All physicians will experience challenging history taking encounters, where communication is impaired and negatively impacts the diagnostic process. The aims of this systematic review were to (1) undertake a meta-analysis of the frequency of challenging encounters; (2) collate adverse outcomes of challenging encounters; (3) identify underlying causes of challenging encounters; (4) identify strategies to deal with different challenges; and (5) align these strategies with our published phenomenological framework of history taking challenges.

This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence data adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses and the Meta-analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines.

A literature search in MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases was performed on 12 July 2020, and updated on 4 August 2025, focusing on challenging history taking encounters in any clinical setting.

Articles reporting on the frequency, adverse outcomes, causative factors or strategies used to address challenges in the history taking process in any clinical area of medicine.

Factors associated with challenging history encounters (causative or consequential) were categorised using inductive coding and referenced to a phenomenological framework. Meta-analysis was used to estimate the prevalence of history taking encounters using a restricted maximum likelihood model with ² and I² as tests for heterogeneity and funnel plot with Egger’s test for publication bias.

73 articles were included in the analysis. The overall prevalence of challenging history taking encounters was 19.5% (95% CI 14.2% to 24.7%). Adverse outcomes of patient dissatisfaction (level 1 evidence) and diagnostic uncertainty (level 3 evidence) were identified. Factors associated with (n=22) and strategies to mitigate challenging encounters (n=13) were categorised. Correlation of factors and strategies with a phenomenological approach created a framework to assist novice history takers in approaching such circumstances.

Challenging history taking encounters are common. Little is known of the relative importance of factors associated with challenging history taking encounters or the impact of suggested strategies. Many of the suggested strategies to facilitate meaningful communication in these situations involve a departure from standard history taking. More research is required to better define the nature of challenges encountered in history taking with a view to develop better educational models for trainee physicians.

The interfaces between the fields of communication, education and health have been indicated by international institutions such as the WHO and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. However, hegemonic scientific practices supersede dialogue between the three fields, isolating their practices. This fragmenting tendency is observed in scientific literature, which has created gaps in the dialogue and articulation between communication, education and health. Although health promotion requires both communicative and educational practices, the epistemological, historical, political, cultural and socioeconomic aspects have also engendered tensions between the fields. Communication is often seen as a mere instrument for other practices, rather than a phenomenon that (re)produces meanings and power dynamics. In opposing the reductionist and instrumentalising perspectives of knowledge fields, the primary objective of the scoping review is to map the scientific evidence on the interfaces between communication and education in health to indicate a conceptual framework that articulates communication and education practices within the context of health.

A transdisciplinary team developed this protocol based on the 2024 Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis. The procedures required to conduct the review were guided by the frameworks proposed by Arksey and O'Malley, Levac et al and Peters et al. The study eligibility criteria were established based on the Problem, Concept and Context outlined in the research questions. Primary and secondary studies will be retrieved from nine sources, covering both conventional and grey literature. These sources include Embase, ERIC, LILACS, PubMed/MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, the Brazilian Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations, and the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations. A categorised form will be used for data collection and subsequent analysis. The reporting of the review findings will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews.

The nature of the research and the use of secondary data sources do not require informed consent forms or approval from ethics committees in Brazil. The scientific findings from the review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, academic conferences and other scientific communication channels.

The protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF) and is available at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/Z3CX7.

Social prescribing is an approach to addressing non-medical issues affecting people’s health and well-being (eg, loneliness, housing or financial problems). It has gained international traction over recent years as complementary to medical care. A larger research project, comparing social prescribing across European countries, is considering how to tailor provision for the following groups: (a) LGBTIQ+persons, (b) refugees and first-generation immigrants and (c) older adults living alone. As part of this research, a qualitative study will address the question: What are the enabling and limiting factors associated with implementing social prescribing, across different European countries, from the perspective of key stakeholders?

Five European countries (Austria, England, Germany, Poland, Portugal) will be involved. Researchers from each country will conduct approximately 20 semi-structured interviews (total number will be 100). Interviewees will be people receiving, delivering, managing and funding/commissioning social prescribing. Interviews will be audio-recorded and transcribed. A cross-country analysis will be undertaken; framework analysis will support this process, with a chart developed in Excel in which data from across the five countries is summarised by the researchers involved. Summaries will be based on a thematic framework that researchers from the five countries develop together after initially analysing their own data.

Ethical approval was initially secured through the University of Oxford’s Medical Sciences Interdivisional Research Ethics Committee (IDREC 1806086) for data collection in England. This approved application was then used to secure ethics approval in Austria (through Ludwig Boltzmann Gesellschaft), Germany (through Bergische Universität Wuppertal), Poland (through Wroclaw Medical University) and Portugal (through NOVA University of Lisbon). Dissemination will include an academic journal article and presentation at relevant conferences. It will also include short videos, written summaries/policy briefs and an infographic.

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement No 101155873. Views and opinions expressed are, however, those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Health and Digital Executive Agency (HADEA). Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.

Shoulder osteoarthritis most commonly affects older adults, causing pain, reduced function and quality of life. Total shoulder replacements (TSRs) are indicated once other non-surgical options no longer provide adequate pain relief. Two main types of TSRs are widely used: anatomic TSR (aTSR) and reverse TSR (rTSR). It is not clear whether one TSR type provides better short- or long-term outcomes for patients, and which, if either, is more cost-effective for the National Health Service (NHS).

RAPSODI-UK is a multi-centre, pragmatic, two-parallel arm, superiority randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of aTSR versus rTSR for adults aged 60+ with a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis, an intact rotator cuff and bone stock suitable for TSR. Participants in both arms of the trial will receive usual post-operative rehabilitation. We aim to recruit 430 participants from approximately 28 NHS sites across the UK. The primary outcome is the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) at 2 years post-randomisation. Outcomes will be collected at 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include the pain and function subscales of the SPADI, the Oxford Shoulder Score, health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), complications, range of movement and strength, revisions and mortality. The between-group difference in the primary outcome will be derived from a constrained longitudinal data analysis model. We will also undertake a full health economic evaluation and conduct qualitative interviews to explore perceptions of acceptability of the two types of TSR and experiences of recovery with a sample of participants.

Ethics committee approval for this trial was obtained (London - Queen Square Research Ethics Committee, Rec Reference 22/LO/0617) on 4 October 2022. The results of the main trial will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and using other professional and media outlets.

ISRCTN12216466.

Telerehabilitation (TR) programmes are increasingly recognised for their feasibility and potential benefits, such as eliminating travel time, reducing costs and providing a more comfortable rehabilitation experience at home. However, the comparative efficacy of remote physiotherapy compared with traditional in-person sessions for individuals with Parkinson’s disease (PD) remains uncertain. This study aims to evaluate the effects of TR compared with in-person physiotherapy in individuals with PD, focusing on both motor and non-motor outcomes.

This is a randomised, single-blind clinical trial with a mixed-methods approach. A total of 22 individuals diagnosed with PD will be randomly assigned to one of two groups. The experimental group will receive TR, consisting of remote physiotherapy sessions conducted once a week for 1 hour over a 4-month period. The control group will receive the same interventions in person. Interventions will include global muscle strengthening exercises, balance training, gait and motor coordination exercises, and cognitive training. The primary outcome will be motor function, measured using part III of the Movement Disorder Society–Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale. Secondary outcomes will include cognition (Montreal Cognitive Assessment), gait (Functional Gait Assessment), mobility (Timed Up and Go Test) and quality of life (Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire). Data will be analysed using repeated measures analysis of variance to compare outcomes between groups across four assessment points (baseline, midpoint, postintervention and 2 months follow-up). Additionally, a qualitative phase will explore participants’ perceptions and experiences regarding TR and in-person interventions, with assessments carried out 2 months after the completion of the 24-week interventions, through semistructured interviews that will be analysed using Bardin’s Content Analysis technique.

This protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (approval number: 5.553.701). All participants will provide written informed consent before inclusion. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, scientific conferences and communication with participants and healthcare professionals.

RBR-6h5knrj.

Photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT), particularly when combined with a static magnetic field (PBMT-sMF), is a promising non-pharmacological approach for managing musculoskeletal disorders. However, high-quality evidence for its efficacy in lateral epicondylitis remains limited.

The study aims to investigate the effectiveness of PBMT-sMF vs placebo in reducing pain, improving function and modulating inflammatory markers in individuals with lateral epicondylitis.

Multicentre, randomised, triple-blinded, placebo-controlled trial.

Three outpatient physiotherapy clinics in Brazil.

50 adults (18–50 years) with unilateral lateral epicondylitis and baseline pain ≥50 on the visual analogue scale (VAS).

Participants received either active PBMT-sMF (n=25) or placebo (n=25), 2 times per week for 3 weeks. PBMT-sMF involved multi-wavelength irradiation at 4 epicondyle sites (60 s; 27.1 J/site). The placebo group underwent the same procedure without active irradiation.

The primary outcome was degree of pain rating (VAS). Secondary outcomes included forearm disability (Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation, PRTEE), grip strength, serum tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) levels and treatment satisfaction. Assessments were conducted at baseline, post-treatment (3 weeks) and at 4-week follow-up.

PBMT-sMF yielded a higher responder rate (defined as the proportion of participants achieving at least a 30% reduction in pain intensity relative to baseline) than placebo (72% vs 40%, p=0.045), with a clinically and statistically significant between-group difference. Compared with placebo, the PBMT-sMF group showed significantly greater reductions in pain intensity both at the end of treatment (51.4±19.8 vs 36.9±22.6; p=0.0223) and at follow-up (37.4±24.1 vs 20.3±21.2; p=0.0049). TNF-α levels also decreased significantly in the PBMT-sMF group compared with placebo at both time points (p

PBMT-sMF significantly reduced pain intensity and TNF-α levels, suggesting an anti-inflammatory mechanism. Although functional outcomes were not improved, PBMT-sMF may be a valuable short-term, non-invasive option for lateral epicondylitis pain management.

NCT04829734 on ClinicalTrials.gov