Dementia is a complex medical condition that poses significant challenges to healthcare systems and support services. People living with dementia (PLWD) and their carers experience complex needs often exacerbated by social isolation and challenges in accessing support. Social prescribing (SP) seeks to enable PLWD and their carers to access community and voluntary sector resources to support them address such needs. Existing research, however, does not describe what SP interventions are currently in place in dementia care. Little is known about the needs these interventions are designed to address, the reasons that lead PLWD and their carers to participate in them, their effectiveness and the extent to which they could increase positive health outcomes if adopted and how.

A complex intervention systematic review of SP for PLWD and/or their carers will be conducted using an iterative logic model approach. Six electronic (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus and Cochrane/CENTRAL) and two grey literature databases (EThOS and CORE) were searched for publications between 1 January 2003 and June 2023, supplemented by handsearching of reference lists of included studies. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment, using Gough’s Weight of Evidence Framework, will be independently performed by two reviewers. A narrative approach will be employed to synthesise and report quantitative and qualitative data. Reporting will be informed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Complex Interventions extension statement and checklist.

No ethical approval is required due to this systematic review operating only with secondary sources. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and meetings with key stakeholders including healthcare professionals, patient and carer groups, community organisations (eg, the Social Prescribing Network and the Evidence Collaborative at the National Academy for Social Prescribing), policymakers and funding bodies.

CRD42023428625.

This paper will describe the research protocol for the Deadly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Nursing and Midwifery Mentoring (DANMM) Project, which will determine the feasibility and acceptability of a cultural mentoring programme designed for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander nurses and midwives across five diverse local health districts in New South Wales, Australia. Government and health agencies highlight the importance of culturally appropriate and safe environments for Aboriginal people. Specifically, New South Wales Health prioritises workforce strategies that support Aboriginal people to enter and stay in the health workforce. However, retaining Aboriginal nurses and midwives remains challenging. The DANMM Project aligns with these local and state-wide health plans and strategies, addressing critical issues of workforce cultural safety and retention.

A mixed-methods study design will be employed to assess feasibility, acceptability and preliminary efficacy of the DANMM Programme across five publicly funded local health districts in New South Wales, Australia. Adhering to cultural safety, a project cultural governance group will be formed. Quantitative outcome measures include the use of questionnaires (Nursing Workplace Satisfaction Questionnaire, Ganngaleh nga Yagaleh Cultural Safety assessment tool). Resource implications will be measured using the Organisational Commitment and Health Professional Program Readiness Assessment Compass. These will be triangulated with individual and group yarning circles to provide a holistic evaluation of the programme.

The study has ethics approval: Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council (#2054/23); New South Wales Health Human Research Committees (Greater Western Human Research Committee #2022/ETH01971, Murrumbidgee—site-specific approval, Sydney Local Health District—site-specific approval, Western Sydney Local Health District—site-specific approval and Mid North Coast—site-specific approval); and Charles Sturt University Human Research Committee (#2054/23). Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed articles, conferences and through roundtable discussions with key stakeholders.

Coexisting multiple health conditions is common among older people, a population that is increasing globally. The potential for polypharmacy, adverse events, drug interactions and development of additional health conditions complicates prescribing decisions for these patients. Artificial intelligence (AI)-generated decision-making tools may help guide clinical decisions in the context of multiple health conditions, by determining which of the multiple medication options is best. This study aims to explore the perceptions of healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients on the use of AI in the management of multiple health conditions.

A qualitative study will be conducted using semistructured interviews. Adults (≥18 years) with multiple health conditions living in the West Midlands of England and HCPs with experience in caring for patients with multiple health conditions will be eligible and purposively sampled. Patients will be identified from Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum; CPRD will contact general practitioners who will in turn, send a letter to patients inviting them to take part. Eligible HCPs will be recruited through British HCP bodies and known contacts. Up to 30 patients and 30 HCPs will be recruited, until data saturation is achieved. Interviews will be in-person or virtual, audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. The topic guide is designed to explore participants’ attitudes towards AI-informed clinical decision-making to augment clinician-directed decision-making, the perceived advantages and disadvantages of both methods and attitudes towards risk management. Case vignettes comprising a common decision pathway for patients with multiple health conditions will be presented during each interview to invite participants’ opinions on how their experiences compare. Data will be analysed thematically using the Framework Method.

This study has been approved by the National Health Service Research Ethics Committee (Reference: 22/SC/0210). Written informed consent or verbal consent will be obtained prior to each interview. The findings from this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conferences and lay summaries.

Many Canadians struggle to access the primary care they need while at the same time primary care providers report record levels of stress and overwork. There is an urgent need to understand factors contributing to the gap between a growing per-capita supply of primary care providers and declines in the availability of primary care services. The assumption of responsibility by primary care teams for services previously delivered on an in-patient basis, along with a rise in administrative responsibilities may be factors influencing reduced access to care.

In this mixed-methods study, our first objective is to determine how the volume of services requiring primary care coordination has changed over time in the Canadian provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. We will collect quantitative administrative data to investigate how services have shifted in ways that may impact administrative workload in primary care. Our second objective is to use qualitative interviews with family physicians, nurse practitioners and administrative team members providing primary care to understand how administrative workload has changed over time. We will then identify priority issues and practical response strategies using two deliberative dialogue events convened with primary care providers, clinical and system leaders, and policy-makers.

We will analyse changes in service use data between 2001/2002 and 2021/2022 using annual total counts, rates per capita, rates per primary care provider and per primary care service. We will conduct reflexive thematic analysis to develop themes and to compare and contrast participant responses reflecting differences across disciplines, payment and practice models, and practice settings. Areas of concern and potential solutions raised during interviews will inform deliberative dialogue events.

We received research ethics approval from Nova Scotia Health (#1028815). Knowledge translation will occur through dialogue events, academic papers and presentations at national and international conferences.

The objective of this study was to explore the outcomes of research engagement (patient engagement, PE) in the context of qualitative research.

We observed engagement in two groups comprised of patients, clinicians and researchers tasked with conducting a qualitative preference exploration project in inflammatory bowel disease. One group was led by a patient research partner (PLG, partner led group) and the other by an academic researcher (RLG, researcher led group). A semistructured guide and a set of critical outcomes of research engagement were used as a framework to ground our analysis.

The study was conducted online.

Patient research partners (n=5), researchers (n=5) and clinicians (n=4) participated in this study.

Transcripts of meetings, descriptive and reflective observation data of engagement during meetings and email correspondence between group members were analysed to identify the outcomes of PE.

Both projects were patient-centred, collaborative, meaningful, rigorous, adaptable, ethical, legitimate, understandable, feasible, timely and sustainable. Patient research partners (PRPs) in both groups wore dual hats as patients and researchers and influenced project decisions wearing both hats. They took on advisory and operational roles. Collaboration seemed easier in the PLG than in the RLG. The RLG PRPs spent more time than their counterparts in the PLG sharing their experience with biologics and helping their group identify a meaningful project question. A formal literature review informed the design, project materials and analysis in the RLG, while the formal review informed the project materials and analysis in the PLG. A PRP in the RLG and the PLG lead leveraged personal connections to facilitate recruitment. The outcomes of both projects were meaningful to all members of the groups.

Our findings show that engagement of PRPs in research has a positive influence on the project design and delivery in the context of qualitative research in both the patient-led and researcher-led group.

The Re-Evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions (REVISE) Trial aims to determine the impact of the proton pump inhibitor pantoprazole compared with placebo on clinically important upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in the intensive care unit (ICU), 90-day mortality and other endpoints in critically ill adults. The objective of this report is to describe the rationale, methodology, ethics and management of REVISE.

REVISE is an international, randomised, concealed, stratified, blinded parallel-group individual patient trial being conducted in ICUs in Canada, Australia, Saudi Arabia, UK, US, Kuwait, Pakistan and Brazil. Patients≥18 years old expected to remain invasively mechanically ventilated beyond the calendar day after enrolment are being randomised to either 40 mg pantoprazole intravenously or an identical placebo daily while mechanically ventilated in the ICU. The primary efficacy outcome is clinically important upper GI bleeding within 90 days of randomisation. The primary safety outcome is 90-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes include rates of ventilator-associated pneumonia, Clostridioides difficile infection, new renal replacement therapy, ICU and hospital mortality, and patient-important GI bleeding. Tertiary outcomes are total red blood cells transfused, peak serum creatinine level in the ICU, and duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU and hospital stay. The sample size is 4800 patients; one interim analysis was conducted after 2400 patients had complete 90-day follow-up; the Data Monitoring Committee recommended continuing the trial.

All participating centres receive research ethics approval before initiation by hospital, region or country, including, but not limited to – Australia: Northern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee and Mater Misericordiae Ltd Human Research Ethics Committee; Brazil: Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa; Canada: Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board; Kuwait: Ministry of Health Standing Committee for Coordination of Health and Medical Research; Pakistan: Maroof Institutional Review Board; Saudi Arabia: Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs Institutional Review Board: United Kingdom: Hampshire B Research Ethics Committee; United States: Institutional Review Board of the Nebraska Medical Centre. The results of this trial will inform clinical practice and guidelines worldwide.

NCT03374800.