To date, few studies have investigated the factors associated with musculoskeletal patients’ willingness to donate biological samples and their knowledge regarding the use of such samples. We investigated the associations between these distinct knowledge factors, patients’ willingness to donate and socio-demographic factors.

Cross-sectional survey.

Musculoskeletal outpatient clinics across four sites in England, representing varied demographic populations.

A total of 469 adult patients attending musculoskeletal appointments were recruited through convenience sampling.

Ordinal regression models were employed to identify socio-demographic and clinical predictors of patients’ willingness to donate biological samples. Other outcome measures specifically in two areas of patient knowledge include: (1) knowledge of sample use and (2) knowledge of surgical waste tissue value and management.

Only 37% of participants were aware of the term ‘biobank’. Despite this, participants showed a high level of knowledge regarding both biological sample use and surgical waste tissue management, although their understanding varied considerably by ethnicity and education. Participants with no formal education exhibited a lower level of knowledge in both areas related to sample use and surgical waste tissue management for biomedical research ((OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.61; p=0.001); (OR=0.29, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.52, p

Despite low awareness, musculoskeletal patients showed a high willingness to participate in biobanking. However, significant disparities by ethnicity and education persist. Targeted, inclusive engagement strategies are needed to address under-representation and foster informed, equitable participation of musculoskeletal patients in biomedical research.

Health systems must guarantee access to quality, safe and effective medicines. Essential medicine lists (EMLs) are crucial prioritisation tools to inform coverage decisions and steward limited health resources under the context of universal healthcare. This study aims to develop a consolidated framework for prioritising the assessment of health technologies to review and update EML for treating diseases or health problems managed in primary healthcare (PHC).

A mixed-methods approach was designed to validate the framework. An initial scoping systematic review will be conducted to search for studies that describe criteria used to prioritise the assessment of health technologies for PHC. The relevant studies will be examined using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodological framework for scoping review studies. A comprehensive search was conducted in the following sources: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Virtual Health Library (LILACS, WHO IRIS, IBECS, PAHO-IRIS, PAHO, LIS, BRISA), Health System Evidence, Global Healths, Health Evidence and Epistemonikos from the inception until February 2025. Two review authors will screen and extract data independently. The extracted data will be qualitatively analysed and presented in a diagrammatic or tabular form, alongside a narrative summary, in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis: Extension for Scoping Reviews reporting guidelines. An iterative process online using the Delphi hybrid with stakeholders through predetermined consensus thresholds, a combination of a four-point Likert scale and open-ended questions will be conducted to select and validate the criteria identified in the scoping review.

We will provide a consolidated framework to inform decision-makers for prioritising the assessment of health technologies for the national EML for PHC. This is an important step in using evidence to inform public health policies. We plan to share findings through a variety of means, including publications in peer-reviewed journals, presentations at national conferences, invited workshops and webinars, email discussion lists affiliated with our institutions and professional associations, and academic social media.

To identify and contextualise evidence-based strategies for implementing deprescribing practices at different levels of healthcare in Brazil, through the development of an evidence brief for policy that includes stakeholder deliberation and considers barriers, facilitators and equity aspects.

This protocol outlines the development of an evidence brief for policy using a mixed-methods design. It involves synthesising evidence for health policies by integrating global research and local evidence through three stages: stakeholder exchange, evidence brief development and external endorsement. The Supporting Policy-Relevant Reviews and Trials tools for evidence-informed health policies will guide both the synthesis of strategies and the facilitation of deliberative dialogues. The synthesis will encompass evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analysis on deprescribing strategies across healthcare levels, focusing on effectiveness, harms, costs, perceptions, barriers, facilitators and equity. Studies proposing strategies not yet implemented will be excluded. Study selection and data extraction will be conducted independently and in duplicate. The methodological quality of included studies will be assessed using the A Measurement Tool for Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews-2 criteria. Synthesised evidence will be used to develop evidence-based strategies, which will then be presented in deliberative dialogues for endorsement by stakeholders and adaptation to the Brazilian context. Endorsement rates will be classified as high, moderate or low based on predefined criteria.

This study was approved by the University of Sorocaba Research Ethics Committee (certificate 82098324.7.0000.5500). Informed consent will be obtained from all participants. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

CRD42024548845.