Although breastfeeding is associated with lower postnatal depression and anxiety, limited research exists regarding long-term maternal mental health outcomes. This study examined the association between breastfeeding and depression and anxiety in women of later reproductive age (mid 30s to menopause).

This was a 10-year prospective longitudinal cohort study. Self-reported questionnaires were used to collect lifetime breastfeeding behaviour at 10 years, and health history including depression, anxiety and medication use was collected at each study timepoint.

A tertiary level maternity hospital in Dublin, Ireland.

168 parous women from the ROLO Longitudinal Cohort with lifetime breastfeeding behaviour and health history data available at 10 years were included (22% of total cohort). Women currently pregnant or breastfeeding at 10-year follow-up were excluded.

Mean (SD) age at study end was 42.4 (3.8) years. 72.6% (n=122) of women reported ever breastfeeding. Median lifetime exclusive breastfeeding was 5.5 weeks (IQR 35.8, range 0–190). 37.5% of women (n=63) breastfed for ≥12 months over their lifetime. 13.1% (n=22) reported depression or anxiety at 10 years, and 20.8% (n=35) reported depression or anxiety over the whole study period. Ever breastfeeding was associated with less depression and anxiety at 10 years (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.94, p=0.04). Ever breastfeeding, longer exclusive breastfeeding and lifetime breastfeeding ≥12 months were associated with lower depression and anxiety over the whole study period (ever breastfeeding OR 0.4, p=0.03; exclusive breastfeeding OR 0.98/week, p=0.03; lifetime breastfeeding ≥12 months OR 0.38, p=0.04).

There may be a protective association between breastfeeding and self-reported depression and anxiety. Further studies are required to confirm the findings.

ISRCTN54392969.

Cardiovascular diseases, overweight, type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease increase the risk of cardiovascular events.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues are recommended by the European Society of Cardiology and the American College of Cardiology to lower the risk of death and progression of cardiovascular disease in patients with cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. Semaglutide, tirzepatide and liraglutide are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus and overweight. CagriSema is currently not approved, but several phase III trials are ongoing.

No previous systematic review has investigated the effects of semaglutide, tirzepatide, CagriSema and liraglutide, which may not be disease-specific, on hard binary outcomes for all trial populations at increased risk of cardiovascular events.

We will conduct a systematic review and search major medical databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica database, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index—Science) and clinical trial registries from their inception and onwards to identify relevant randomised trials. We expect to perform the literature search in December 2025. Two review authors will independently extract data and assess the risk of bias. We will include randomised trials assessing the effects of semaglutide, tirzepatide, CagriSema and/or liraglutide in participants with an increased risk of cardiovascular events. The primary outcome will be all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes will be myocardial infarction, stroke and all-cause hospitalisation. Data will be synthesised by aggregate data meta-analyses, Trial Sequential Analyses and network meta-analysis, risk of bias will be assessed with Cochrane Risk of Bias tool V. 2, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations and the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis approach.

This protocol does not present any results. Findings of this systematic review will be published in international peer-reviewed scientific journals.

CRD42024623312.

International migrants comprise 3.6% of the global population and face systemic barriers to accessing sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services, such as contraception, safe abortion care and sexual function support. In high-income countries, policy frameworks vary widely, with migration status significantly influencing entitlement and access to host countries. This protocol outlines a planned study to systematically analyse SRH policies in high-income countries with strong migrant integration frameworks, aiming to identify policy gaps, assess inclusivity and inform recommendations to strengthen Australia’s SRH policy landscape.

This study employs a systematic policy analysis using the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology. Countries with ≥10% migrant populations and a Migrant Integration Policy Index health score ≥70 will be included. 13 countries meet these criteria, including Australia, Canada and Sweden. A comprehensive search of academic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and ProQuest Public Health) and grey literature from governmental and non-governmental sources will be conducted. Data extraction will follow Bacchi’s ‘What’s the Problem Represented to Be?’ approach. Thematic analysis will combine deductive and inductive methods to examine the extent to which SRH policies address migrant and refugee needs, including sexual function, safe abortion care and fertility care. A comparative policy matrix will identify strengths, limitations and best practices.

As this study analyses publicly available policy documents, ethics approval is not required. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and policy briefs targeting stakeholders involved in SRH policy and migrant health.

This protocol is registered with the Open Science Framework (OSF): https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/AYZ6P

Although the WHO and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) classify preconception health risks (PCHRs) into biomedical, behavioural and social categories, this classification remains theoretical, mainly inconsistent and lacks a scientifically robust framework. Data-driven clustering techniques may help clarify this complexity for policymakers and healthcare providers. This study aimed to assess the status of PCHRs and identify latent classes of these risks among women preparing for pregnancy.

This community-based cross-sectional study was conducted from 31 July to 16 August 2024 in Tigray, Ethiopia, among 865 married women planning to conceive within the next 6 months. Data were gathered through face-to-face interviews using a structured questionnaire. Risk factor indicators covering lifestyle behaviours, substance use, nutritional risks and related factors were developed based on guidelines from the WHO, the CDC and national recommendations. Latent class analysis (LCA) was employed to identify distinct classes of PCHRs, with the optimal number of classes determined using statistical fit indices, adequacy criteria and interpretability. The study also evaluated the overall distribution of PCHRs among participants.

The study took place in Tigray, Ethiopia, among married women intending to become pregnant within 6 months.

Burden of PCHRs and identified distinct latent classes of these risks within the participants.

All participants were exposed to at least four PCHRs, with 84.2% experiencing between 6 and 12 risk factors. The optimal LCA model identified four distinct classes of PCHRs: lifestyle behavioural risks (n=458, 52.9%), reproductive health risks and chronic medical conditions (n=106, 12.25%), nutritional risks and environmental exposure (n=149, 17.23%) and social determinants of health (n=152, 17.57%).

Our study reveals a high baseline level of PCHRs, with all participants exhibiting multiple risk factors for adverse pregnancy outcomes. The identification of four distinct risk profiles underscores the need for tailored risk-specific interventions, particularly in conflict-affected settings. Our findings point out the need for targeted preconception care and risk stratification in national health strategies to improve maternal and child health outcomes.

Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is an aggressive primary brain tumour associated with a poor prognosis despite standard-of-care treatment, including surgical resection, radiotherapy and temozolomide (TMZ) chemotherapy. Certepetide (also known as LSTA1, CEND-1) is an investigational tumour-penetrating peptide that facilitates the extravascular delivery and intratumoural penetration of co-administered immune/chemotherapeutics; however, it has not yet been evaluated in clinical trials for the treatment of intracranial malignancies.

LSTA1-GBM-2A is an exploratory phase 2a, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, proof-of-concept investigator-initiated trial assessing the safety, tolerability and preliminary efficacy of certepetide in combination with standard-of-care TMZ, compared with TMZ with a matching placebo, in subjects with newly diagnosed GBM.

The trial is funded by Lisata Therapeutics, sponsored by Tartu University Hospital and conducted at hospitals in Estonia and Latvia. Subjects are randomised in a 2:1 ratio. Following initial surgery and radiotherapy with concurrent TMZ, the subjects receive intravenous certepetide or placebo alongside six cycles of adjuvant TMZ treatment. The primary endpoint is overall survival. The target number of subjects is 30. The first subject was recruited in January 2024, and accrual is ongoing.

This study was approved by the Republic of Estonia State Agency of Medicines (17 October 2023) and the State Agency of Medicines of the Republic of Latvia (1 February 2024). The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and reported at academic conferences.

2023-506813-23-00.

When deciding acute healthcare delivery location, multiple factors should be considered, including risks associated with potential care locations and the willingness of decision stakeholders to take those risks. Individual risk tolerance potentially informs these choices. We therefore aimed to investigate the risk tolerance of staff, patients and carers in front-door and ambulatory care units.

Several variants of the ‘multiple price list’ method of risk tolerance assessment were employed. The different variants covered financial and health outcomes, and known and unknown odds in the ‘risky’ options. For financial outcomes, participants made seven choices between a guaranteed (eg, £70) and risky (eg, chance of £20 or £160) outcome, with the higher quantity in the risky outcome increasing with each choice, in six ‘lottery sets’. For health outcomes, participants made choices between a guaranteed and risky outcome measured in number of healthy days.

Staff, patients and carers were recruited from front-door and ambulatory care units in the UK.

Risk tolerance was the primary outcome measure and was established in two ways—number of times the guaranteed option was chosen, and the point where participants switched from the guaranteed to the risky option.

Among 338 participants, a wide range of risk tolerance levels were demonstrated, and three key findings were identified—participants were less risk tolerant in health-based than financial decisions; older people had a more dichotomised approach to health risk-taking than younger people; and patients could engage in informed, structured discussions about risk, including when acutely unwell.

These findings suggest that, while stakeholders in location-of-care decisions may have different risk tolerance levels, they can engage in structured discussions about risk, which should inform shared decision-making. Additionally, older patients, who constitute a significant proportion of hospital attendees, may be more willing to take health-based risks than younger people. Future work may benefit from formal exploration of people’s rationale for their decisions and may be considered in other clinical settings.

Cellulitis is a common bacterial skin infection causing significant pain, swelling and impact on daily activities, frequently leading to emergency department presentations and hospital admissions. While antibiotics are the mainstay of treatment, they do not directly address inflammation, often resulting in persisting or worsening symptoms in the initial days. Corticosteroids, with their potent anti-inflammatory effects, have shown benefit in other acute infections but are not currently standard care for patients with cellulitis. This trial aims to determine if adjunctive oral dexamethasone can reduce pain and improve outcomes in adults with cellulitis presenting to UK urgent secondary care settings.

This is a pragmatic, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, parallel group, phase 3 superiority trial, with an internal pilot and parallel health economic evaluation. Adult patients (≥16 years) with a clinical diagnosis of cellulitis (at any body site except the orbit) presenting to urgent secondary care will be screened for eligibility. 450 participants will be randomised (1:1) to receive either two 8 mg doses of oral dexamethasone or matched placebo, administered approximately 24 hours apart, in addition to standard antibiotic therapy. The primary outcome is total pain experienced over the first 3 days postrandomisation, calculated using the standardised area under the curve from pain scores (Numerical Rating Scale 0–10) across up to seven timepoints. Secondary outcomes include health-related quality of life (EuroQol 5 Dimension 5 Level), patient global impression of improvement, analgesia and antibiotic usage, hospital (re)admissions, complications, unscheduled healthcare use, cellulitis recurrence and cost-effectiveness at 90 days. The primary estimand will apply a treatment policy approach to intercurrent events.

The trial has received ethical approval from South Central—Oxford B Research Ethics Committee (reference: 24/SC/0289) and will be conducted in compliance with Good Clinical Practice and applicable regulations. Informed consent will be obtained from all participants. A model consent form can be seen in . Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations, and to patient groups and relevant clinical guideline committees.

ISRCTN76873478.

Parkinson’s disease is a neurological disease with a rising incidence and prevalence. Patients with Parkinson’s disease may receive antipsychotics, for example, due to Parkinson’s disease psychosis. Parkinson’s disease psychosis is characterised by visual hallucinations and other psychotic symptoms. To date, no systematic review has evaluated the effects of antipsychotics in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Therefore, this review aims to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of antipsychotics for Parkinson’s disease.

This is a protocol for a systematic review. A search specialist will perform a search in major medical databases (eg, MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online), EMBASE (Excerpta Medica database), CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials)) and clinical trial registries. Published and unpublished randomised clinical trials comparing antipsychotics to any control (placebo, standard care or other antipsychotics) in patients with Parkinson’s disease will be included. Two review authors will independently extract data and conduct risk of bias assessments with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool—V.2. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and significant falls. Secondary outcomes will be hospitalisations, non-serious adverse events, Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale total score and psychotic symptoms using any valid symptom scale. Data will be synthesised by aggregate meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis and network meta-analysis. Several subgroup analyses are planned. An eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed by GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations) and CiNeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis) approach.

This protocol does not include results, and ethics approval is not required for the project. The findings from the systematic review will be published in international peer-reviewed scientific journals.

PROSPERO ID: CRD42025633985. Available from https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42025633985.

Incretin-based drugs, including glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (RAs) and dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 RAs, are increasingly used in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus and obesity. While these agents have shown cardiovascular benefits, their effects on both cardiovascular outcomes and cardiac structure and function remain uncertain—particularly in patients with and without a history of heart failure (HF).

We will conduct a systematic review and search major medical databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S)), as well as clinical trial registries from their inception and onwards to identify relevant randomised trials. The literature search is scheduled for July 2025. Two review authors will independently extract data and assess risk of bias. We will include randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of cagrilintide/semaglutide, liraglutide, semaglutide and tirzepatide in patients with and without a history of HF. The primary outcome will be cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes will include HF hospitalisation, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide, left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular end-diastolic volume and left ventricular end-systolic volume. Data will be synthesised by aggregate data meta-analyses and trial sequential analysis. Risk of bias will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, version 2, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE).

As this study is a systematic review based on secondary analysis of published data, ethical approval is not required. Findings will be published in international peer-reviewed scientific journals.

CRD420251003374.

People living with multiple long-term conditions (MLTC) admitted to hospital have worse outcomes and report lower satisfaction with care. Understanding how people living with MLTC admitted to the hospital are cared for is a key step in redesigning systems to better meet their needs. This scoping review aimed to identify existing evidence regarding clinical decision-making and care pathways for people with MLTC admitted to the hospital. In addition, we described research methods used to investigate hospital care for people living with MLTC.

A scoping review methodological framework formed the basis of this review. We took a narrative approach to describe our study findings.

A search of Medline, Embase and PsycInfo electronic databases in July 2024 captured relevant literature published from 1996 to 2024.

Studies that explored care pathways and clinical decision-making for people living with MLTC or co-morbidities, studies conducted fully or primarily in secondary or tertiary care published in English Language and with full text available.

Titles and abstracts were independently screened by two authors. Extracted data included country of origin, aims, study design, any use of an analytical framework or design, type of analyses performed, setting, participant group, number of participants included, health condition(s) studied and main findings. Included studies were categorised as either: studies reviewing existing literature, studies reviewing guidance, studies utilising qualitative methods or ‘other’.

A total of 521 articles were screened, 17 of which met the inclusion criteria. We identified a range of investigative methods. Eight studies used qualitative methods (interviews or focus groups), four were guideline reviews, four were literature reviews and one was classified as ‘other’. Often, researchers choose to combine methods, gathering evidence both empirically and from reviews of existing evidence or guidelines. However, none of the empirical qualitative studies directly or solely investigated clinical decision-making when treating people living with MLTC in acute care and the emergency department. Studies identified complexities in care for people living with MLTC, and some authors attempted to make their own recommendations or draft their own guidance to counter these.

This scoping review highlights the limitations of the current evidence base, which, while diverse in methods, provides sparse insights into clinical decision-making and care pathways for people living with MLTC admitted to hospital. Further research is recommended, including reviews of guidelines and gathering insights from both healthcare professionals and people living with MLTC.

Sleep is a biological necessity with vital effects on all tissues and organs of the body. Preoperative sleep disturbance is associated with increased postoperative pain intensity and opioid consumption. Given that insomnia is a potentially modifiable risk factor, interventions targeting sleep prior to surgery may improve postoperative pain control and enhance key outcomes of recovery.

Promoting Sleep to Alleviate Pain-Arthroplasty (PROSAP-A) is a randomised, parallel group, two arm, controlled trial evaluating the effects of preoperative sleep-promotion on postoperative pain control, brain health and physical recovery. The main objective is to investigate whether preoperative insomnia treatment in patients scheduled to undergo total knee arthroplasty (TKA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA) may improve acute postoperative pain control. 100 adults with insomnia disorder (Insomnia Severity Index score >10 and confirmed Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition criteria for persistent insomnia disorder), scheduled to undergo primary TKA or THA, will be randomised to preoperative cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) or an active comparator control intervention, sleep education therapy (SET). Both interventions will be delivered over 4 weeks in hybrid format through a digital self-guided platform in combination with weekly telehealth video sessions with a psychologist (CBT-I) or research nurse (SET). A video-assisted booster session will be provided 1–2 weeks postoperatively. The primary outcome measure is acute postoperative pain intensity, averaged over the first 7 postoperative days (POD). Secondary outcome measures include long-term postoperative pain control, changes in quantitative sensory testing variables (eg, temporal summation, conditioned pain modulation), sleep, cognition (eg, attention, memory, processing speed, executive function), mental health, health-related function, physical activity, quality of life and blood biomarkers. Participants will undergo on-site evaluation preoperative (preintervention and postintervention) and 6 months postoperative. Additional remote assessments will take place during POD1–7, 3 and 12 months postoperative.

The Swedish Ethical Review Authority has approved the PROSAP-A trial protocol. Results will be published in international peer-reviewed journals and summaries will be provided to funders and participants of the trial.

NCT06145516.

This study aims to assess the association between neighbourhood socioeconomic deprivation and outcomes reflecting comprehensive diabetes care (CDC).

Retrospective cohort study

US Medicare Advantage (MA) data, 2015–2020.

National sample of MA enrollees with diabetes.

Primary outcomes included six indicators of CDC from the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set: haemoglobin (Hb) A1c (HbA1c) testing, HbA1c control (9%), blood pressure control (

There were 827 227 enrolments included in the final analysis. After adjusting for demographic (age, sex, race/ethnicity and dual eligibility) and regional characteristics (rurality and primary care providers per capita), high neighbourhood deprivation was associated only with worse glycaemic control (for HbA1c>9%, risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.07). This relationship was significant for white and Asian patients (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.11 and RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.32, respectively); outcomes for black and Hispanic patients were worse overall but independent of neighbourhood deprivation (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.05 and RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.03, respectively). In the fully adjusted model, neighbourhood deprivation was not associated with measures that directly reflect access to care, including the occurrence of HbA1c testing and receipt of eye exams (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.04 and RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.05).

An increased risk of poor glycaemic control was observed for patients from areas of high neighbourhood deprivation, independent of individual socioeconomic status. Neighbourhood factors and their intersection with racial and ethnic disparities are important considerations for achieving equity in diabetes care.

Exposure is a central component in the treatment of a range of mental disorders. However, despite high efficacy and efficiency, dissemination of exposure-based treatments is limited. Important factors that contribute to this limited dissemination are negative beliefs about exposure on the part of the public, the therapists, and the patients. While patients perceive exposure therapy as burdensome, therapists are concerned about putting too much strain on their patients during exposure, leading to suboptimal delivery of exposure. In a previous study, in which healthy participants underwent a differential fear conditioning paradigm, we found initial evidence that the integration of a therapy dog into exposure reduces participants’ anxiety and increases participants’ positive affect without causing poor treatment outcome. Thus, the integration of a therapy dog into exposure might be a promising approach to address patients’ and therapists’ concerns and, thus, to (1) foster dissemination of exposure that is (2) delivered in an optimal manner. To scrutinise our findings in a clinical sample, we designed the present study. We test the following hypotheses: (H1) participants in the dog group report significantly less anxiety during the course of the treatment than participants in the control group. (H2) Participants in the dog group report significantly more positive affect during the course of the treatment than participants in the control group. (H3) Participants in the dog group report significantly higher therapy motivation than participants in the control group. (H4) Participants in the dog group report significantly lower anticipatory anxiety than participants in the control group. (H5) The treatment in the dog group is not inferior to the treatment in the control group.

In this parallel randomised controlled trial of two groups, n=88 participants (spider phobics without: a current diagnosis of a mental disorder other than a specific phobia, insect bite allergy, dog hair allergy, fear of dogs, current psychopharmacological treatment, and current psychotherapeutic treatment; the sample size calculation is based on the results from our previous study) are randomly allocated (with a 1:1 allocation as per a computer-generated randomisation schedule) to either an ambulant one-session in vivo exposure treatment of spider phobia with a therapy dog (dog group) or without a dog (control group). Due to the nature of the intervention, neither participants nor therapists can be blinded once participants are allocated to one of the two groups. However, the person conducting screening and diagnostics is blind to the allocation, participants are blind to the hypotheses and the respective other group, and the researchers are blind to the allocation while analysing the data. We will test (H1) and (H2), concerned with our primary outcomes, by means of 2x4 mixed analyses of variance with the between-subjects factor group (dog group vs. control group), the within-subjects factor time (with four levels, one for each time point anxiety and affect are measured during treatment), and anxiety or positive affect as the dependent variable, respectively. We will test (H3) and (H4) by means of an analyses of covariance with therapy motivation/anticipatory anxiety at baseline as the covariate, the between-subjects factor group (dog group vs. control group) and therapy motivation/anticipatory anxiety at pre-treatment as the dependent variable, respectively. We will test (H5) by means of 95% CIs and non-inferiority zones.

This trial was approved by our university’s ethics committee (reference number 24–11). Any deviations from this study protocol or the preregistrations as well as any adverse events potentially arising in the course of the trial, will be made explicit in the publication of the trial results. All participants provided written informed consent prior to the inclusion into the trial. The findings from this trial will be disseminated by means of common academic pathways, including peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. Following common open science practices, data and analysis code will also be made publicly available in anonymised form on the Open Science Framework (osf.io).

On 18 June 2024, this study was registered at the German Clinical Trials Register (ID: DRKS00034494; https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00034494) and preregistered at AsPredicted (https://aspredicted.org/JRP_SCF).