The 68th World Health Assembly, in 2015, called for surgical and anaesthesia services strengthening. Acknowledging the healthcare staff shortages, they referred to task sharing, among others, as a more effective use of the healthcare workforce. While task sharing has been increasingly proposed as an important strategy to increase the reach and safety of anaesthesia as well as a means of supporting the workforce in low-resource settings, most data on task sharing relate to non-anaesthetic healthcare contexts. The aim of this study was to understand anaesthetic task sharing as currently experienced and/or envisaged by non-physician anaesthesia providers in Zambia and Somaliland.

An exploratory qualitative research methodology was used. Participants were recruited initially via contacts of the research team, then through snowballing using a purposive sampling strategy. There were 13 participants: 7 from Somaliland and 6 from Zambia. Semistructured interviews took place synchronously, then were recorded, anonymised, transcribed and analysed thematically. Triangulation and respondents’ validation were used to maximise data validity.

Four major themes were identified in relation to task sharing practices: (1) participants recognised variable components of task sharing in their practice; (2) access to task sharing depends both on sources and resources; (3) implicit barriers may inhibit task sharing practices; (4) there is an appetite among participants for amelioration of current task sharing practices.

Empowering task sharing practices can be achieved only by understanding how these practices work, by identifying gaps and areas of improvement, and by addressing them. The findings from this exploratory study could help the global community understand how anaesthetic task sharing in low-resource settings works and inspire further research on the field. This could inform future modelling of workforce planning strategies in low-resource settings to maximise the effectiveness and professional well-being of the workforce.

Daily calcium supplements are recommended for pregnant women from 20 weeks’ gestation to prevent pre-eclampsia in populations with low dietary calcium intake. We aimed to improve understanding of barriers and facilitators for calcium supplement intake during pregnancy to prevent pre-eclampsia.

Mixed-method systematic review, with confidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research approach.

MEDLINE and EMBASE (via Ovid), CINAHL and Global Health (via EBSCO) and grey literature databases were searched up to 17 September 2022.

We included primary qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods studies reporting implementation or use of calcium supplements during pregnancy, excluding calcium fortification and non-primary studies. No restrictions were imposed on settings, language or publication date.

Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We analysed the qualitative data using thematic synthesis, and quantitative findings were thematically mapped to qualitative findings. We then mapped the results to behavioural change frameworks to identify barriers and facilitators.

Eighteen reports from nine studies were included in this review. Women reported barriers to consuming calcium supplements included limited knowledge about calcium supplements and pre-eclampsia, fears and experiences of side effects, varying preferences for tablets, dosing, working schedules, being away from home and taking other supplements. Receiving information regarding pre-eclampsia and safety of calcium supplement use from reliable sources, alternative dosing options, supplement reminders, early antenatal care, free supplements and support from families and communities were reported as facilitators. Healthcare providers felt that consistent messaging about benefits and risks of calcium, training, and ensuring adequate staffing and calcium supply is available would be able to help them in promoting calcium.

Relevant stakeholders should consider the identified barriers and facilitators when formulating interventions and policies on calcium supplement use. These review findings can inform implementation to ensure effective and equitable provision and scale-up of calcium interventions.

CRD42021239143.

Sciatica can be very painful and, in most cases, is due to pressure on a spinal nerve root from a disc herniation with associated inflammation. For some patients, the pain persists, and one management option is a spinal epidural steroid injection (ESI). The aim of an ESI is to relieve leg pain, improve function and reduce the need for surgery. ESIs work well in some patients but not in others, but we cannot identify these patient subgroups currently. This study aims to identify factors, including patient characteristics, clinical examination and imaging findings, that help in predicting who does well and who does not after an ESI. The overall objective is to develop a prognostic model to support individualised patient and clinical decision-making regarding ESI.

POiSE is a prospective cohort study of 439 patients with sciatica referred by their clinician for an ESI. Participants will receive weekly text messages until 12 weeks following their ESIand then again at 24 weeks following their ESI to collect data on leg pain severity. Questionnaires will be sent to participants at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 weeks after their ESI to collect data on pain, disability, recovery and additional interventions. The prognosis for the cohort will be described. The primary outcome measure for the prognostic model is leg pain at 6 weeks. Prognostic models will also be developed for secondary outcomes of disability and recovery at 6 weeks and additional interventions at 24 weeks following ESI. Statistical analyses will include multivariable linear and logistic regression with mixed effects model.

The POiSE study has received ethical approval (South Central Berkshire B Research Ethics Committee 21/SC/0257). Dissemination will be guided by our patient and public engagement group and will include scientific publications, conference presentations and social media.