The REgulate your SItting Time (RESIT) is a tailored intervention targeting reductions and breaks in sitting in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). A feasibility trial of RESIT had been conducted and the purpose of this paper is to report findings from the process evaluation.

A mixed-methods process evaluation within a randomised controlled feasibility trial.

The study was conducted remotely in the community.

Ambulatory individuals with T2DM aged 18–85 years.

A tailored intervention comprising an online education session, regular health coaching and technology for self-monitoring behaviour and prompting breaks in sitting.

Questionnaires (intervention participants n=22 at both 3 and 6 months; control participants n=21 at 3 months, n=29 at 6 months) and interviews (n=30, with n=13 intervention participants, n=12 control participants, n=5 health coaches) to assess perceptions of the intervention components, strategies and barriers for sitting less, the role of the study evaluation measures, and reasons for taking part.

The trial operated a largely successful online education element for those in the intervention group (82% completion; ≥76% engagement in individual educational elements). There was good use of self-monitoring and prompt technology (apps and wearables) with 73% of participants reporting using these at 6 months. Health coaching had high engagement and was perceived as enjoyable and useful. Data revealed strategies used for behaviour change (eg, active functional tasks) alongside barriers to change (eg, restrictions at work). There were also potential behavioural influences from the study evaluation measures (eg, activity measures increasing awareness and execution of behaviours) for both intervention and control participants.

A comprehensive process evaluation identified successful intervention elements (ie, online education, health coaching, wearables and smartphone apps) alongside strategies and barriers to behaviour change. These findings can inform future sedentary behaviour interventions for adults with T2DM and a definitive randomised controlled trial evaluating RESIT.

ISRCTN14832389.

International migrants comprise 3.6% of the global population and face systemic barriers to accessing sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services, such as contraception, safe abortion care and sexual function support. In high-income countries, policy frameworks vary widely, with migration status significantly influencing entitlement and access to host countries. This protocol outlines a planned study to systematically analyse SRH policies in high-income countries with strong migrant integration frameworks, aiming to identify policy gaps, assess inclusivity and inform recommendations to strengthen Australia’s SRH policy landscape.

This study employs a systematic policy analysis using the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology. Countries with ≥10% migrant populations and a Migrant Integration Policy Index health score ≥70 will be included. 13 countries meet these criteria, including Australia, Canada and Sweden. A comprehensive search of academic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and ProQuest Public Health) and grey literature from governmental and non-governmental sources will be conducted. Data extraction will follow Bacchi’s ‘What’s the Problem Represented to Be?’ approach. Thematic analysis will combine deductive and inductive methods to examine the extent to which SRH policies address migrant and refugee needs, including sexual function, safe abortion care and fertility care. A comparative policy matrix will identify strengths, limitations and best practices.

As this study analyses publicly available policy documents, ethics approval is not required. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and policy briefs targeting stakeholders involved in SRH policy and migrant health.

This protocol is registered with the Open Science Framework (OSF): https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/AYZ6P

Genome Canada has committed significant resources to ensure that racialised groups are included in its initiatives; however, specific equity considerations related to engaging these communities in human genomic research continue to require deeper attention and exploration. This scoping review aims to widen the frame of analysis concerning inclusive human genomics by undertaking a synthesis that includes perspectives from genomicists, decision and policymakers, legal experts in bioethics and leaders from racialised communities.

We conducted a comprehensive scoping review using the Arksey and O’Malley framework to examine the equitable participation of racialised communities in human genomic research.

Our goal was to identify the barriers preventing these populations from equally participating in human genomic research. The review focused on studies from five countries: Canada, the USA, the UK, Australia and New Zealand which have similar immigration patterns and have received racialised populations from from some of the same communities around the globe. These features makes studying these particular countries germane to studying the common challenges they face in human genomics research.

Our scoping review examined both academic and grey literature, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO (inception to 11 June 2025), CINAHL (to 12 June 2025) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (to 19 June 2025), as well as Google Scholar and OAISter (October, 2023).

Data were analysed using Braun and Clarke’s thematic synthesis guidelines. These included familiarisation with the relevant texts in the selected articles, generating initial codes using an inductive approach, reviewing potential themes and finalising the themes based on the consensus of the research team.

The study identified key barriers and facilitators to participation in human genomic research among racialised communities. The first theme (exclusion) highlighted obstacles such as a lack of transportation, limited knowledge of genetics and distrust stemming from concerns of stigmatisation and health disparities. The second theme (diversity of positions) described varied perceptions influenced by cultural values and motivations, with preferences for transparency and autonomy in research participation. Finally, the third theme (equity in genetic research) outlined the limited use of community-based participatory models and biobanking, underscoring the need for more inclusive and equitable research practices to fully engage racialised communities.

Future research should prioritise strategies of authentic engagement with racialised communities to enhance both inclusivity and equity in genetic, human genomic, precision medicine and precision health research.

To investigate physical activity (PA) promotion practices among primary care health professionals in England. To assess whether attitudes, confidence, role perceptions, knowledge of PA guidelines, and PA behaviour were related to PA promotion practices. To examine the barriers to and facilitators of PA promotion practices.

A cross-sectional online survey study with open (free text) questions.

National survey and online-administered survey conducted in England.

The outcome variables were attitudes, confidence, role perceptions, PA behaviour, knowledge of the PA guidelines and PA promotion practices. Structural equation modelling evaluated associations between these variables.

A total of 181 primary care healthcare professionals completed an online survey. The majority were general practitioners (GPs) (66.7%), followed by first contact physiotherapists (13.8%), practice nurses (12.2%) and link workers (7.7%).

Most (59%) healthcare professionals did not meet recommended levels of PA and could not accurately identify the PA guidelines (53%). Most provided PA advice to patients but fewer than 40% assessed PA, supported behaviour change or made referrals to PA support programmes. More first contact physiotherapists and link workers reported more frequent engagement in collaborative aspects of PA promotion, including assessing PA motivation, supporting behaviour change and providing follow-up. Confidence in promoting PA (β=0.30, p

Most primary care professionals routinely provide PA advice and feel confident doing so. However, with fewer than half able to accurately recall current PA guidelines and routine assessment and behaviour change support rarely reported, the quality and specificity of this advice remain unclear. While time constraints remain a major barrier to PA promotion, particularly among GPs, the addition of first contact physiotherapists and link workers is likely to enhance capacity for promoting PA in busy primary care settings.