There are approximately 700 000 autistic people in the UK, and autism is increasingly being diagnosed in adulthood. Diagnosis on its own does not provide adequate information to plan post-diagnostic support for autistic people, and clinicians often plan support without the use of validated standardised tools which may exacerbate inequities in care. This study will evaluate a novel strengths and needs assessment, based on the WHO’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health CoreSet for Autism, for use in adult diagnostic services immediately on receipt of an autism diagnosis. Potential issues, including the length of the assessment, timing of delivery and selection bias, will be explored as part of the trial process evaluation.

A two-arm, multisite, randomised pilot trial design will be used to evaluate the ICF CoreSets for Autism Strengths and Needs Assessment in three diagnostic services in England. A total of 72 newly diagnosed autistic adults will be recruited across the three sites over a 6-month period and randomised into an assessment group (strengths and needs assessment plus standard care) and a treatment as usual group (standard care only). The assessment group will receive a summary report of their strengths and needs on completion of the assessment. Both groups will complete measures of mental health and quality of life at baseline and 3 months follow-up (Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Generalised Anxiety Disorder questionnaire-7, Recovering Quality of Life questionnaire-10, EuroQoL-5D). Acceptability and feasibility will be measured for the strengths and needs assessment and for trial procedures using standardised measures, progression criteria and qualitative data from clinician focus groups and interviews with a subsample of autistic participants. The study design and procedures are being co-produced with an autistic advisor/patient and public involvement lead and with a steering group of autistic adults.

This study was reviewed by the East Midlands—Nottingham 2 Research Ethics Committee and was given Health Research Authority approval on 18 March 2025 (REC reference:25/EM/0041). The results will be disseminated via reports to the funder (NIHR), a peer-reviewed journal paper and academic conferences. We will email a summary report of findings to study participants and will invite participants to an information dissemination event at the end of the study. Links to reports and a lay summary will be provided on the research group’s website: https://sharl.sites.sheffield.ac.uk/home

ISRCTN10283350.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common cancer in the UK and second leading cause of cancer-related deaths. The faecal immunochemical test (FIT) is a non-invasive home-based test used for both symptomatic assessment and population-based screening. However, approximately 30% of screening FIT kits and 10% of symptomatic FIT kits are never returned. Under-served populations, including ethnic minorities, socioeconomically deprived communities and those with mental health conditions, experience particularly low FIT return rates, contributing to health inequalities in CRC outcomes. This systematic review aims to synthesise evidence on the effectiveness and acceptability of interventions to improve FIT returns in both asymptomatic screening and symptomatic populations, with particular focus on under-served communities.

We will conduct a systematic review of qualitative and quantitative evidence. We will search Scopus, MedLine via Ovid, CINAHL via Ebsco and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from September 2010 onwards, supplemented by reference screening and trial registry searches. Eligible studies will include randomised controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, observational studies, qualitative studies, mixed-methods studies and implementation studies examining FIT interventions in screening or symptomatic populations. Two reviewers will independently screen search results for eligible studies. Data extraction will capture study characteristics, population demographics, intervention components and outcomes including FIT return rates, acceptability, feasibility and implementation factors. Quantitative data will undergo systematic tabulation and meta-analysis where appropriate, with narrative synthesis for heterogeneous studies. Qualitative data will be analysed using framework-based thematic analysis, mapping findings to both the theoretical domains framework and theoretical framework of acceptability. A mixed-methods synthesis will integrate quantitative and qualitative findings to identify intervention characteristics, implementation strategies and contextual factors associated with improved outcomes across different population groups.

Ethics approval is not required as this systematic review will analyse published studies. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations.

CRD420251111663.