While diabetes prevention programmes (DPPs) effectively reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, optimising referral to these programmes is challenging. Our prior research (a qualitative study on the pilot of the National Diabetes Prevention Programme (NDPP) and a systematic review) identified a range of barriers and facilitators to referral from healthcare workers’ perspectives. This study aims to gain consensus on the main factors influencing referral to a newly established NDPP and using the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) to select behaviour change techniques (BCTs) for an implementation strategy to improve referral to the programme in the future.

A two-round modified online Delphi survey prioritised 17 barriers and facilitators of the referral process, followed by a mapping exercise with the BCW, which guided the identification of techniques to change referral behaviour from general practice.

The survey took place online with healthcare professionals working in the primary care setting in Ireland (April to June 2024). The NDPP was in the pilot phase and was not available in all areas. This study sought to learn from this pilot phase to inform the referral process, which was not yet fully established.

Healthcare professionals eligible to refer or involved in referral to the NDPP in Ireland (general practitioners, practice nurses and dietitians delivering the NDPP) took part in the Delphi survey. Recruitment was through a number of gatekeepers, a health service manager and professional groups who shared invitations to participate with eligible healthcare professionals.

In the Delphi survey round 1, respondents were asked to rate the importance of 17 factors (nine facilitators and eight barriers) influencing referral on a 5-point Likert scale (not important to very high importance) and an open text box captured other suggested important factors. Barriers included limited practical information about the availability of the programme, concerns about workload, competing priorities and concern about patient motivation, the time commitment for patients and referral delays. Facilitators included electronic referral and feedback, promotion of the programme by healthcare professionals and consultation with patients before referral. Consensus was defined as agreement of ≥70% for each factor in the combined categories of high importance/very high importance, low/moderate importance or not important. Factors not reaching consensus after the first round were included in round 2 with any new factors from round 1. Factors that did not reach consensus or reached consensus as not important or of low/moderate importance were excluded. Only factors reaching consensus as being of high importance/very high importance across the two rounds were included in the final prioritised list.

The Delphi survey had 37 responses to round 1 and 23 (62%) responses to round 2. 12 factors reached consensus as being of high/very high importance to improve referral. The 12 factors are mapped to seven intervention functions in the BCW and to nine key BCTs (feedback on the outcome of the behaviour, social support, instruction on how to perform a behaviour, information about the health consequences, information about social and environmental consequences, demonstration of the behaviour, prompts/cues, credible source and restructuring the physical environment). The strategy to improve referrals should include education delivered by educators to referrers, educational materials on the DPP and practical support to facilitate referrals. The health service should continue to provide electronic referrals and electronic prompts to refer could be considered as part of the electronic health record.

This study systematically prioritises factors perceived to influence referral and identifies BCTs to improve referral to an NDPP. The BCTs are a starting point for a strategy to improve referral to DPPs. Further consultation with stakeholders is recommended to discuss the acceptability, feasibility and operationalisation of the BCTs in the Irish setting.

MRI is increasingly recognised as a valuable tool for assessing prognosis and predicting outcomes following traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI). Several potential MRI biomarkers have been identified, but efforts are still needed to improve the accuracy and feasibility of these biomarkers in clinical practice. This study aims to build a national Canadian SCI imaging repository for storing and analysing imaging data for SCI, with the goal of improving SCI MRI biomarkers to predict outcomes and inform clinical management.

As a substudy of the Rick Hansen SCI Registry (RHSCIR), this retrospective multisite study includes individuals who sustained a traumatic cervical SCI between 2015 and 2021, were previously enrolled in RHSCIR, and had MRI scans acquired within 72 hours of injury and before any surgical intervention. Individuals with a penetrating trauma and/or with any prior spine surgery are excluded. The study principal investigator and research associates, experienced with data curation and with the standardised format and specifications of the Brain Imaging Data Structure standard, guide the site’s curator on the steps to perform image deidentification and curation to create standardised datasets across all sites. These datasets are transferred to a Digital Research Alliance of Canada (‘the Alliance’) server designated for this project and concatenated to form the national Canadian SCI imaging repository (Neurogitea). We are using a semiautomated processing pipeline to quantify lesion morphology, together with additional imaging measures that are manually extracted from the images (for instance, the relative maximal spinal cord compression and the maximum canal compromise). Through linkage to RHSCIR clinical and epidemiological data already available on eligible participants, regression analysis is planned to predict neurological outcomes at discharge, including the American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale grade, upper and lower extremity motor and sensory scores.

This protocol has been submitted by the participating sites to obtain ethics and institutional approvals prior to the study initiation at each site. All 12 sites across Canada have now obtained ethics and institutional approvals. Study results will be disseminated at local, national and international conferences and by journal publications.

Cancer and its treatment can negatively impact physical function, general well-being and quality of life. An evidence-based strategy to manage this is to prescribe exercise. One approach is to prescribe exercise prehabilitation to improve pretreatment health and function. However, current exercise prehabilitation programmes are under-researched, and the quality of their reporting has not been systematically assessed.

This review aimed to identify the following: the characteristics of prehabilitation exercise programmes; how intensity, physical function, patient-reported outcomes and treatment-related outcomes were measured; the quality of reporting and programme implementation.

Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported a cancer prehabilitation exercise intervention, reported outcomes relating to physical function and patient-reported outcomes, and full-text copies were available in English.

PubMed, Mednar and Scopus were screened for studies from inception until 4 of April 2024.

Exercise characteristics were extracted and manually charted in Microsoft Excel using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication. The tool for the assessment of study quality and reporting in exercise (TESTEX) framework was used to assess study quality and intervention reporting.

1495 results were retrieved, 28 of which were included. Exercise sessions lasted a mean of 42.5±21.9 min and were completed 3.7±1.3 times per week. 22 studies implemented concurrent exercise, five prescribed aerobic, and one prescribed resistance. High-intensity exercise was prescribed in four studies, moderate-high in 12, seven prescribed moderate, three prescribed low-moderate, and one was low intensity. 10 studies prescribed exercise intensity using the Borg Rating of Perceived Exertion Scale, five prescribed heart rate (HR) zones, six used a set workload, and seven did not monitor intensity. A mean TESTEX score of 9.3±2.3 out of 15 was achieved. The lowest scoring criterion (n=3) related to the reporting of the exercise dose.

There was heterogeneity among studies regarding exercise intervention characteristics and measures of effectiveness. The overall quality of reporting was satisfactory, yet inconsistencies were apparent regarding quantifying and monitoring exercise dose, which limits the ability of researchers and clinicians to replicate, evaluate or scale cancer prehabilitation exercise interventions, impeding evidence-based practice. As such, to be able to optimise cancer prehabilitation exercise programmes, research must first focus on improving the quality of reporting and standardising outcome measures and methods of monitoring and prescribing exercise.