Sleep impairments are prevalent among individuals recovering from substance use disorders (SUDs) and are associated with poorer treatment outcomes and increased relapse risk. Physical activity (PA) is known to enhance sleep in general populations, but its day-to-day effects on sleep during SUD recovery remain underexplored, especially across different recovery stages.

In this observational n-of-1 study, we aim to examine within-person associations between daily PA and sleep quality in three groups of individuals at varying stages of substance use recovery (early treatment, continuing care and long-term recovery). A substudy will validate the agreement between two wearable sleep-monitoring devices. A total of 90 participants (30 per recovery group) from Western Australia will complete daily ecological momentary assessments and wear the SENS Motion sensor and/or Withings Sleep Analyzer over a 30-day period. Outcomes include device-derived sleep and PA measures, self-reported affect, craving, well-being and recovery outcomes. Multilevel models will explore within-person and between-person associations. This study will generate individualised evidence on associations between PA and sleep to inform tailored SUD care. It will also assess the feasibility of using wearable sleep monitors in real-world SUD recovery settings. Results may support the future development of just-in-time adaptive intervention procedures.

The study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of Curtin University (HRE2025-0379). Findings will be shared through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations, with lay summaries provided to treatment facilities and interested participants to support translation into community and service settings.

ACTRN12625000835448.

Hearing loss is highly prevalent and impacts many aspects of a person’s life, including communication, social engagement, employment, general health and well-being. Yet, many people do not access hearing healthcare and are unaware of the range of hearing healthcare options available. Barriers to hearing healthcare include poor understanding of hearing loss and its impact; poor knowledge of help-seeking for hearing healthcare options; minimal support to help decide which option is best; and stigma related to hearing loss. These barriers lead to many people not receiving the hearing healthcare they need. Guided by theories of behaviour change and implementation science, HearChoice, an online tailored decision support intervention, has been co-developed to empower adults with hearing difficulties by offering them choice and control over their own hearing healthcare. HearChoice aims to facilitate informed decisions, accessibility and uptake of hearing healthcare, including a wide range of interventions, for adults with hearing difficulties. The objectives of the trial are to evaluate the effectiveness, health economics and feasibility of HearChoice.

This online randomised controlled trial will recruit participants with hearing difficulties across Australia, with an anticipated sample size of 640. Participants will be randomised to either HearChoice (treatment) or an Australia-specific Hearing Option Grid (active control), both delivered online. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline when the interventions will be offered, at 7 days post-intervention (primary endpoint) and at 3 months post-intervention. An email reminder will be sent at 1-month post-intervention. The primary outcome is decisional conflict. Secondary outcomes include measures of readiness and self-efficacy to take action, hearing-related quality of life and empowerment, assessment of the value and impact of HearChoice, work performance and health, and feasibility measures. Primary analysis will compare outcomes between HearChoice and the active control at the primary endpoint.

The study was approved by the Curtin University Human Ethics Committee (HRE2023-0024). All participants will provide written informed consent prior to participation. A broad dissemination plan of the study findings includes peer-reviewed publications, scientific conference presentations, articles and presentations for the wider community and public written in lay and accessible language, and social media.

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12624001139561).

To investigate physical activity (PA) promotion practices among primary care health professionals in England. To assess whether attitudes, confidence, role perceptions, knowledge of PA guidelines, and PA behaviour were related to PA promotion practices. To examine the barriers to and facilitators of PA promotion practices.

A cross-sectional online survey study with open (free text) questions.

National survey and online-administered survey conducted in England.

The outcome variables were attitudes, confidence, role perceptions, PA behaviour, knowledge of the PA guidelines and PA promotion practices. Structural equation modelling evaluated associations between these variables.

A total of 181 primary care healthcare professionals completed an online survey. The majority were general practitioners (GPs) (66.7%), followed by first contact physiotherapists (13.8%), practice nurses (12.2%) and link workers (7.7%).

Most (59%) healthcare professionals did not meet recommended levels of PA and could not accurately identify the PA guidelines (53%). Most provided PA advice to patients but fewer than 40% assessed PA, supported behaviour change or made referrals to PA support programmes. More first contact physiotherapists and link workers reported more frequent engagement in collaborative aspects of PA promotion, including assessing PA motivation, supporting behaviour change and providing follow-up. Confidence in promoting PA (β=0.30, p

Most primary care professionals routinely provide PA advice and feel confident doing so. However, with fewer than half able to accurately recall current PA guidelines and routine assessment and behaviour change support rarely reported, the quality and specificity of this advice remain unclear. While time constraints remain a major barrier to PA promotion, particularly among GPs, the addition of first contact physiotherapists and link workers is likely to enhance capacity for promoting PA in busy primary care settings.

Cancer and its treatment can negatively impact physical function, general well-being and quality of life. An evidence-based strategy to manage this is to prescribe exercise. One approach is to prescribe exercise prehabilitation to improve pretreatment health and function. However, current exercise prehabilitation programmes are under-researched, and the quality of their reporting has not been systematically assessed.

This review aimed to identify the following: the characteristics of prehabilitation exercise programmes; how intensity, physical function, patient-reported outcomes and treatment-related outcomes were measured; the quality of reporting and programme implementation.

Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported a cancer prehabilitation exercise intervention, reported outcomes relating to physical function and patient-reported outcomes, and full-text copies were available in English.

PubMed, Mednar and Scopus were screened for studies from inception until 4 of April 2024.

Exercise characteristics were extracted and manually charted in Microsoft Excel using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication. The tool for the assessment of study quality and reporting in exercise (TESTEX) framework was used to assess study quality and intervention reporting.

1495 results were retrieved, 28 of which were included. Exercise sessions lasted a mean of 42.5±21.9 min and were completed 3.7±1.3 times per week. 22 studies implemented concurrent exercise, five prescribed aerobic, and one prescribed resistance. High-intensity exercise was prescribed in four studies, moderate-high in 12, seven prescribed moderate, three prescribed low-moderate, and one was low intensity. 10 studies prescribed exercise intensity using the Borg Rating of Perceived Exertion Scale, five prescribed heart rate (HR) zones, six used a set workload, and seven did not monitor intensity. A mean TESTEX score of 9.3±2.3 out of 15 was achieved. The lowest scoring criterion (n=3) related to the reporting of the exercise dose.

There was heterogeneity among studies regarding exercise intervention characteristics and measures of effectiveness. The overall quality of reporting was satisfactory, yet inconsistencies were apparent regarding quantifying and monitoring exercise dose, which limits the ability of researchers and clinicians to replicate, evaluate or scale cancer prehabilitation exercise interventions, impeding evidence-based practice. As such, to be able to optimise cancer prehabilitation exercise programmes, research must first focus on improving the quality of reporting and standardising outcome measures and methods of monitoring and prescribing exercise.