Gastric cancer is the fifth most common cancer globally and the fourth leading cause of cancer-related mortality. While gender and sex differences in gastric cancer care are underexplored in Germany, international studies have revealed disparities in aspects such as histology, comorbidities, treatment approaches and survival outcomes. This study aims to explore gender/sex-specific variations in clinical management and their impact on mortality, complications and survival rates in gastric carcinoma patients in Germany. The findings may inform revisions to clinical guidelines and support the development of more personalised treatment strategies. This study aims to improve the quality of care for gastric cancer patients and promote more individualised, sex-sensitive medical practices.

This nationwide, retrospective cohort study will analyse data from the German Diagnosis-Related Groups statistic and regional clinical cancer registries from 2017 to 2021. The study will evaluate both datasets separately, providing a comprehensive view of sex differences in gastric cancer care. Primary outcomes include hospital mortality and survival rates, while secondary endpoints include surgical complications, treatment modalities and postoperative outcomes. The analysis will investigate whether sex influences tumour characteristics, access to treatment and therapy effectiveness. Statistical methods such as descriptive analysis, regression models and survival analysis will be applied to identify sex-related variations in diagnosis, treatment and outcomes.

This study uses anonymised secondary data; thus, ethics approval is not necessary. Findings will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, reported to the Innovation Fund of the Federal Joint Committee of Germany, and a patient leaflet for the involved self-help groups will be made.

NCT06902337.

Vaccines are our best defence against infectious diseases, yet uptake of childhood immunisation programmes has consistently declined in the UK, with growing concerns around socioeconomic inequalities. Liverpool, in particular, demonstrated some of the lowest uptake rates in England since 2019. In response, the Health Equity Liverpool Project (HELP) implemented a hyper-localised community-led initiative between September 2023 and June 2024 to tackle vaccine hesitancy. Activities included outreach events and school-based engagement across nine sites within Liverpool. Despite promising qualitative evidence, the intervention’s impact on childhood vaccine uptake has not yet been quantified. We aim to evaluate the population level impact of the HELP intervention on the uptake of five childhood vaccines (first and second doses of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (MMR1, MMR2), 6-in-1 vaccine (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, haemophilus influenzae type b and hepatitis B), pneumococcal conjugate vaccine booster dose (PCV) and rotavirus vaccine) using synthetic control methods.

We will analyse publicly available quarterly vaccine uptake data (between April 2019 and March 2025) from the Cover of Vaccination Evaluated Rapidly programme for general practices (GPs) in England. The intervention group will be defined as practices located within a 1 km radius of the intervention sites. A synthetic control group will be constructed using non-intervention GPs matched on pre-intervention vaccine uptake, and linked demographic, socioeconomic and healthcare capacity covariates. Primary outcomes are the uptake of MMR1 and MMR2 vaccines. Secondary outcomes include the uptake of 6-in-1, PCV and rotavirus vaccines. Average treatment effects will be estimated as the post-intervention difference in uptake between intervention and synthetic control groups. Sensitivity analyses will examine spillover effects, alternative spatial definitions of exposure, the biasing effect of concurrent interventions and the feasibility of analysis at small area neighbourhood level.

This study will be conducted as part of the ReCITE project, which has received ethical approval from the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine Research Ethics Committee (Reference: 24–018) and is funded by the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council (Project Number: AH/Z505341/1). Findings will be shared with the project funder and submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

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.