Retroperitoneal sarcomas (RPS) are rare and often large malignancies that frequently require extensive surgery for complete tumour removal. Resections of the colorectum are part of the standard resection, this way contributing to complication rates, including anastomotic leakage or obstruction. Surgical strategies for stoma formation and colorectal reconstruction remain poorly defined. The Colorectal Resections and Postoperative Quality of Life in Retroperitoneal Sarcoma Patients Across German-Speaking Sarcoma Centres (COLOSARC-Q) study aims to explore surgical procedures and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients undergoing colorectal procedures during RPS surgery.

COLOSARC-Q is a prospective, multicentre, non-interventional study and will recruit 120 patients with primary RPS who undergo colorectal resection as part of sarcoma surgery in a sarcoma referral centre in Germany or Switzerland. HRQoL is assessed using standardised questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-CR29) as well as semi-structured interviews by psycho-oncology services and patient advocates. Data will be collected via an electronic Case Report Form, encompassing demographic, clinical, surgical and outcome-related information. All data will be centrally analysed. For the assessment of quality of life, a qualitative analysis with content and context analysis, as well as evaluation of the questionnaires according to a standardised scoring system, is planned. The primary aim is to evaluate surgical techniques for bowel resection and reconstruction and their influence on the further course of disease. Secondary endpoints assess postoperative complications as well as tumour-, patient- and treatment-related factors.

Ethical approval was granted by the Ethics Committee II of the University of Heidelberg (approval number 2024-562; 13 June 2024). The data protection review was approved by the data protection officer of the University of Heidelberg. Participation of other centres in the study requires local ethical approval. All patients will be required to sign an informed consent form. Results of primary and secondary endpoints will be published.

NCT06943612; German Clinical Trials Registry (DRKS00034135).

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

Mistreatment and obstetric violence constitute significant human rights violations with profound implications for maternal mental health. These detrimental practices persist globally, particularly in contexts where underfunded health systems, workforce shortages and entrenched gender inequalities intersect, depriving women of adequate psychosocial support and culturally sensitive mental healthcare. Although awareness of the immediate harms of mistreatment is increasing, its cumulative effects throughout the maternal care continuum remain insufficiently understood. This review will synthesise evidence on the impact of mistreatment on perinatal mental health, identify critical gaps and advocate for systemic change.

This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol complies with the guidelines set forth by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols. A thorough literature search will be executed across multiple electronic databases, including CINAHL—Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase via Ovid, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, PubMed, Scopus, as well as other significant or specialised databases and grey literature. The review will incorporate only non-randomised study types and observational studies (cohort, cross-sectional, case-control), along with mixed-method and qualitative studies. Abstract and full-text screening will be performed by two reviewers using Covidence. The methodological quality of the included studies will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies, the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions, the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme and the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Statistical heterogeneity will be evaluated using the Higgins test. Meta-analysis will be conducted using R statistical software V.4.4.4, employing random effects models to determine the weights. The study results will be reported sequentially, beginning with primary outcomes, followed by secondary outcomes and significant subgroup outcome analyses.

Ethical approval is not required as no original data will be collected. The findings of this review will be disseminated through publication and conference presentations.

CRD420251044379.