To evaluate the impact of a participatory, action-oriented implementation study, guided by the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework, for optimising pain care processes in a tertiary paediatric emergency department.
Hybrid type 3 implementation effectiveness.
A collaborative appraisal of the context and culture of pain care informed two interdependent action cycles: Enabling nurse-initiated analgesia and involving families in pain care. The Kids Pain Collaborative, an authentic clinical–academic partnership, was central to facilitating successful implementation. Summative evaluation explored the impact of implementation on processes of pain care using an interrupted time series analysis and emotional touchpoint interviews with families.
Staff achieved clinically important and sustained improvements in the rate of nurse-initiated analgesia and pain assessment. Family involvement in pain care shifted from task-orientated practices towards more person-centred ways of working and decision-making. As capacity for collective leadership developed, frontline staff found ways to integrate the KPC approach into ED systems to lead pain care innovation beyond the life of the research project.
The Kids Pain Collaborative, as the overarching implementation strategy, created a practitioner-led coalition for change. Successful implementation was facilitated by working with four interdependent principles: Collaborative and authentic engagement; enabling context for cultural transformation; creating safe spaces for critical reflection and workplace learning; and embedding sustainable practice change.
A multi-level model of internal–external facilitation enabled sustained improvement in pain care practice. An embedded researcher was pivotal in this process.
Authentic engagement of clinicians and families was pivotal in transforming systems of pain care and enabling a culture where "it is not ok for children to wait in pain"
The principles underpinning the Kids Pain Collaborative are transferable to other emergency department and acute care contexts.
Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies checklist.
Genomic diagnostics have accelerated therapeutic and preventative breakthroughs in oncology and cancer genetics. Despite increased access, the implementation of genomics-based care faces serious fragmentation and scalability issues due to a lack of system support. The Precision Care Initiative aims to develop a novel and scalable Precision Care Clinic (PCC). It is designed to coordinate precision medicine in oncology and streamline decision support for referring oncologists and geneticists. The PCC will enhance quality of care through multifaceted, patient-centred communication. It will also improve translational capacity by integrating team expertise in precision oncology, implementation science, clinical informatics, cancer genetics, health economics and patient-reported measures.
This programme uses a type I and type II hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial design sequentially. The complex clinical intervention is precision oncology—matching the targeted treatment or risk management strategy to the right patient, based on their genomic, cancer staging, environmental, lifestyle and biological characteristics, etc. The service intervention is the PCC, providing centralised multidisciplinary review to facilitate shared decision-making with clinicians for the provision of optimal precision oncology care for their patients. The implementation intervention is the co-designed implementation platform—applying evidence-based implementation approaches and Learning Health System principles to enhance feasibility and sustainability. All adult patients across Australia referred to the PCC (n=est. 100–150/year), and healthcare professional interest holders involved in the delivery of precision oncology services, are eligible to participate. Over the study course, phase I involves using a mixed-methods approach to inform iterative co-design and pilot testing of the first PCC with an accompanying implementation platform, and a suite of outcome measures to assess effectiveness; phase II (hybrid type I) includes the implementation of the PCC and evaluation of the outcome measures designed in phase I; phase III (hybrid type II) involves a co-design of local adaptations and testing the effectiveness of the PCC model nationally.
The study received ethical approval from the St Vincent’s Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (2023/ETH00373). Study results will be presented at relevant conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.
The quality of paid disability support services has significant implications for the autonomy, well-being and community participation of adults with disability. However, variability in service provision and evaluation persists. Despite the growing public investment and focus on improving support quality, there appears to remain a lack of comprehensive tools and measures to evaluate the quality of paid disability support. This scoping review aims to systematically identify and map the existing tools and measures used to evaluate the quality of paid disability support for adults with disability.
This scoping review will be conducted following the methodology outlined by Arksey and O’Malley, enhancements proposed by Levac et al and the Joanna Briggs Institute along with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis: Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. The research question guiding the review is: ‘What existing tools and measures are available to evaluate the quality of paid disability support services?’ Comprehensive searches will be conducted in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus to identify peer-reviewed articles published in English since 2014. Supplementary grey literature searches will also be conducted, alongside an online survey to obtain stakeholder input. Articles or grey literature sources that report on tools or measures for evaluating paid disability support for adults (aged 18–65 years) with disability will be included. Data extraction will focus on study characteristics, participant demographics and the characteristics of the quality of support measurement tools. A narrative synthesis will be used to present the findings.
Ethical approval will be obtained for the online stakeholder survey component of the review. No ethical approval is required for the scoping review of the literature. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and accessible formats to ensure a wide audience is reached, including researchers, policymakers and disability service providers.
Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a major global healthcare challenge. This is, in part, due to the lack of treatment response and chronic course of MDD. Such a course of illness is often termed treatment-resistant depression (TRD) and is seen in over one-third of people with MDD. Reasons for treatment resistance are not well established, nor is the definition of TRD. Duration and severity of depression, however, are associated with TRD and are also associated with cognitive deficits. Thus, TRD could be particularly prone to cognitive deficits and at heightened risk for neuroprogression. While the cognitive profile of MDD has been investigated in several systematic reviews, no systematic review of cognition in TRD exists to date. The present study will fill this gap in the literature. It is expected that TRD will show more severe cognitive deficits than generally reported in MDD and deficits in all cognitive functions are expected.
A systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines will be performed of the databases Embase, Pubmed/MEDLINE, PsychINFO and Cochrane including peer-reviewed studies on humans using standardised cognitive tests. Pilot searching was performed in January 2025 and the full search will be commenced in June 2025, with additional searches following completion. Where sufficient data are reported, a meta-analysis comparing deficits in TRD with MDD and healthy control participants will be performed; alternatively, effects based on norms will be calculated. Meta-regression, subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be conducted to explore moderators that are sufficiently reported in the literature. The quality of studies will be assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
Ethical approval is not necessary to perform the study, and results will be presented at a suitable conference and published in a peer-reviewed journal.
CRD42024538898.
We aim the isolated and combined effects of sedentary behaviour exposure time and physical activity levels on muscle strength in older adults.
This prospective observational cohort study, analytical in nature, using exploratory survey methods and physical performance testing. With 5-year longitudinal follow-up (2015–2020).
A total of 459 older adults participated in the baseline, with a total of 224 being included/located again in the follow-up. We evaluate muscle strength using handgrip tests and sit-to-stand tests. The international physical activity questionnaire was used to measure physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Generalised Estimation Equations tested both independent and combined effects, reporting results as β coefficients and confidence intervals.
Older adults exhibiting low sedentary behaviour displayed enhanced handgrip strength compared to those with high sedentary behaviour. Notably, older adults who were sufficiently active with low sedentary behaviour, sufficiently active with high sedentary behaviour, and insufficiently active with low sedentary behaviour showed increased handgrip strength compared to their counterparts who were insufficiently active with high sedentary behaviour. This trend was consistent for lower limb strength.
Interventions that encourage a reduction in sedentary behaviour and an increase in physical activity are essential to maintain muscle strength among older adults.
The findings of this study underscore the importance of addressing both sedentary behaviour and physical activity levels in clinical interventions aimed at preserving muscle strength in older adults. Routine assessments of physical activity and sedentary behaviour could help tailor personalised exercise programs, potentially enhancing functional independence and reducing the risk of frailty and disability in older patients.
Patients were involved in the sample of the study.
This study was conducted in accordance with the Strengthening Research in Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines.
To develop and internally validate risk prediction models for subsequent clinical deterioration, unplanned ICU admission and death among ward patients following medical emergency team (MET) review.
A retrospective cohort study of 1500 patients who remained on a general ward following MET review at an Australian quaternary hospital.
Logistic regression was used to model (1) subsequent MET review within 48 h, (2) unplanned ICU admission within 48 h and (3) hospital mortality. Models included demographic, clinical and illness severity variables. Model performance was evaluated using discrimination and calibration with optimism-corrected bootstrapped estimates. Findings are reported using the TRIPOD guideline for multivariable prediction models for prognosis or diagnosis. There was no patient or public involvement in the development and conduct of this study.
Within 48 h of index MET review, 8.3% (n = 125) of patients had a subsequent MET review, 7.2% (n = 108) had an unplanned ICU admission and in-hospital mortality was 16% (n = 240). From clinically preselected predictors, models retained age, sex, comorbidity, resuscitation limitation, acuity-dependency profile, MET activation triggers and whether the patient was within 24 h of hospital admission, ICU discharge or surgery. Models for subsequent MET review, unplanned ICU admission, and death had adequate accuracy in development and bootstrapped validation samples.
Patients requiring MET review demonstrate complex clinical characteristics and the majority remain on the ward after review for deterioration. A risk score could be used to identify patients at risk of poor outcomes after MET review and support general ward clinical decision-making.
Our risk calculator estimates risk for patient outcomes following MET review using clinical data available at the bedside. Future validation and implementation could support evidence-informed team communication and patient placement decisions.