Equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) in the healthcare field are crucial in meeting the healthcare needs of a progressively diverse society. In fact, a diverse healthcare workforce enables culturally sensitive care, promotes health equity and enhances the understanding of various needs and patients’ viewpoints, potentially resulting in more effective patient treatment and improved patient outcomes. Despite this, information on the effectiveness of policies or programmes promoting EDI in health institutions is scarce. The objective of this systematic review is to assess the effects and outcomes of EDI programmes in healthcare institutions.

We will conduct Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-compliant systematic review of studies on EDI programmes and describe their effects and outcomes in healthcare institutions. We will search PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases. Selected studies will include randomised control trials (RCTs), non-RCTs and cross-sectional studies published either in English or French. Quality appraisal of studies and a narrative synthesis of extracted data will be conducted as well as a meta-analysis if possible. The quality of evidence in this review will be assessed by the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

We anticipate that this systematic review will reveal information on the effect of EDI programmes and their outcomes in healthcare institutions. We expect this information will provide insights that will lead to improvements in designing EDI policies and programmes in healthcare institutions.

No ethical clearance is required for this study as no primary data will be collected. The final manuscript will be submitted to a journal for publication. In addition to this, the results of the study will also be disseminated through conference presentations to inform the research and clinical practice.

This protocol has been registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; registration number CRD42024502781.

To compare differences in recruitment and attrition between placebo control randomised trials of surgery, and trials of the same surgical interventions and conditions that used non-operative (non-placebo) controls.

Meta-epidemiological study.

Randomised controlled trials were identified from an electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from their inception date to 21 November 2018.

Placebo control trials evaluating efficacy of any surgical intervention and non-operative control trials of the same surgical intervention were included in this study. 25 730 records were retrieved from our systemic search, identifying 61 placebo control and 38 non-operative control trials for inclusion in analysis.

Primary outcome measures were recruitment and attrition. These were assessed in terms of recruitment rate (number of participants enrolled, as a proportion of those eligible) and overall attrition rate (composite of dropout, loss to follow-up and cross-overs, expressed as proportion of total sample size). Secondary outcome measures included participant cross-over rate, dropout and loss to follow-up.

Unadjusted pooled recruitment and attrition rates were similar between placebo and non-operative control trials. Study characteristics were not significantly different apart from time to primary timepoint which was shorter in studies with placebo controls (365 vs 274 days, p=0.006). After adjusting for covariates (follow-up duration and number of timepoints), the attrition rate of placebo control trials was almost twice as high compared with non-operative controlled-trials (incident rate ratio (IRR) (95% CI) 1.8 (1.1 to 3.0), p=0.032). The incorporation of one additional follow-up timepoint (regardless of follow-up duration) was associated with reduced attrition in placebo control surgical trials (IRR (95% CI) 0.64 (0.52 to 0.79), p

Placebo control trials of surgery have similar recruitment issues but higher attrition compared with non-operative (non-placebo) control trials. Study design should incorporate strategies such as increased timepoints for given follow-up duration to mitigate losses to follow-up and dropout.

CRD42019117364.

Radical chemoradiotherapy represents the gold standard for locally advanced cervical cancer. However, despite significant progress in improving local tumour control, distant relapse continues to impact overall survival. The development of predictive and prognostic biomarkers is consequently important to risk-stratify patients and identify populations at higher risk of poorer treatment response and survival outcomes. Exploratory study of using Magnetic resonance Prognostic Imaging markers for Radiotherapy In Cervix cancer (EMPIRIC) is a prospective exploratory cohort study, which aims to investigate the role of multiparametric functional MRI (fMRI) using diffusion-weighed imaging (DWI), dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) and blood oxygen level-dependent imaging (BOLD) MRI to assess treatment response and predict outcomes in patients undergoing radical chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer.

The study aims to recruit 40 patients across a single-centre over 2 years. Patients undergo multiparametric fMRI (DWI, DCE and BOLD-MRI) at three time points: before, during and at the completion of external beam radiotherapy. Tissue and liquid biopsies are collected at diagnosis and post-treatment to identify potential biomarker correlates against fMRI. The primary outcome is to evaluate sensitivity and specificity of quantitative parameters derived from fMRI as predictors of progression-free survival at 2 years following radical chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer. The secondary outcome is to investigate the roles of fMRI as predictors of overall survival at 2 years and tumour volume reduction across treatment. Statistical analyses using regression models and survival analyses are employed to evaluate the relationships between the derived parameters, treatment response and clinical outcomes.

The EMPIRIC study received ethical approval from the NHS Health Research Authority (HRA) on 14 February 2022 (protocol number RD2021-29). Confidentiality and data protection measures are strictly adhered to throughout the study. The findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and scientific conferences, aiming to contribute to the growing body of evidence on the use of multiparametric MRI in cervical cancer management.

NCT05532930.

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) remains the most common and serious complication after distal pancreatectomy. Many attempts at lowering fistula rates have led to unrewarding insignificant results as still up to 30% of the patients suffer from clinically relevant POPF. Therefore, the development of new innovative methods and procedures is still a cornerstone of current surgical research.

The cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator (CUSA) device is a well-known ultrasound-based parenchyma transection method, often used in liver and neurosurgery which has not yet been thoroughly investigated in pancreatic surgery, but the first results seem very promising.

The CUSA-1 trial is a randomised controlled pilot trial with two parallel study groups. This single-centre trial is assessor and patient blinded. A total of 60 patients with an indication for open distal pancreatectomy will be intraoperatively randomised after informed consent. The patients will be randomly assigned to either the control group with conventional pancreas transection (scalpel or stapler) or the experimental group, with transection using the CUSA device. The primary safety endpoint of this trial will be postoperative complications ≥grade 3 according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. The primary endpoint to investigate the effect will be the rate of POPF within 30 days postoperatively according to the ISGPS definition. Further perioperative outcomes, including postpancreatectomy haemorrhage, length of hospital stay and mortality will be analysed as secondary endpoints.

Based on the available literature, CUSA may have a beneficial effect on POPF occurrence after distal pancreatectomy. The rationale of the CUSA-1 pilot trial is to investigate the safety and feasibility of the CUSA device in elective open distal pancreatectomy compared with conventional dissection methods and gather the first data on the effect on POPF occurrence. This data will lay the groundwork for a future confirmatory multicentre randomised controlled trial.

The CUSA-1 trial protocol was approved by the ethics committee of the University of Heidelberg (No. S-098/2022). Results will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal and summaries will be provided in lay language to study participants and their relatives.

DRKS00027474.

Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder caused by alcohol exposure during pregnancy. FASD is associated with neurodevelopmental deviations, and 50%–94% of children with FASD meet the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-fifth edition diagnostic criteria for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). There is a paucity of evidence around medication efficacy for ADHD symptoms in children with FASD. This series of N-of-1 trials aims to provide pilot data on the feasibility of conducting N-of-1 trials in children with FASD and ADHD.

A pilot N-of-1 randomised trial design with 20 cycles of stimulant and placebo (four cycles of 2-week duration) for each child will be conducted (n=20) in Melbourne, Australia.

Feasibility and tolerability will be assessed using recruitment and retention rates, protocol adherence, adverse events and parent ratings of side effects. Each child’s treatment effect will be determined by analysing teacher ADHD ratings across stimulant and placebo conditions (Wilcoxon rank). N-of-1 data will be aggregated to provide an estimate of the cohort treatment effect as well as individual-level treatment effects. We will assess the sample size and number of cycles required for a future trial. Potential mediating factors will be explored to identify variables that might be associated with treatment response variability.

The study was approved by the Hospital and Health Service Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/74678/MonH-2021-269029), Monash (protocol V6, 25 June 2023).

Individual outcome data will be summarised and provided to participating carers and practitioners to enhance care. Group-level findings will be presented at a local workshop to engage stakeholders. Findings will be presented at national and international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. All results will be reported so that they can be used to inform prior information for future trials.

NCT04968522.

Improving sustainable transportation options will help cities tackle growing challenges related to population health, congestion, climate change and inequity. Interventions supporting active transportation face many practical and political hurdles. Implementation science aims to understand how interventions or policies arise, how they can be translated to new contexts or scales and who benefits. Sustainable transportation interventions are complex, and existing implementation science frameworks may not be suitable. To apply and adapt implementation science for healthy cities, we have launched our mixed-methods research programme, CapaCITY/É. We aim to understand how, why and for whom sustainable transportation interventions are successful and when they are not.

Across nine Canadian municipalities and the State of Victoria (Australia), our research will focus on two types of sustainable transportation interventions: all ages and abilities bicycle networks and motor vehicle speed management interventions. We will (1) document the implementation process and outcomes of both types of sustainable transportation interventions; (2) examine equity, health and mobility impacts of these interventions; (3) advance implementation science by developing a novel sustainable transportation implementation science framework and (4) develop tools for scaling up and scaling out sustainable transportation interventions. Training activities will develop interdisciplinary scholars and practitioners able to work at the nexus of academia and sustainable cities.

This study received approval from the Simon Fraser University Office of Ethics Research (H22-03469). A Knowledge Mobilization Hub will coordinate dissemination of findings via a website; presentations to academic, community organisations and practitioner audiences; and through peer-reviewed articles.

Chronic diseases have a high prevalence worldwide, and patients with chronic diseases often suffer from depression, leading to a poor prognosis and a low quality of life. Metacognitive therapy is a transdiagnostic psychotherapy intervention focused on thinking patterns, with the advantages of reliable implementation effect, short intervention period and low cost. It can help patients change negative metacognition, alleviate depression symptoms, and has a higher implementation value compared with other cognitive interventions. Therefore, metacognitive therapy may be an effective way to improve the mental health of patients with chronic diseases.

CNKI, Wanfang Database, VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals, Sinomed, PubMed, SCOPUS, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science and PsycINFO will be used to select the eligible studies. As a supplement, websites (eg, the Chinese Clinical Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov) will be searched and grey literature will be included. The heterogeneity and methodological quality of the eligible studies will be independently screened and extracted by two experienced reviewers. All the data synthesis and analysis (drawing forest plots, subgroup analysis and sensitive analysis) will be conducted using RevMan 5.4.1.

This article is a literature review that does not include patients’ identifiable information. Therefore, ethical approval is not required in this protocol. The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis will be published in a peer-reviewed journal as well as presentations at relevant conferences.

CRD42023411105.

Characterised by chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) symptoms including diarrhoea, abdominal pain and fatigue can significantly impact patient’s quality of life. Therapeutic developments in the last 20 years have revolutionised treatment. However, clinical trials and real-world data show primary non-response rates up to 40%. A significant challenge is an inability to predict which treatment will benefit individual patients.

Current understanding of IBD pathogenesis implicates complex interactions between host genetics and the gut microbiome. Most cohorts studying the gut microbiota to date have been underpowered, examined single treatments and produced heterogeneous results. Lack of cross-treatment comparisons and well-powered independent replication cohorts hampers the ability to infer real-world utility of predictive signatures.

IBD-RESPONSE will use multi-omic data to create a predictive tool for treatment response. Future patient benefit may include development of biomarker-based treatment stratification or manipulation of intestinal microbial targets. IBD-RESPONSE and downstream studies have the potential to improve quality of life, reduce patient risk and reduce expenditure on ineffective treatments.

This prospective, multicentre, observational study will identify and validate a predictive model for response to advanced IBD therapies, incorporating gut microbiome, metabolome, single-cell transcriptome, human genome, dietary and clinical data. 1325 participants commencing advanced therapies will be recruited from ~40 UK sites. Data will be collected at baseline, week 14 and week 54. The primary outcome is week 14 clinical response. Secondary outcomes include clinical remission, loss of response in week 14 responders, corticosteroid-free response/remission, time to treatment escalation and change in patient-reported outcome measures.

Ethical approval was obtained from the Wales Research Ethics Committee 5 (ref: 21/WA/0228). Recruitment is ongoing. Following study completion, results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific meetings. Publications will be summarised at www.ibd-response.co.uk.

ISRCTN96296121.

Diagnostic testing is an important tool to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, yet access to and uptake of testing vary widely 3 years into the pandemic. The WHO recommends the use of COVID-19 self-testing as an option to help expand testing access. We aimed to calculate the cost of providing COVID-19 self-testing across countries and distribution modalities.

We estimated economic costs from the provider perspective to calculate the total cost and the cost per self-test kit distributed for three scenarios that differed by costing period (pilot, annual), the number of tests distributed (actual, planned, scaled assuming an epidemic peak) and self-test kit costs (pilot purchase price, 50% reduction).

We used data collected between August and December 2022 in Brazil, Georgia, Malaysia, Ethiopia and the Philippines from pilot implementation studies designed to provide COVID-19 self-tests in a variety of settings—namely, workplace and healthcare facilities.

Across all five countries, 173 000 kits were distributed during pilot implementation with the cost/test distributed ranging from $2.44 to $12.78. The cost/self-test kit distributed was lowest in the scenario that assumed implementation over a longer period (year), with higher test demand (peak) and a test kit price reduction of 50% ($1.04–3.07). Across all countries and scenarios, test procurement occupied the greatest proportion of costs: 58–87% for countries with off-site self-testing (outside the workplace, for example, home) and 15–50% for countries with on-site self-testing (at the workplace). Staffing was the next key cost driver, particularly for distribution modalities that had on-site self-testing (29–35%) versus off-site self-testing (7–27%).

Our results indicate that it is likely to cost between $2.44 and $12.78 per test to distribute COVID-19 self-tests across common settings in five heterogeneous countries. Cost-effectiveness analyses using these results will allow policymakers to make informed decisions on optimally scaling up COVID-19 self-test distribution programmes across diverse settings and evolving needs.

Recent research has highlighted non-operative management (NOM) as a viable alternative for frail older adults with hip fractures in the final phase of life. This study aims to guide Dutch physicians and hospitals nationwide in a standardised implementation of shared decision-making regarding surgery or NOM in selected frail older adults with a hip fracture.

The patient population for implementation includes frail older adults aged ≥70 years with an acute proximal femoral fracture, nursing home care or a similar level of care elsewhere and at least one additional criterion (ie, malnutrition, severe mobility impairment or ASA≥4). The 2-year implementation study will be conducted in four phases. In phases 1 and 2, barriers and facilitators for implementation will be identified and an implementation protocol, educational materials and patient information will be developed. Phase 3 will involve an implementation pilot in 14 hospitals across the Netherlands. The protocol and educational material will be improved based on healthcare provider and patient experiences gathered through interviews. Phase 4 will focus on upscaling to nationwide implementation and the effect of the implementation on NOM rate will be measured using data from the Dutch Hip Fracture Audit.

The study was exempted by the local Medical Research Ethics Committee (MEC-2023-0270, 10 May 2023) and Medical Ethics Committee United (W23.083, 26 April 2023). The study’s results will be submitted to an open access international peer-reviewed journal. Its protocols, tools and results will be presented at several national and international academic conferences of relevant orthogeriatric (scientific) associations.

NCT06079905 .