To explore and understand the disease priorities and preferences for rapid diagnostic testings (RDTs) among community members and stakeholders.

Qualitative study using focused group discussions and in-depth interviews. Thematic analysis was applied to identify themes of disease priorities and RDT preferences.

uMsunduzi Municipality, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.

49 community members and five community stakeholders were recruited through a combination of convenience and purposeful sampling using community events and meetings.

Participants prioritised both communicable diseases (HIV, tuberculosis) and non-communicable diseases (diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hypertension and cancer), aligning with national health priorities. They supported RDTs for early diagnosis and home-based testing to mitigate barriers to accessing diagnostic care. A need for post-test support, such as digital support tools, was also highlighted.

Community perspectives highlighted a demand for accessible, rapid and decentralised diagnostic tools for high-burden diseases in KwaZulu-Natal. RDTs have the potential to improve health outcomes and reduce health disparities through improved access to diagnostic healthcare services. The community members are potential end users of RDTs, especially in resource-constrained settings. Therefore, their perspectives should be considered in the development and implementation of RDTs to enhance acceptability and public health impact.

Systematic reviews (SRs) on the management of temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) have predominantly focused on evaluating the effectiveness of various treatments, identifying those that provide the greatest benefits. However, the economic evaluation of these treatments has not been systematically explored. This SR aims to address this gap by evaluating the economic outcomes of the most common treatment modalities for TMDs, including cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, cost-benefit, cost-minimisation and the burden of illness.

This SR will be conducted using the following electronic databases Business Source Complete, CINAHL, EconLit (ProQuest), Embase (Ovid), MEDLINE (PubMed), MEDLINE (Ovid) and Scopus to identify studies evaluating the economic outcomes of treatments for TMDs. The eligibility criteria are as follows: (1) studies examining the costs and/or impact of treatments for TMDs and (2) articles published between 2000 and 2025. The primary outcomes of interest are the economic findings outlined earlier. Data extraction will include the following: author(s), year of publication, country, study objectives, study design, eligibility criteria, TMD diagnosis and screening, study groups, randomisation, blinding, sample size, number of participants invited, enrolled and completed, duration of treatment, follow-up, study duration, settings, assessment instruments, study outcomes, statistical analyses, results, limitations, strengths and funding sources. The quality of studies will be evaluated using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 checklist, with risk of bias assessed using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care’s risk-of-bias tool; where applicable, the Outcome Reporting Bias in Trials will be used to detect reporting biases. A narrative synthesis and summary tables will outline study characteristics, economic outcomes and the overall quality of evidence. We will conduct qualitative secondary and sensitivity analyses.

This SR does not require an ethics approval. The results will be disseminated through international and national conferences and peer-reviewed journals.

CRD42024613553.

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.

Our aim is to develop a Framework of Measurement for people living with Long COVID and their caregivers for use in Long COVID research and clinical practice. Specifically, we will characterise evidence pertaining to outcome measurement and identify implementation considerations for use of outcome measures among adults and children living with Long COVID and their caregivers.

We will conduct a scoping study involving: (1) an evidence review and (2) a two-phased consultation, using methodological steps outlined by the Arksey and O’Malley Framework and Joanna Briggs Institute. We will answer the following question: What is known about outcome measures used to describe, evaluate or predict health outcomes among adults and children living with Long COVID and their caregivers? Evidence review: we will review peer review published and grey literature to identify existing outcome measures and their reported measurement properties with people living with Long COVID and their caregivers. We will search databases including MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Scopus for articles published since 2020. Two authors will independently review titles and abstracts, followed by full text to select articles that discuss or use outcome measures for Long COVID health outcomes, pertain to adults or children living with Long COVID and/or their caregivers and are based in research or clinical settings. We will extract data including article characteristics, terminology and definition of Long COVID, health outcomes assessed, characteristics of outcome measures, measurement properties and implementation considerations. We will collate and summarise data to establish a preliminary Framework of Measurement. Consultation phase 1: we will conduct an environmental scan involving a cross-sectional web-based questionnaire among individuals with experience using or completing outcome measures for Long COVID, to identify outcome measures not found in the evidence review and explore implementation considerations for outcome measurement in the context of Long COVID. Consultation phase 2: we will conduct focus groups to review the preliminary Framework of Measurement and to highlight implementation considerations for outcome measurement in Long COVID. We will analyse questionnaire and focus group data using descriptive and content analytical approaches. We will refine the Framework of Measurement based on the focus group consultation using community-engaged approaches with the research team.

Protocol approved by the University of Toronto Health Sciences Research Ethics Board (protocol #46503) for the consultation phases of the study. Outcomes will include a Framework of Measurement, to enhance measurement of health outcomes in Long COVID research and clinical practice. Knowledge translation will also occur in the form of publications and presentations.

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.