learning from the use of this methodology within the migrant health context.

Ethics approval granted by the St George’s University Research Ethics Committee (REC reference: 2024.0191). A community celebration event will be held to recognise contributions and to demonstrate impact.

Care (Education) and Treatment Reviews (C(E)TRs) are intended to reduce unnecessary psychiatric hospital admission and length of stay for people with intellectual disability and autistic people. The use and impact of C(E)TRs have not been systematically evaluated since their introduction in England in 2015. The aims of this study are to describe the demographic and clinical profiles of people who receive a community C(E)TR and to investigate their effects on admission, length of hospital stay and clinical and functional change.

We will conduct a retrospective cohort study using de-identified data from electronic health records derived from two large National Health Service mental health providers in London, England, including one replication site. Data will be extracted using the Clinical Record Interactive Search (CRIS) tool for all people with recorded intellectual disability and/or autism who received mental healthcare from 2015. We will identify community C(E)TR events using keyword searches. Community C(E)TRs will be examined in two ways: (1) In a community cohort, we will capture data in the 6-month periods before and after a community C(E)TR and compare this to a matched control group and (2) In a hospital cohort, we will compare groups who did and did not receive a community C(E)TR prior to their admission. We will describe the socio-demographic and clinical profiles of each group and their health service use, and compare C(E)TR and no C(E)TR groups using t-tests (or a non-parametric equivalent). The primary outcomes are admission to a psychiatric hospital (community cohort) and length of psychiatric hospital admission and clinical change (hospital cohort). Admission to psychiatric hospital will be estimated using propensity score weighting and difference-in-differences methods. Cox’s proportional hazard model will be used for length of hospital admission and repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) will be used to assess clinical change.

Use of CRIS to examine de-identified clinical data for research purposes has overarching ethical approval. This study has been granted local approval by the South London and Maudsley CRIS Oversight Committee. Findings will be disseminated in an open-access peer-reviewed academic publication, at conference presentations, and to service users and carers in accessible formats.

To explore how pre-existing conditions affect the diagnostic process for potential cancer in primary care patients.

Qualitative interview study using thematic analysis underpinned by a critical realist approach.

Primary care practices recruited through four Clinical Research Networks and UK health charities across England.

Interviews were conducted with 75 patients with one or more pre-existing conditions (anxiety/depression, diabetes, obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Parkinson’s disease or multiple long-term conditions (four or more)) and 28 primary care professionals (general practitioners and nurses).

The study identified legitimacy as a central theme influencing patient trajectories in the health system while trying to receive a diagnosis for symptoms with which they presented to primary care. Patients engaged in self-triage to determine whether symptoms were ‘legitimate’ enough to seek care. Subsequent triaging steps (by receptionists, nurses and online systems) acted as gatekeepers, with decisions influenced by effectiveness of describing the symptom and subjective impressions. During consultations, clinicians relied on a mix of symptom narrative clarity, medical history and objective ‘metrics’ (eg, blood results, family history) to determine legitimacy for further investigations. Pre-existing conditions could either lower the threshold for referrals or obscure potential cancer symptoms. The stigma associated with mental health diagnoses often undermined perceived legitimacy and contributed to delays.

Legitimacy is continuously negotiated throughout the diagnostic pathway. It is shaped by social, moral and biomedical judgements. To promote early cancer diagnosis for patients with pre-existing conditions, clinicians must make legitimacy assessments explicit, reduce stigma especially around mental health and standardise triage processes.

To understand general practitioners’ (GPs’) experience of existing care pathways for people with moderate-severe Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) and explore their attitudes towards potential modifications to these pathways.

Secondary thematic analysis of qualitative interviews, originally conducted with GPs to explore prescribing of memantine in general practice. The theoretical domains framework was used to structure the data.

The study participants were recruited via an online survey completed by GPs across England.

Semi-structured, qualitative interviews were conducted with thirteen male and ten female GPs from a range of general practices in England.

Insights into GPs’ views and experiences regarding existing and possible care pathways for individuals with moderate to severe AD.

Gaps in GPs’ current levels of knowledge and skill in respect of caring for patients with moderate-to-severe AD affect their confidence and ability to identify opportunities for additional treatments. While GPs emphasise their role as providers of holistic care, features of the current healthcare context, including a lack of additional funding, inhibit their willingness to assume additional responsibilities as part of a revised pathway.

A considerable knowledge, skills and confidence gap must be addressed to support the implementation of new care pathways that include revised responsibilities for GPs. GPs need appropriate support and resources to manage their patients’ changing needs and to provide the best possible pharmacological management as the disease develops.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living with disability have unequal access to health and disability support services. The impacts of colonialism and the deficit-based, Western medical model of disability have been identified as barriers to services in remote Aboriginal communities. This study explored different perceptions of disability and identified strategies to help bridge the gap between Aboriginal community members in the Fitzroy Valley and Western health and disability support services.

Aboriginal Participatory Action Research approach with in-depth interviews. Transcripts were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Preliminary results were presented to community representatives for contextualisation, validation and to co-design recommendations.

Fitzroy Valley in the Kimberley region, Western Australia.

Aboriginal community members with lived experience of disability (n=7) and health and disability support service providers (n=12).

Eight themes were identified: (1) Aboriginal kinship systems are a community strength and support for people living with disability; (2) Aboriginal people from the Fitzroy Valley perceive disability as a social construct; (3) Western medical model of disability differs from Aboriginal perceptions of disability; (4) Aboriginal people from the Fitzroy Valley perceive different types of disabilities in various ways; (5) good awareness of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder in the Fitzroy Valley, but more education is wanted; (6) focus on functional needs and supports for disability; (7) barriers to disability services and (8) decolonise disability services. Community co-designed recommendations focus on centring the Aboriginal worldviews of disability in the Fitzroy Valley.

Decolonising disability services is needed to improve access for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. This should involve adapting the current Western medical model of services to enable strengths-based diagnostic and support services that align with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kinship systems, cultures and ways of being. Community leadership must play a central role in this shift.

Aboriginal people in the Kimberley are concerned that scientific research, government Inquiries and Royal Commissions are not adequately informing policy and service design. In this protocol paper, we outline our proposed scoping review to identify and provide a broad overview of scientific literature regarding the health, well-being, mental health, disability, education and social outcomes of children and adolescents living in the Kimberley region of Western Australia and the recommendations that came from them.

This scoping review is guided by Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) methodological framework. We will conduct a comprehensive search across multiple databases using several search engines. Inclusion criteria were established to inform the selection of papers to be included in the review. After de-duplication, all titles and abstracts will be reviewed, followed by full-text screening. A second reviewer will independently screen 20% of the titles, abstracts and full texts. Two reviewers will discuss discrepancies, and a third reviewer will resolve any disagreements that may arise. We will use a data extraction template in Covidence to systematically extract relevant data.

This scoping review does not require ethics approval, as we are investigating the breadth of existing literature regarding the outcomes of children and adolescents in the Kimberley, Western Australia. The scoping review results will be published in peer-reviewed journal(s) and shared with relevant policymakers to help inform future policies and service improvements and designs in the region.