We report the collaborative views of a group of nurses, midwives and allied health professionals (NMAHPs) in the UK who have a genomics research remit or interest. Our group includes genetic counsellors under this diverse category of healthcare workers.

This group came together as part of the National Institute for Health and Social Care Research (NIHR) Genomics Research National Specialty Group. After responding to a survey to elicit the views of NMAHPs working in genomics, some of the original 45 respondents, along with others who learnt of the project by word of mouth, have worked together to produce this article.

The paper aims to set out in clear terms the value of NMAHPs to research that supports the patient-centred implementation of genomics in the National Health Service (NHS).

We discuss four potential areas where NMAHPs, in particular, can contribute to the research. These are patient perspectives and epistemic justice, psychosocial impacts, the familial nature of genomics and equity. We argue that this group (NMAHPs) represents a potentially underused resource for the NHS as it seeks to ensure that advances in genomics are translated into patient benefit.

We propose that NMAHPs, with our research expertise, are well placed to shape and deliver a research agenda that explores models of patient-centred care in the genomics era. We call for increased funding for NMAHP research roles and funding opportunities to deliver this fundamental work.

Novel diagnostics, particularly point-of-care (POC) tests, play a crucial role in the early detection and management of infectious diseases, especially in resource-limited settings. Ensuring test performance and quality while minimising the risk of human error becomes more relevant when shifting testing tasks from highly controlled settings like centralised laboratories to people with minimal training. Applying usability and human factors engineering principles can reduce the challenges related to human errors. Despite existing frameworks and tools, the practical application of usability guidelines remains variable across different settings.

This scoping review protocol outlines a systematic investigation of current practices in assessing the usability of novel diagnostics, particularly POC tests for infectious diseases intended for use in low-income and middle-income countries. The review will analyse original research studies of all designs and product dossiers that report on the usability evaluation or validation of a diagnostic test for an infectious disease. A qualitative synthesis of the data extracted from the articles will be conducted. We will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols and the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines for this scoping review.

No ethical approval is required because individual patient data will not be included. The findings will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Urban green and blue space (UGBS) interventions, such as the development of an urban greenway, have the potential to provide public health benefits and multiple co-benefits in the realms of the environment, economy and society. This paper presents the protocol for a 5-year follow-up evaluation of the public health benefits and co-benefits of an urban greenway in Belfast, UK.

The natural experiment evaluation uses a range of systems-oriented and mixed-method approaches. First, using group model building methods, we codeveloped a causal loop diagram with stakeholders to inform the evaluation framework. We will use other systems methods including viable systems modelling and soft systems methodology to understand the context of the system (ie, the intervention) and the stakeholders involved in the development, implementation and maintenance phases. The effectiveness evaluation includes a repeat cross-sectional household survey with a random sample of 1200 local residents (adults aged ≥16 years old) who live within 1 mile of the greenway. The survey is complemented with administrative data from the National Health Service. For the household survey, outcomes include physical activity, mental well-being, quality of life, social capital, perceptions of environment and biodiversity. From the administrative data, outcomes include prescription medications for a range of non-communicable diseases such as cardiovascular disease, type II diabetes mellitus, chronic respiratory and mental health conditions. We also investigate changes in infectious disease rates, including COVID-19, and maternal and child health outcomes such as birth weight and gestational diabetes. A range of economic evaluation methods, including a cost-effectiveness analysis and social return on investment (SROI), will be employed. Findings from the household survey and administrative data analysis will be further explored in focus groups with a subsample of those who complete the household survey and the local community to explore possible mechanistic pathways and other impacts beyond those measured. Process evaluation methods include intercept surveys and direct observation of the number and type of greenway visitors using the Systems for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities tool. Finally, we will use methods such as weight of evidence, simulation and group model building, each embedding participatory engagement with stakeholders to help us interpret, triangulate and synthesise the findings.

To our knowledge, this is one of the first natural experiments with a 5-year follow-up evaluation of an UGBS intervention. The findings will help inform future policy and practice on UGBS interventions intended to bring a range of public health benefits and co-benefits. Ethics approval was obtained from the Medicine, Health and Life Sciences Research Ethics Committee prior to the commencement of the study. All participants in the household survey and focus group workshops will provide written informed consent before taking part in the study. Findings will be reported to (1) participants and stakeholders; (2) funding bodies supporting the research; (3) local, regional and national governments to inform policy; (4) presented at local, national and international conferences and (5) disseminated by peer-review publications.