Outcome reporting in studies on sacrococcygeal teratoma (SCT) is highly heterogeneous, which limits comparability across studies and thus hampers the development of international treatment guidelines.

Variation in treatment and access to facilities contributes to differences in outcome reporting between centres and countries. Establishing a Core Outcome Set (COS) can improve consistency in outcome reporting and facilitate global collaboration and data comparison. We therefore aim to develop a Core Outcome Set for SCT (COS-SCT) using the Delphi method to achieve consensus on key outcomes. This will enhance the standardisation of outcome reporting and improve the quality of research and clinical care for SCT patients globally.

The development of the COS-SCT will consist of three phases. First, a systematic review will be performed to identify outcomes reported in studies on the surgical treatment of SCT in children. Second, an international Delphi survey will be conducted among key stakeholders, including clinicians, researchers and patient representatives, to establish consensus on outcome prioritisation. Finally, a consensus meeting with representatives from all stakeholder groups will be held to ratify the final Core Outcome Set. The study will follow methodological guidance from the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative and will be developed and reported in accordance with the Core Outcome Set Standards for Development (COS-STAD) and Core Outcome Set Standards for Reporting (COS-STAR).

The medical research ethics committee of the Amsterdam University Medical Centre (Amsterdam UMC) confirmed that the Dutch Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO) does not apply to this study, and therefore a full review by the ethics committee is not required. This study is registered in the COMET initiative database. Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed academic journals and conference presentations.

Trial registration number: COMET registration number 3485

Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are measures of patients’ perceptions of care they receive. PREMs are critical in developing and evaluating programmes that aim to improve patient healthcare experiences and quality of care (QoC) according to patient-defined needs. This review aims to map key domains of PREMs across distinct healthcare technical areas and life stages from globally available literature.

A scoping review adapting Arksey and O’Malley’s framework and Joanna Briggs Institute’s guidelines for the conduct of scoping reviews.

Google Scholar, PubMed, WHO, US Academy of Medicine and USAID Momentum.

PREMs literature from electronic repositories of grey and peer-reviewed publications, published in English historically up to September 2023.

Two lead reviewers with support from the technical working group co-created a review framework of healthcare technical areas, life stages and PREMs domains. We screened eligible articles, prioritising reviews except for technical areas with no reviews, where we then selected individual studies. We charted, analysed and synthesised data from 52 eligible articles.

PREMs literature has recently increased, especially in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), although studies in high-income countries (HICs) dominate in proportion (n=38; 73.1%). Out of 52 eligible articles, technical areas with most publications were sexual and reproductive health (n=21; 40.4%) and general outpatient care (n=11; 21.2%). Studies in adulthood (n=24; 46.2%) and from pregnancy and birth to postnatal (n=16; 30.8%) were most represented. PREMs studies reported mostly on communication and rapport (n=33; 63.5%) and respect and dignity (n=42; 80.8%) domains. Nearly a quarter (n=12; 23.1%) of the articles included only validated tools; the rest included a combination of validated and unvalidated measures. Of the tools relating to life stages of babies, younger children and older adults, the majority (n=17; 94.4%) included patient proxies.

PREMs, as an important component of QoC measurement, are increasing across several healthcare technical areas and life stages with commonalities and notable distinctions in measurement domains and tools. Evidence on PREMs largely comes from HICs. Evidence on critical, yet sometimes overlooked domains, highlights key QoC implementation gaps. The adaptation and utilisation of PREMs in programmes, especially in LMICs and under-represented technical areas, present opportunities to close the QoC disparities in those settings. Strategic, concerted efforts towards the harmonisation of PREMs tools across multiple life course stages and technical areas are critically needed in high-level quality improvement efforts.

Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is the classical hepatobiliary manifestation of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). No therapy currently halts disease progression. The strong gut–liver axis implicated in PSC pathogenesis supports the investigation of microbiome-targeted treatments. Oral vancomycin (OV), an antibiotic with potential immunomodulatory properties, has shown encouraging results in improving clinical symptoms and liver biochemistry in PSC. However, prospective data on its safety and efficacy remain limited.

Oral Vancomycin for primary sclerosing Cholangitis in ITaly (VanC-IT) is a phase II, dose-finding, randomised, placebo-controlled, trial designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of OV in patients with PSC, with or without underlying IBD. Adults and adolescents aged 15–75 years will be enrolled following a 10-week screening and run-in period and randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive either placebo, OV 750 mg/day or OV 1500 mg/day for 24 weeks. Randomisation will be stratified by baseline liver stiffness (

The protocol has been approved by the Ethics Committee CE Brianza on 10 February 2023, number 4017. Trial registration number NCT05876182. Participants will be required to provide written informed consent. The results of this trial will be disseminated through national and international presentations and peer-reviewed publications.

NCT05876182.

Health cadres, who assist midwives in supporting pregnant women in community settings, need to enhance their competencies in identifying risk factors and referring high-risk pregnant women to midwives for further care. Since the capabilities of these health cadres are influenced by maternal complications, an educational programme was implemented to strengthen their skills. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the competency of health cadres by providing a researcher-developed educational programme.

An open-label, cluster non-randomised controlled trial.

Health cadres with at least 1 year of work experience were recruited at six public health centres (PHCs) in Banjarnegara Regency, Indonesia.

Six PHCs were selected and allocated into intervention group (IG=3 PHCs) and control group (CG=3 PHCs) groups. A total of 133 female health cadres were enrolled across the selected PHCs. At each PHC, a systematic random sampling method was used to select the participants. The researchers and health professionals provided a 3-week period of theoretical and scenario-based simulations to the IG, while the CG received no education.

Researcher-developed questionnaires and checklists were used to assess the knowledge, skills (health assessment, communication, attitude) and confidence. The primary endpoint was competency, a total score of knowledge and skills. The outcome domains were compared between the two groups, and a linear mixed-effect model was used to account for cluster-level variation.

A total of 130 (97.7%) completed the study (IG:64, CG:66). The competency score showed significant improvement at endline (CG=49.5 and IG=52.5; p=0.002). The median scores for health assessment skills (CG=12 vs IG=14; p

Education effectively increased the competency of health cadres. A well-structured education programme is necessary for health cadres to improve and maintain their competencies in monitoring high-risk pregnant women.

NCT06134518.

The work of receptionists in general practice is evolving rapidly and becoming more complex due to a number of changes within primary and community care services, such as increased digitalisation. In under-served areas, these changes have been further complicated by under-resourcing and workforce challenges around staff recruitment and retention. The National Health Service (NHS) 10-year health plan is set to accelerate further significant changes. There is limited understanding about how and why these changes and workforce challenges are impacting and will impact the future work of receptionists in general practice in under-served areas.

This realist review will build on an existing programme theory related to general practitioner workforce sustainability. The review will examine what works, for whom, how and under what circumstances for receptionist work in general practice, in under-served areas. For example, how influences such as the expectations of patients (in under-served communities), poor staffing or limited career progression. Key stakeholders, including public contributors and individuals from general practice settings, will inform the realist review.

The review will be conducted using existing secondary and grey literature sources. The search strategy comprises five electronic databases: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Web of Science Core Collection (SCIE, SSCI, AHCI) with a date limit of 2015 applied to the search. The review will follow Pawson’s five steps: (1) shaping the scope of the review; (2) searching for evidence; (3) document selection and appraisal; (4) data extraction and (5) data synthesis. The findings will be reported in accordance with the Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis Evolving Standards.

Ethical approval is not needed for secondary analysis. The findings of this review will contribute to ongoing work as part of our ‘Workforce Voices’ programme of research. They will be disseminated to policymakers, commissioners, providers of health and social care and primary care and community healthcare teams through peer-reviewed publications, members of the public, conference presentations, social media and recommendations.

To examine how clinicians’ scepticism regarding patients’ self-reports of subjective symptoms can be internalised, leading to psychosocial and medical harms.

In-depth, semi-structured qualitative interviews with the resulting data analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

43 individuals with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS) from Europe and North America completed a pre-survey, and 39 of those participants completed interviews for this study. Purposive sampling was used to obtain approximately equal numbers of participants with hypermobile EDS and the molecularly defined types of EDS.

Patients with both hypermobile and molecularly defined types of EDS reported high levels of self-doubt, with 73% of survey respondents questioning the extent—and even reality—of their private experiences of pain. Participants attributed much of their self-doubt to repeated dismissal and minimisation of their symptoms in healthcare settings, especially during childhood. Ultimately, self-doubt transformed not merely how they communicated their symptoms but also how they recognised, evaluated and even experienced them at a phenomenological level. While some participants developed coping strategies, others withdrew from the conventional medical system altogether.

These findings have important implications for clinicians, who may inadvertently reinforce self-doubt through discussion of diagnostic uncertainty. Doubt need not be delegitamising. Recognising and mitigating these potential harms requires epistemic humility and attention to the psychosocial dynamics of patient-provider interaction.

To explore whether routine electronic healthcare records can be used to identify triggers for initiating advance care planning (ACP) and the optimal time window to initiate ACP. We aimed to assess the prevalence of triggers for initiating ACP as defined for use in routine data, whether their presence is associated with death, and what their position is relative to a previously identified ‘optimal time window for ACP’.

Nested case-control study within a large dynamic population cohort dataset.

Primary care population-based, anonymised data extracted from GP centres in the South Holland province, The Netherlands.

We selected records of individuals aged ≥65 registered with their general practice from 1 Jan 2014 to 1 Jan 2017. Cases were individuals who died between 1 Jan 2017 and 1 Jan 2020. Controls were individuals who remained alive. Cases were matched by age to controls in a 1:4 ratio.

Outcomes include prevalence of triggers for ACP in the records of deceased and living individuals; association of the triggers’ presence with death; timing of the identified triggers in deceased individuals relative to the ‘optimal time window for ACP’.

We included 17098 records, 4139 from deceased individuals (mean age 81) and 12959 from living individuals (mean age 79). Triggers most strongly associated with death were consultations concerning malignancy (OR 8.35, 95% CI 7.42 to 9.41), hospital admissions (OR 7.32, 95% CI 6.75 to 7.94), emergency department referrals (OR 7.11, 95% CI 6.52 to 7.75), registered home visits (OR 5.97, 95% CI 5.51 to 6.47), consultations concerning heart failure (OR 5.25, 95% CI 4.59 to 5.99), dementia (OR 4.75, 95% CI 3.99 to 6.56), opioid prescriptions (OR 4.58 (4.25–4.93), consultations concerning general decline/feeling old (OR 4.15, 95% CI 3.72 to 4.64) and skin ulcers/pressure sores (OR 4.04, 95% CI 3.55 to 4.61). Those closest to the median of the optimal time window for ACP were consultations regarding dyspnoea, general decline/feeling old, heart failure, skin ulcers/pressure sores and fever, opioid prescriptions, emergency department referrals, registered home visits and hospital admissions.

Clinical triggers for initiating ACP in general practice can be recognised within the routine electronic health records and they align well with the ‘window of opportunity’ to initiate ACP.

Our objective was to examine the barriers and facilitators encountered by primary and secondary healthcare professionals when collaborating at the care continuum between primary and secondary care. We aimed to identify specific challenges, observed benefits and proposed changes. By analysing these experiences and identifying opportunities for redesign, we aimed to define specific domains that could improve collaboration, thereby supporting sustainable access to and quality of care in the face of rising demand and constrained resources.

A qualitative exploratory study using semi-structured interview data guided by two domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), including Inner Setting—Tension for Change and Individual Characteristics, as well as selected implementation outcomes defined by Proctor et al, all viewed through a service (re)design lens.

Consultation and communication between primary and secondary healthcare professionals in a Dutch urbanised area.

37 users of collaboration services (eg, telephone, correspondence) were interviewed between August 2021 and October 2022, including 14 general practitioners (GPs) (10 females, 4 males) and 23 specialists (10 females, 13 males).

Four key domains with subthemes, subdivided per operation and CFIR domain, were identified as central to optimising the collaboration of professionals within the primary-secondary care continuum: (1) software and record integration; (2) seamless personal interaction; (3) eliminating a sense of ‘us vs them’ and (4) gaps in continuity of care.

This study reveals that healthcare professionals in both primary and secondary care face similar collaboration challenges due to system-level issues and inadequate collaboration tools, leading to increased workload, miscommunication and reduced quality of care. Improving collaboration between GPs and specialists requires not only adjustments to individual services, but a comprehensive overhaul of the referral and back-referral process. A more integrated approach, addressing key domains, is crucial for enhancing care quality, streamlining workflows and improving health outcomes.

Intervention adaptation is likely to occur to some extent when implementing interventions in new implementation contexts. Using systematic frameworks can guide intentional and effective adaptation processes. Intervention Mapping for Adaptation (IM-ADAPT) is a framework that offers step-by-step guidance for systematic, theory-based intervention adaptation. Despite the increasing use of IM-ADAPT, there is limited understanding of the contexts in which it has been applied and how effectively it is used and reported. Addressing this knowledge gap can improve current adaptation practices and inform future enhancements of the IM-ADAPT framework and the broader science of intervention adaptation. This review aims to (1) determine the context in which IM-ADAPT is used, (2) assess how studies apply IM-ADAPT tasks and (3) evaluate how these studies report their IM-ADAPT findings.

This protocol followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines. The eligibility criteria include original peer-reviewed English articles that used Intervention Mapping or IM-ADAPT to adapt interventions. We searched PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Embase and the Intervention Mapping literature library, and conducted forward citation searches using two landmark articles from inception to 19 July 2024. At least two independent coders will screen the records to determine eligibility and extract data from the included articles. Any discrepancies will be resolved through regular co-author meetings or in consultation with a senior author. The study protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/D5TCP).

As this systematic review only used published data, no ethics approval was required. We will disseminate the findings of this review through open-access channels and journals.

Cystic fibrosis-related diabetes (CFRD) is one of the most clinically impactful comorbidities associated with cystic fibrosis (CF). Current recommended management with insulin therapy is challenging due to variable daily insulin requirements and adds to the significant burden of self-management. This study aims to determine if hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery can improve glucose outcomes compared with standard insulin therapy with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in young people (≥16 years) and adults with CFRD.

This open-label, multicentre, randomised, two-arm, single-period parallel design study aims to randomise 114 young people (≥16 years) and adults with CFRD. Following a 2–3 weeks’ run-in period, during which time participants use a masked CGM, participants with time in target glucose range (3.9–10.0 mmol/L) 10.0 mmol/L), mean glucose and HbA1c. Other secondary efficacy outcomes include glucose and insulin metrics, change in forced expiratory volume in 1 s and body mass index. Safety, utility, participant experiences and participant-reported outcome measures will also be evaluated. The trial is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Ethics approval has been obtained from East of England–Cambridge South Research Ethics Committee. Results will be disseminated by peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations, and findings will be shared with people living with CF, healthcare providers and relevant stakeholders.

NCT05562492.

Despite the known haemostatic action of emicizumab (Hemlibra) in haemophilia A patients, its role in the prevention and control of bleeding in high-demand haemostatic situations, such as major surgery, remains to be determined. Patients receiving regular emicizumab prophylaxis often require concomitant factor VIII (FVIII) therapy during major surgery to prevent uncontrolled bleeding and to promote postoperative healing. However, there are limited prospective surgical data relating to concomitant FVIII and emicizumab use. Simoctocog alfa (Nuwiq) is a B-domain deleted recombinant FVIII produced in a human cell line without chemical modification or protein fusion with proven efficacy as surgical prophylaxis in adult and paediatric patients. The Nuwiq for Perioperative management Of patients With haemophilia A on Emicizumab Regular prophylaxis (NuPOWER) study aims to examine perioperative efficacy and safety of simoctocog alfa in haemophilia A patients on emicizumab prophylaxis undergoing major surgery.

NuPOWER is a prospective, open-label, single-arm, multicentre study that will be conducted at approximately 15 centres worldwide. Up to 28 male patients ≥12 years with severe haemophilia A and no FVIII inhibitors will be recruited. All patients must be receiving regular emicizumab prophylaxis and scheduled to undergo a major surgical procedure during which concomitant simoctocog alfa will be administered. The primary endpoint is the overall haemostatic efficacy of simoctocog alfa, adjudicated by an independent data monitoring committee using a pre-defined algorithm, and will consider intraoperative and postoperative efficacy assessments by the surgeon and investigator, respectively. Secondary endpoints include intraoperative haemostatic efficacy, postoperative haemostatic efficacy, number of allogeneic blood products transfused, perioperative FVIII plasma levels (as measured by FVIII activity) and thrombin generation, and safety parameters. In the era of non-factor therapy, NuPOWER will generate valuable prospective data on concomitant use of simoctocog alfa and emicizumab prophylaxis in patients with severe haemophilia A undergoing major surgery.

Ethical approval has been received from institutional review boards/independent ethics committees, and the study will be conducted in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki. This work will be disseminated by publication of peer-reviewed manuscripts and presentations at scientific meetings.

CT EU 2022-502060-21-00; NCT05935358.

Frailty is a key predictor of adverse surgical outcomes in older adults, contributing to increased postoperative complications, prolonged hospitalisation and delayed recovery. Prehabilitation—targeting improvements in physical function before surgery—can mitigate these risks. However, traditional programmes often face low adherence due to logistical barriers. Integrating smart wearable devices into tele-supervised, home-based prehabilitation may enhance adherence, engagement and clinical outcomes.

This trial protocol describes the PREhabilitation of frail elderly PAtients undergoing majoR surgEry at HOME study with the objective to evaluate the effectiveness of a wearable-enhanced, tele-supervised prehabilitation programme (swSEP) versus standard care (unsupervised prehabilitation, uSEP) on improving preoperative functional capacity and postoperative outcomes in frail older adults undergoing major elective surgery.

This single-centre, prospective, randomised controlled trial will enrol 190 patients aged ≥65 years scheduled for major elective, non-cardiac surgery at Singapore General Hospital. Participants with frailty (Edmonton Frail Scale ≥6) will be randomised 1:1 to either the swSEP group (tele-supervised exercise with Fitbit Inspire 3 monitoring) or the uSEP group (standard physiotherapy education, exercise booklet and inspiratory muscle training if maximal inspiratory pressure 2O). The primary outcome is change in 6 min walk test distance from baseline to 1–3 days presurgery. Secondary outcomes include 30 s sit-to-stand test, handgrip strength, postoperative complications (per American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program), hospital length of stay, readmissions, five-level version of the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and adherence. Data will be analysed using t-tests, analysis of covariance, logistic regression and Cox models, with stratification by baseline nutritional status.

Approved by the SingHealth Institutional Review Board (CIRB Ref: 2024/2242). Trial registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06633614). Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and academic conferences. Contact: irb@singhealth.com.sg

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06633614

Rapid identification of high-risk and low-risk patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) influences clinical management and can help optimise patient outcomes as well as resource allocation. This study aims to externally validate the Risk Stratification in the Emergency Department in Acutely Ill Older Patients (RISE UP) score in adult patients in the ED with suspected infection. Furthermore, generalisability was assessed by comparing the discriminatory ability of the RISE UP with the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) as well as the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) and National Early Warning Score (NEWS).

Retrospective cohort study.

Single-centre study in the ED of a tertiary, university-affiliated hospital.

Adult patients with suspected infection presenting at the ED for internal medicine from 2016 to 2022.

The primary outcome was all-cause 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were all-cause 14-day mortality, 7-day mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

Prognostic performance was evaluated using discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC)) and a calibration plot.

Of the included 5038 ED visits, there was a 30-day mortality of 7.1%. Discrimination of RISE UP for 30-day mortality was good (AUC 0.809; 95% CI 0.786 to 0.832) and significantly higher than that for the other risk scores: qSOFA (AUC 0.675; 95% CI 0.644 to 0.707), MEWS (AUC 0.688; 95% CI 0.658 to 0.718) and NEWS (AUC 0.725; 95% CI 0.696 to 0.754) (p

The RISE UP score outperformed the qSOFA, MEWS and NEWS in predicting 30-day mortality. It is generalisable to an adult infection-specific cohort and may facilitate distinction between high-risk and low-risk patients in the ED, particularly to rule out poor outcomes.

The aim of this study was to prioritise a set of indicators to measure World Health Organization (WHO) quality-of-care standards for small and/or sick newborns (SSNB) in health facilities. The hypothesis is that monitoring prioritised indicators can support accountability mechanisms, assess and drive progress, and compare performance in quality-of-care (QoC) at subnational levels.

Prospective, iterative, deductive, stepwise process to prioritise a list of QoC indicators organised around the WHO Standards for improving the QoC for small and sick newborns in health facilities. A technical working group (TWG) used an iterative four-step deductive process: (1) articulation of conceptual framework and method for indicator development; (2) comprehensive review of existing global SSNB-relevant indicators; (3) development of indicator selection criteria; and (4) selection of indicators through consultations with a wide range of stakeholders at country, regional and global levels.

The indicators are prioritised for inpatient newborn care (typically called level 2 and 3 care) in high mortality/morbidity settings, where most preventable poor neonatal outcomes occur.

The TWG included 24 technical experts and leaders in SSNB QoC programming selected by WHO. Global perspectives were synthesised from an online survey of 172 respondents who represented different countries and levels of the health system, and a wide range of perspectives, including ministries of health, research institutions, technical and implementing partners, health workers and independent experts.

The 30 prioritised SSNB QoC indicators include 27 with metadata and 3 requiring further development; together, they cover all eight standard domains of the WHO quality framework. Among the established indicators, 10 were adopted from existing indicators and 17 adapted. The list contains a balance of indicators measuring inputs (n=6), processes (n=12) and outcome/impact (n=9).

The prioritised SSNB QoC indicators can be used at health facility, subnational and national levels, depending on the maturity of a country’s health information system. Their use in implementation, research and evaluation across diverse contexts has the potential to help drive action to improve quality of SSNB care. WHO and others could use this list for further prioritisation of a core set.

Post-surgical care following cochlear implantation is a pivotal part of the rehabilitation journey for cochlear implant (CI) recipients. However, frequent in-clinic visits, particularly in the first year following CI activation, can place a significant burden on CI recipients. Moreover, the growing number of CI recipients may pose a challenge for CI clinics to provide consistent and lifelong care. Cochlear Remote Care is a platform that enables the delivery of post-surgical care through remote hearing assessments and remote video appointments, offering an opportunity to enhance clinic efficiency, eliminate geographical barriers, reduce financial burdens and provide flexible post-surgical options. The primary objective of this study is to compare self-reported hearing ability in daily life among CI recipients who receive post-surgical care through Remote Care with those receiving routine in-clinic care during the first year following CI activation. Additionally, the study will assess the time and costs associated with these care models for both the clinic and patients.

This multi-centre randomised controlled trial is set to be conducted across 11 clinics in the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Australia, with an anticipated sample size of 148 participants. All participants will be adults with post-lingual deafness and unilateral CIs. Following baseline measurements at 3 months post-activation, participants will be randomly assigned to either in-clinic visits or Remote Care appointments. At six and 12 months after activation, participants will complete a comprehensive battery of audiometric tests and questionnaires on patient-reported outcomes, usability and resource utilisation.

Ethics approval has been obtained for each clinical site. Study findings will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publications, lay language summaries and conference presentations.

NCT05552118.

The introduction of fentanyl and its analogues in the illicit drug supply has prompted greater emphasis on refining clinical treatment protocols to ensure sustained retention in opioid agonist treatment (OAT). Take-home dosing may lessen the treatment burden on clients and thus reduce the risk of treatment discontinuation. The evidence base supporting the use of take-home dosing, including the optimal duration of dispensations, is, however, limited. The objective of this study is to determine the comparative effectiveness of alternative take-home dosing schedules, as observed in clinical practice in British Columbia, Canada from 2010 to 2022.

We propose to emulate a target trial with a population-level retrospective study of individuals initiating methadone or buprenorphine/naloxone between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2022 who are 18 years of age or older and not currently incarcerated or pregnant with no history of cancer or palliative care. Our study will draw on nine linked health administrative databases from British Columbia and will evaluate take-home doses of 2–5 days, 6 days or >6 days compared with continuous daily dosing. The primary outcomes include OAT discontinuation and all-cause mortality on treatment. A causal per-protocol analysis is proposed with longitudinal matching and inverse probability of censoring weighting approaches to adjust for time-fixed and time-varying confounding. A range of sensitivity analyses will be executed to determine the robustness of results.

The protocol, cohort creation and analysis plan have been classified and approved as a quality improvement initiative by Providence Health Care Research Ethics Board and the Simon Fraser University Office of Research Ethics. Results will be disseminated and shared with local advocacy groups and decision-makers, developers of national and international clinical guidelines, presented at national and international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals electronically and in print.

Adolescence is a critical period marked by rapid brain development and the onset of many mental health disorders. Brain MRI studies during adolescence, especially when paired with behavioural phenotypes and information about genetic risk factors, hold promise to advance early identification of mental health risk and spur the creation of targeted treatments to improve patient function, prognosis and quality of life. However, prospective neuroimaging is costly and time-intensive, and individuals who participate may not be reflective of the general population. These challenges are compounded when examining adolescents, as many families lack the time, energy or resources to participate in studies that use research-grade imaging. Repurposing clinical MRIs obviates many of the challenges of neuroimaging research. Here, we describe the brain-behaviour-genetics study protocol. This protocol describes procedures used to recruit participants with recent high-quality clinical brain MRIs and prospectively acquire genetic and sociobehavioural data, resulting in a highly cost-efficient design that harnesses a vast and underused neuroscientific resource.

The brain-behaviour-genetics protocol aims to recruit 1000 adolescents who have clinical brain MRIs contained in Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s electronic health record. One or both parents of the adolescent proband will be recruited when possible. Parents and adolescents will complete a series of self-report scales spanning the domains of mental health, trauma, risk and resilience. Saliva samples will be collected from the adolescent and at least one biological parent, using an at-home saliva collection kit. Subsequent analysis will examine associations between brain development, genetics and behavioural measures in adolescence.

Approval for the study had been obtained from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s institutional review board (IRB #23–0 20 851). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals.

Hospital falls persist as a major threat to patient safety. This study aimed to develop an interprofessional reference standard to prevent, manage and report hospital falls.

A Delphi consensus methodology, informed by the Conducting and Reporting Delphi Studies guideline, was used to design the reference standard. An interprofessional expert panel (n=47) of health professionals, researchers, policymakers and consumers participated in three Delphi rounds. Following the review of clinical guidelines, an e-Delphi survey was developed and piloted to derive 60 initial items for the standard. Two iterative rounds of e-Delphi surveys were distributed via Research Electronic Data Capture and included free-text questions and 9-point Likert scales. An online consensus meeting followed, to ratify the final standard.

In the first Delphi round, there was over 80% agreement for 44/60 items to be included in the reference standard. This increased to 48/60 items in Round 2. At the final consensus meeting, 12 items still did not reach consensus for inclusion and one was added, yielding 49 items. Items that replicated text according to falls with injury/without injury were combined, resulting in 42 items in the final reference standard. Agreed items included: (1) brief screening of falls risk on hospital admission; (2) comprehensive falls assessment for inpatients who are older, frailer or have complex conditions; (3) single interventions (such as environmental adaptations and exercise); (4) multifactorial interventions; (5) education of patients, families and staff; (6) optimising local falls hospital policies, procedures and leadership capability; (7) optimising documentation and reporting; (8) improving accreditation processes; (9) workforce redesign to augment falls education. Items that did not reach agreement (n=12) pertained to alarms, bed rails, grip socks, artificial intelligence, volunteers and care bundles.

This new reference standard provides a checklist for staff, patients, managers and policymakers to reduce unwanted variations in prevention, management and reporting of hospital falls.

ANZCTR 386960

Disabled resident doctors face persistent structural, cultural and institutional barriers to career progression. This integrative review synthesises empirical and grey literature to identify the challenges disabled doctors encounter, the practices that support their careers and the potential solutions applicable to healthcare, in particular National Health Service (NHS), settings.

Integrative literature review using a content analysis approach to data analysis. Included sources were published in English and examined disabled doctors’ career progression or included disabled doctors as a separate subgroup. Opinion pieces without empirical grounding and articles not available in full text were excluded.

International postgraduate medical education, with consideration for transferability and applicability to the UK NHS.

Focused on the experiences and careers of disabled resident doctors, at any stage of their career, prior to completion of training.

Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Equity guidelines, 53 sources were included and analysed. Structural ableism, inaccessible systems and stigma around disclosure were consistently identified as barriers to career progression. Facilitators included mentorship, affirming supervisory relationships and identity-affirming networks. Promising practices included universal design approaches, anticipatory rather than reactive approaches to making adjustments and integration of disability equity into organisational governance. However, most initiatives remain unevaluated, and UK-specific evidence is limited.

While awareness of barriers is growing, evidence-based solutions remain underdeveloped and unevenly implemented. To build a sustainable and representative medical workforce, workforce policy and planning must not only remove barriers to progression for disabled doctors, but also embed disability inclusion into the structures and cultures that shape medical career paths.

Cancer remains a major public health concern worldwide. Patient navigation, developed in the 1990s to address disparities in cancer outcomes, aims to guide patients through the complex healthcare system and improve access to timely, quality care. Despite its proven benefits, little is known about the implementation or impact of patient navigation programmes in African settings.

This scoping review aims to map the current evidence on components, procedures, outcomes and impact, as well as barriers and challenges to implementation of patient navigation programmes in cancer care across Africa.

This scoping review will follow Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping review framework, as further developed by Levac et al. A systematic search will be conducted across PubMed, African Journals Online and Google Scholar to identify relevant studies published from database inception to the date of the final search, using a combination of relevant keywords and MeSH terms. Eligible studies must be reported in English, have been carried out in Africa, involved patients diagnosed with cancer or navigating the cancer care continuum, and report on the description, implementation or evaluation of patient navigation programmes. Screening will be managed with Rayyan and carried out through a two-stage process: screening by titles and abstracts, then by full-text screening based on the prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data will be extracted into a structured Excel spreadsheet and synthesised using qualitative content analysis to identify programme characteristics, outcomes, barriers and implementation challenges.

This scoping review does not require ethical approval. Our findings will be published in a peer-reviewed, open-access journal on completion.