Chronic inflammation plays a key role in knee osteoarthritis pathophysiology and increases risk of comorbidities, yet most interventions do not typically target inflammation. Our study will investigate if an anti-inflammatory dietary programme is superior to a standard care low-fat dietary programme for improving knee pain, function and quality-of-life in people with knee osteoarthritis.

The eFEct of an Anti-inflammatory diet for knee oSTeoarthritis study is a parallel-group, assessor-blinded, superiority randomised controlled trial. Following baseline assessment, 144 participants aged 45–85 years with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis will be randomly allocated to one of two treatment groups (1:1 ratio). Participants randomised to the anti-inflammatory dietary programme will receive six dietary consultations over 12 weeks (two in-person and four phone/videoconference) and additional educational and behaviour change resources. The consultations and resources emphasise nutrient-dense minimally processed anti-inflammatory foods and discourage proinflammatory processed foods. Participants randomised to the standard care low-fat dietary programme will receive three dietary consultations over 12 weeks (two in-person and one phone/videoconference) consisting of healthy eating advice and education based on the Australian Dietary Guidelines, reflecting usual care in Australia. Adherence will be assessed with 3-day food diaries. Outcomes are assessed at 12 weeks and 6 months. The primary outcome will be change from baseline to 12 weeks in the mean score on four Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS₄) subscales: knee pain, symptoms, function in daily activities and knee-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes include change in individual KOOS subscale scores, patient-perceived improvement, health-related quality of life, body mass and composition using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, inflammatory (high-sensitivity C reactive protein, interleukins, tumour necrosis factor-α) and metabolic blood biomarkers (glucose, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), insulin, liver function, lipids), lower-limb function and physical activity.

The study has received ethics approval from La Trobe University Human Ethics Committee. Results will be presented in peer-reviewed journals and at international conferences.

ACTRN12622000440729.

To examine the relative importance of the drivers of mental health care-seeking intention and how these, along with intention itself, are geographically distributed across integrated care systems (ICS) and health boards (HBs) in the UK. Also, to examine the degree of acceptance of virtual modes of care.

Community-based cross-sectional survey.

A national online survey of 17 309 adults between August and September 2021 recruited via a research technology company, Lucid. Sample size quotas were set to ensure coverage across the UK and match population distributions for gender, age and ethnicity. After exclusions, 16 835 participants remained (54% female, 89% white).

Care-seeking intention, using a continuous measure of likelihood and a categorical measure of estimated time to seek professional help for a future mental health difficulty.

20.5% (95% CI 19.8% to 21.2%) reported that they would significantly delay or never seek mental healthcare, ranging from 8.3% to 25.7% across ICS/HBs. Multilevel regression analysis showed mental health knowledge was the most predictive of care-seeking intention, followed by attitudes towards others with mental illness and a combination of stigma, negative attitudes to treatment and instrumental barriers to accessing care. The model explained 17% of the variance. There was substantial geographical variation in prevalence of preclinical symptoms of depression and anxiety, attitudes to mental health, and barriers to care, leading to complex ICS/HB profiles. Remote and self-guided therapies did not pose as a major barrier to care with more than half of respondents likely or very likely to use them.

Our locally relevant and actionable findings suggest possible interventions that may improve care-seeking intention and indicate which of these interventions need to be geographically tailored to have maximal effect.

Child maltreatment (CM) is a complex global public health issue with potentially devastating effects on individuals’ physical and mental health and well-being throughout the life course. A lack of uniform definitions hinders attempts to identify, measure, respond to, and prevent CM. The aim of this electronic Delphi (e-Delphi) study is to build consensus on definitions and types of CM for use in surveillance and multi-sectoral research in the 34 countries in the Euro-CAN (Multi-Sectoral Responses to Child Abuse and Neglect in Europe) project (COST Action CA19106).

The e-Delphi study will consist of a maximum of three rounds conducted using an online data collection platform. A multi-disciplinary expert panel consisting of researchers, child protection professionals (health and social care), police, legal professionals and adult survivors of CM will be purposefully recruited. We will approach approximately 100 experts, with between 50 and 60 of these anticipated to take part. Participants will rate their agreement with a range of statements relating to operational definitions and types of CM, and free-text comments on each of the statements to give further detail about their responses and areas of uncertainty. Consensus has been defined a priori as ≥70% of the panel agreeing or disagreeing with the statement after the final round. The responses to the open-ended questions will be analysed using a ‘codebook’ approach to thematic analysis, and used to refine the statements between rounds where no consensus is reached.

Ethical approval has been granted from the Cardiff University School of Medicine ethics committee (reference number SMREC22/96). Results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at workshops (including for the participants) and international academic conferences. The Euro-CAN network will also be used to disseminate the results, with results briefings and presentations to key public health and other relevant organisations in the field.

‘Healthier Wealthier Families’ (HWF) seeks to reduce financial hardship in the early years by embedding a referral pathway between Australia’s universal child and family health (CFH) services and financial counselling. This pilot study investigated the feasibility and short-term impacts of HWF, adapted from a successful Scottish initiative.

Setting: CFH services in five sites across two states, coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants: Caregivers of children aged 0–5 years experiencing financial hardship (study-designed screen). Design: Mixed methods. With limited progress using a randomised trial (RCT) design in sites 1–3 (March 2020–November 2021), qualitative interviews with service providers identified implementation barriers including stigma, lack of knowledge of financial counselling, low financial literacy, research burden and pandemic disruption. This informed a simplified RCT protocol (site 4) and direct referral model (no randomisation, pre–post evaluation, site 5) (June 2021–May 2022). Intervention: financial counselling; comparator: usual care (sites 1–4). Feasibility measures: proportions of caregivers screened, enrolled, followed up and who accessed financial counselling. Impact measures: finances (quantitative) and other (qualitative) to 6 months post-enrolment.

355/434 caregivers completed the screen (60%–100% across sites). In RCT sites (1–4), 79/365 (19%–41%) reported hardship but less than one-quarter enrolled. In site 5, n=66/69 (96%) caregivers reported hardship and 44/66 (67%) engaged with financial counselling; common issues were utility debts (73%), and obtaining entitlements (43%) or material aid/emergency relief (27%). Per family, financial counselling increased income from government entitlements by an average $A6504 annually plus $A784 from concessions, grants, brokerage and debt waivers. Caregivers described benefits (qualitative) including reduced stress, practical help, increased knowledge and empowerment.

Financial hardship screening via CFH was acceptable to caregivers, direct referral was feasible, but individual randomisation was infeasible. Larger-scale implementation will require careful, staged adaptations where CFH populations and the intervention are well matched and low burden evaluation.

ACTRN12620000154909.

Inflammation is a key mediator in the development and progression of the atherosclerotic disease process as well as its resultant complications, like myocardial infarction (MI), stroke and cardiovascular (CV) death, and is emerging as a novel treatment target. Trials involving anti-inflammatory medications have demonstrated outcome benefit in patients with known CV disease. In this regard, colchicine appears to hold great promise. However, there are potential drawbacks to colchicine use, as some studies have identified an increased risk of infection, and a non-significant trend for increased all-cause mortality. Thus, a more thorough understanding of the underlying mechanism of action of colchicine is needed to enable a better patient selection for this novel CV therapy.

The primary objective of the Canadian Study of Arterial Inflammation in Patients with Diabetes and Recent Vascular Events, Evaluation of Colchicine Effectiveness (CADENCE) trial is to assess the effect of colchicine on vascular inflammation in the carotid arteries and ascending aorta measured with ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/CT in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) or pre-diabetes who have experienced a recent vascular event (acute coronary syndrome (ACS)/MI, transient ischaemic attack (TIA) or stroke). Secondary objectives include determining colchicine’s effect on inflammatory biomarkers (high-sensitivity C reactive protein (hs-CRP) and interleukin-6 (IL-6)). Additionally, we will assess if baseline inflammation imaging or biomarkers are associated with a treatment response to colchicine determined by imaging. Exploratory objectives will look at: (1) the difference in the inflammatory response to colchicine in patients with coronary events compared with patients with cerebral events; (2) the difference in the inflammatory response to colchicine in different vascular beds; (3) the relationship of FDG-PET imaging markers with serum biomarkers and (4) assessment of quality-of-life changes.

CADENCE is a multicentre, prospective, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study to determine the effect of colchicine on arterial inflammation as assessed with imaging and circulatory biomarkers, specifically carotid arteries and aortic FDG uptake as well as hs-CRP and IL-6 among others. Patients with T2DM or pre-diabetes who have recently experienced a CV event (within 30–120 days after an ACS (ie, ST-elevation MI (STEMI) or non-STEMI)) or TIA/stroke with documented large vessel atherosclerotic disease will be randomised to treatment with either colchicine 0.6 mg oral daily or placebo. Participants will undergo baseline clinical evaluation including EQ5D assessment, blood work for inflammatory markers and FDG PET/CT scan of the ascending aorta and left and right carotid arteries. Patients will undergo treatment for 6 months and have repeat clinical evaluation including EQ5D assessment, blood work for inflammatory markers and FDG PET/CT scan at the conclusion of the study. The primary outcome will be the change in the maximum target to background ratio (TBR_max) in the ascending aorta (or carotid arteries) from baseline to follow-up on FDG PET/CT imaging.

Colchicine is an exciting potential new therapy for CV risk reduction. However, its use is associated with side effects and greater understanding of its underlying mechanism of action is needed. Importantly, the current study will determine whether its anti-inflammatory action is an indirect systemic effect, or a more local plaque action that decreases inflammation. The results will also help identify patients who will benefit most from such therapy.

NCT04181996.