Cancer in adolescents and young adults (AYAs; ages 15–39 years) is a rising global epidemic. Yet, AYAs remain an understudied population, and little is known about what research topics should be prioritised according to those with lived experience. The AYA Cancer Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) was established to identify the top 10 research priorities for AYA cancer in Canada according to patients, caregivers, and clinicians.

This project followed the James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) methodology that included two national cross-sectional surveys and a final priority setting workshop following an adapted nominal group technique.

A national sample was recruited to participate from across Canada.

Participants were patients, caregivers, and clinicians with lived personal and/or professional experience of AYA cancer in Canada.

In the first survey, open-ended responses were collected from participants about questions they would like answered by research. Responses were collated into overarching summary questions and a literature search was undertaken to verify if questions were true uncertainties and not fully answered by existing evidence. Unanswered questions were ranked by participants in a second survey. The top-ranked questions were prioritised through consensus at the final priority setting workshop. The final outcome was the top 10 priorities for AYA cancer research in Canada.

In the initial survey, 1916 potential research questions were submitted by 275 patients, caregivers, and clinicians. Following data processing, summary question formation, and the evidence check, 58 questions were put forward for interim prioritisation in a second survey (n=285 patients, caregivers, and clinicians). The top 20 questions from the interim prioritisation were ranked at the final priority setting workshop attended by a diverse group of 23 patients, caregivers and clinicians from across Canada. The resulting top 10 priorities reflect topics across the cancer continuum including: diagnostic delays, screening and early detection, novel therapies, psychosocial impacts, end-of-life concerns, and survivorship issues.

This patient-directed research agenda will guide researchers, funding agencies, and policymakers to ensure that future research is aligned with what matters most to the AYA cancer community.

The aims of this study were to explore how health visitors (HVs) and community health nurses (CHNs) assess unsettled baby behaviours, how their perceptions of these behaviours influence decisions about support offered, and how able they feel to deliver support to families of unsettled babies.

Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted, recorded and transcribed. Data were analysed using Reflexive Thematic Analysis.

Potential participants were invited nationally via social media and via Health Visiting Service managers from an NHS Trust. Interviews took place remotely.

17 HVs and 3 CHNs were purposively selected to include a wide range of perspectives.

Three themes were developed, (1) HVs’ perceptions of parents’ sense-making which explains how HVs/CHNs understand parents’ beliefs around unsettled babies; (2) care pathway which highlights the importance HVs place on creating emotional space for the baby, the parent and the health visitor within the pathway (containment); and (3) service delivery decline, which outlines the impact of funding cuts to the services on the HVs’ ability to provide support for families. Lastly, a new concept – the Tipping Point model - was created to holistically conceptualise the experiences of HVs providing support for unsettled babies in the UK.

Policy makers need to organise services to value and support the role of the health visiting team in ‘containment’. HVs identified a training need around assessing and advising about unsettled babies to place them in a stronger position to support families. Further research is needed into different models of support for families of unsettled babies from the wider primary care team and/or from digital services.

The Quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine Evaluation Study with Addition of the Nonavalent Vaccine Study (QUEST-ADVANCE) aims to provide insight into the long-term immunogenicity and effectiveness of one, two and three HPV vaccine doses. Here, we describe the protocol for QUEST-ADVANCE.

QUEST-ADVANCE is an observational cohort study including males and females who are unvaccinated or vaccinated with the quadrivalent or nonavalent HPV vaccine in British Columbia, Canada. Female participants who are unvaccinated or vaccinated with 1–3 doses of the quadrivalent or nonavalent HPV vaccine at 9–14 years of age will be recruited approximately 5 or 12 years postvaccination eligibility. Male participants who are unvaccinated or vaccinated with 1 or 2 doses of the nonavalent HPV vaccine at 9–14 years of age will be recruited at approximately 5 years postvaccination eligibility. The study involves a maximum of four visits over a period of 4–5 years for female participants, and two visits over a 12-month period for male participants. At each visit, self-collected swabs (cervico-vaginal or penile) and questionnaire data will be collected. In each study group, a subset of participants will be invited to participate in a substudy evaluating the long-term humoral immunogenicity of the HPV vaccine. Additional blood samples will be collected from participants who are part of the immunogenicity substudy. The total required sample size is 7180 individuals. The primary objectives are (1) to examine vaccine effectiveness in males and females against prevalent genital HPV infections for one, two and three doses of the HPV vaccine compared with unvaccinated participants and (2) to evaluate if there is non-inferior immunogenicity as indicated by type-specific antibody response of one dose of the HPV vaccine in 20–27-year-old females vaccinated at 9–14 years of age compared with historical data of three doses of the HPV vaccine females vaccinated at 16–26 years of age up to 12 years postvaccination.

QUEST-ADVANCE was approved by the Research Ethics Board of the University of British Columbia/Children’s and Women’s Health Centre of British Columbia (H20-02111). Individual electronic informed consent or assent will be obtained from each participant before any study-specific procedures are undertaken. Results will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal and on the study website.