Visual Hallucinations (VHs) (seeing things that others do not, or visions) are a common feature of psychosis, causing significant distress and disability. Services rarely ask about these important experiences, and crucially there are no proven beneficial psychological treatments. There are at least two key challenges faced when treating VHs. First, people report not knowing why they see things others don’t, which leads them to feel alone and different from others. Second, they feel they cannot trust their own eyes to tell what is real or not, which can lead to fears they will be hurt or harmed by the VH, or even if they know the experience is not real, they may fear that they are losing their mind, or that they are not able to control or manage their experiences. For these reasons, they may struggle to put skills and strategies into practice when in the presence of the VH. Consequently, we have developed a novel treatment that addresses these core issues. First, we have a psycho-education and coping strategies package called Visual Unusual Sensory Experiences (VUSE) that uses the best aspects of digital technology (animations, videos) to explain why people have VHs and provides normalising information to help the person to feel less alone. It introduces coping strategies that are then tested in Virtual Reality sessions (VR for Visions VRV) where a representation of the visual experience is provided, enabling the person to safely develop skills and gain a sense of mastery and empowerment. We now plan to test this approach in a proof-of-concept study to help determine if this will help people use these skills in the real world and so help reduce distress, improve functioning and quality of life. We will address uncertainties in the feasibility of developing and delivering this treatment and inform its future use in a larger trial.

The study is a single arm feasibility trial (n=16) evaluating VUSE+VRV and treatment as usual. The study is recruiting people with psychosis and distressing VHs in one NHS Trust and uses independent but non-blind research assistants to undertake assessments before, during and after treatment (at baseline, 6, 12 week) and at follow-up (16 weeks). Quantitative information on recruitment rates, adherence and completion of outcome assessments (VHs, other psychiatric symptoms, quality of life and perceived recovery) will be collected. Qualitative interviews will capture service-users’ experience of therapy. Analyses will focus on feasibility outcomes and provide initial estimates of intervention effects. Thematic analysis of the qualitative interviews will assess the acceptability of the intervention.

The trial has received NHS Ethical and Health Research Authority approval (25/EM/0077). Informed consent will be obtained from all participants. Findings will be disseminated directly to participants, and services as well as through open access peer-reviewed publication(s).

ISRCTN11350954.

To understand how reductions in resource allocation affect food safety services in England.

This longitudinal ecological study analysed secondary observational data.

England, data at the local authority level.

Ecological study, without human participants.

The primary outcome measures were the number of staff, represented by the number of full-time equivalents per capita, number of interventions per establishment, and proportion of hygiene-compliant establishments.

A £1 decrease in food safety expenditure per capita was associated with a 2% (–3.3 to –0.7) decrease in staffing levels and a 1.6% (–3.2 to –0.1) decrease in the number of interventions achieved per establishment. A one-unit reduction in staff was associated with a 42.2% (–80.5 to –11.9) decrease in the number of interventions achieved. No evidence of an association was found between expenditure or staff levels and the proportion of compliant establishments.

Spending reductions negatively affected the capacity of food safety teams to provide key services. Reductions in food safety expenditure significantly affected food hygiene staff levels and service provision. This finding raises concerns about the capacity of food safety teams to operate and the potential for increased public risk of gastrointestinal infections.

To identify parent/caregiver perspectives prior to taking part in a transition care intervention involving group education sessions and peer support for parents/caregivers of adolescents with T1D.

Pre-intervention, semi-structured interviews were conducted with parents/caregivers of adolescents (14–16 years) with T1D followed in a tertiary care paediatric diabetes clinic and participating in a pilot, randomised controlled trial: The Group Education Trial to Improve Transition for Parents/Caregivers of Adolescents with T1D (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT05445284). We conducted a reflexive thematic analysis to identify key aspects of the intervention that may help support parents/caregivers of adolescents with T1D during their transition to adult care.

Of the 17 parents/caregivers randomized to the intervention group, 13 completed pre-intervention interviews.

Four themes were generated from the parents/caregivers, including (1) Creating a Community of Learners (i.e., importance of fostering a bidirectional and supportive environment for parents/caregivers), (2) Psychological Perspectives of Parenting (i.e., acknowledgement of shifting parental/caregiver roles during adolescents’ transition), (3) Diabetes Management During Adolescence (i.e., identification of relevant diabetes education topics to be covered), and (4) Ideal Format and Delivery of the Program (i.e., practical recommendations for the logistics of the intervention).

The findings provide practical and pragmatic suggestions to refine the parent/caregiver-based transition of care intervention for a future, full-scale trial, including addressing parental/caregiver needs as they learn how to best support their adolescent with T1D during transition to adulthood. Future transition programmes for adolescents with T1D may also benefit by incorporating aspects of the current transition readiness program for parents/caregivers of adolescents with T1D.

There is substantial literature on opioid pharmacotherapies from a service user perspective, mostly focused on methadone and buprenorphine. However, as a relatively new formulation, much less is known about user experiences and views of Long-Acting Injectable Buprenorphine (LAIB). To date, no published reviews have qualitatively described LAIB service user experience. The objective of this scoping review is to identify and describe the peer-reviewed qualitative studies examining the service user experience of LAIB.

This scoping review will follow the methodology described by Arksey and O’Malley, further adapted by Levac et al and others. The search strategy will be developed in collaboration with an expert librarian and will include searches of Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science as well as citation chaining. The search dates will range from 2016, when LAIB was first approved, to the date of the final search. Included studies will investigate the perspectives and experiences of LAIB treatment participants with opioid dependence, within an Opioid Treatment Programme (OTP). For service users, the pharmacological formulation of LAIB significantly reshapes both the clinical practice and the social dynamics within OTPs. To effectively capture the depth and nuance of service users’ experiences, this review will be limited to qualitative, mixed-method, case series or case study designs, with a further restriction to peer-reviewed articles published in English. Identified references, with duplicates removed, will be imported into Covidence for title/abstract screening, full-text review and data extraction by two independent reviewers. All decisions on data inclusion or exclusion will be by consensus agreement, using a third reviewer if necessary. A living experience researcher will lead analysis of manuscript content in NVivo using inductive coding to produce a descriptive thematic analysis. The narrative summary will present key study characteristics, quality appraisal and synthesised findings that describe service user experiences and perspectives of LAIB, guided by the Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis for Scoping Reviews checklist.

This scoping review undertakes secondary analysis of data in the public domains only and thus does not require ethics approval given no participants are directly involved. The results of the review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at relevant academic and community conferences, and discussed and disseminated to/with community organisations, service users and policy-makers.

Prepublication history and additional supplemental material for this paper are available online. To view these files, visit: Open Science Framework https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/XMHKN.

Women doctors face considerable challenges navigating family planning, pregnancy and motherhood. Their experiences can have relevance for health system functioning, including doctor retention. This scoping review synthesises research on family planning, fertility, pregnancy and motherhood among women doctors in the EU and the UK.

Scoping review conducted according to JBI best practice guidance.

MEDLINE, CINAHL, Academic Search Complete, PsycInfo and Web of Science were searched, and supplemented with backwards and forwards citation chasing.

Peer-reviewed, original research, in English, focusing on either fertility and family planning, pregnancy and/or motherhood among women doctors in an EU country(s) and/or the UK.

Data were extracted independently by two authors. Data were synthesised using deductive content analysis and collated using narrative synthesis.

In total, 34 studies were identified. Family planning appears complicated by medical careers. Medical specialty choice is particularly impacted, with certain specialties (eg, General Practice) considered particularly family friendly and others markedly less so. Pregnancy complications among women doctors, especially surgeons, were documented. However, women doctors’ and non-doctors’ pregnancy outcomes were overall not significantly different. Notably, doctor-mothers had fewer children and were more likely to report making compromises or facing negative consequences when balancing family and career than doctor-fathers.

Women doctors in the EU and UK report challenges in balancing work and motherhood. With the potential for their experiences to impact on health system functioning and patient outcomes, training bodies and health organisations should take proactive action to better support women doctors and ensure they can remain in the profession and practice in their desired specialty. Future research examining working practices/schedules during pregnancy, breastfeeding experiences, parenting and childcare and maternal mental health will support a better understanding of women doctors’ experiences and facilitate implementation of effective supports.

Studies suggest that extreme heat events can have negative effects on mental health. However, characterisation of these effects in urban communities remains limited, and few studies have investigated the potential modifying effects of demographic, clinical and environmental characteristics. The aim of this study is to address this knowledge gap and quantify the impacts of extreme heat on mental health, health service use and mental well-being in vulnerable urban populations.

In this multidisciplinary project, we will assess mental health outcomes in different populations by bringing together two distinct datasets: electronic health record (EHR) data on mental health service users and data from general public participants of Urban Mind, a citizen science project. We will use EHRs from the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (SLaM) and the North London NHS Foundation Trust (NLFT), from six boroughs which collectively cover more than 1.8 million residents in Greater London, to capture mental health service use and mortality among people with existing diagnoses of mental illness across 2008–2023. We will use smartphone-based ecological momentary assessment data from Urban Mind to measure mental well-being in the general population (2018–2023). These datasets will be linked to high-resolution spatiotemporal data on temperature, fine and coarse particulate matter (PM_2.5, PM₁₀), nitrogen dioxide (NO₂), Normalised Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) and density of large mature tree canopy. We will employ novel quasi-experimental designs, including case time series and case-crossover analysis, to examine the impact of extreme heat on mental health and explore effect modification by sociodemographic, clinical and environmental factors, including air pollution and types of green space coverage. We will also develop a microsimulation model combined with the InVEST urban cooling model to assess and forecast the mental health and social care impacts of extreme heat events and the mitigation of these impacts by different green space coverage and pollution-reduction policies. With a core team composed of researchers, community organisations, industry partners and specialist policy experts, this project will consider lived experience, benefit from broad stakeholder engagement and address gaps in policy and practice.

Each component of this project has been approved by the relevant ethics committee (ref RESCM-22/23-6905 for Urban Mind, LRS/DP-23/24-41409 for the co-development of a screening tool, 23/SC/0257 for the SLaM EHRs, and 24/EE/0178 for the NLFT EHRs). Our dissemination plan includes peer-reviewed scientific articles, policy briefs, a practical guide on fostering ecological and human resilience at the neighbourhood level, and a technical guide for planting and improving the growing conditions of large canopy trees.

Approximately, 20 million older adults undergo major elective surgery annually, yet less than 10% engage in advance care planning (ACP). This is a critical missed opportunity to optimally engage in patient-aligned medical decisions and communications in the perioperative setting. The PREPARE ACP programme (easy-to-read advance directives (ADs) and a patient-directed, online ACP programme) has been shown to increase ACP documentation and patient and clinician empowerment to discuss ACP. Yet, a gap remains in extending PREPARE’s use to surgical populations. We hypothesise that by delivering PREPARE in a patient-facing electronic health record (EHR) centric presurgery workflow for older adults, supported by automated patient reminders and outreach from a healthcare navigator (HCN), we can enable patients and/or surgical teams to engage in ACP discussions.

This is a three-site, single-blinded, pragmatic randomised trial comparing increasing intensity of ACP-focused, patient-facing EHR messaging and HCN support. The outreach occurs prior to a new presurgical clinic visit. We will enrol 6000 patients (2000 each site) aged 65 and older and randomise them equally to the following study arms: (Arm 1) ACP-related cover letter and PREPARE URL information sent via patient portal and postal mail (includes cover letter, AD and PREPARE pamphlet); (Arm 2) Arm 1 plus reminder message via text or MyChart message and (Arm 3) Arm 2 plus HCN outreach and support. The primary outcome is clinically meaningful ACP documentation in the EHR (ie, surrogate designation, documented discussions and ADs) within 6 months of the new surgical visit. The rate of ACP documentation will be compared between treatment groups using generalised estimating equations. Secondary outcomes include a validated four-item ACP engagement survey, administered 2 weeks after the presurgical visit and 6 months later. All analyses will follow the intention-to-treat principle and recent Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines.

The study will be conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki, Protection of Human Volunteers (21 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 50), Institutional Review Boards (21 CFR 56) and Obligations of Clinical Investigators (21 CFR 312). The protocol and consent form were reviewed and approved by Advarra, an National Insitutes of Health (NIH)-approved, commercial, centralised Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB/Independent Ethics Committee of each participating centre reviewed and approved the protocol and consent and obtained reliance agreements with Advarra prior to study initiation. The study is guided by input from patient and clinical advisory boards and a data safety monitoring board. The results of the study will be disseminated to both academic and community stakeholders, complying with all applicable privacy laws.

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT06090552.

Advarra Pro 00070994.

23-38948.

Protocol Date: 24 October 2024. Protocol Version: 4.