Social prescribing is an approach to addressing non-medical issues affecting people’s health and well-being (eg, loneliness, housing or financial problems). It has gained international traction over recent years as complementary to medical care. A larger research project, comparing social prescribing across European countries, is considering how to tailor provision for the following groups: (a) LGBTIQ+persons, (b) refugees and first-generation immigrants and (c) older adults living alone. As part of this research, a qualitative study will address the question: What are the enabling and limiting factors associated with implementing social prescribing, across different European countries, from the perspective of key stakeholders?

Five European countries (Austria, England, Germany, Poland, Portugal) will be involved. Researchers from each country will conduct approximately 20 semi-structured interviews (total number will be 100). Interviewees will be people receiving, delivering, managing and funding/commissioning social prescribing. Interviews will be audio-recorded and transcribed. A cross-country analysis will be undertaken; framework analysis will support this process, with a chart developed in Excel in which data from across the five countries is summarised by the researchers involved. Summaries will be based on a thematic framework that researchers from the five countries develop together after initially analysing their own data.

Ethical approval was initially secured through the University of Oxford’s Medical Sciences Interdivisional Research Ethics Committee (IDREC 1806086) for data collection in England. This approved application was then used to secure ethics approval in Austria (through Ludwig Boltzmann Gesellschaft), Germany (through Bergische Universität Wuppertal), Poland (through Wroclaw Medical University) and Portugal (through NOVA University of Lisbon). Dissemination will include an academic journal article and presentation at relevant conferences. It will also include short videos, written summaries/policy briefs and an infographic.

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement No 101155873. Views and opinions expressed are, however, those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Health and Digital Executive Agency (HADEA). Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.

Genomic diagnostics have accelerated therapeutic and preventative breakthroughs in oncology and cancer genetics. Despite increased access, the implementation of genomics-based care faces serious fragmentation and scalability issues due to a lack of system support. The Precision Care Initiative aims to develop a novel and scalable Precision Care Clinic (PCC). It is designed to coordinate precision medicine in oncology and streamline decision support for referring oncologists and geneticists. The PCC will enhance quality of care through multifaceted, patient-centred communication. It will also improve translational capacity by integrating team expertise in precision oncology, implementation science, clinical informatics, cancer genetics, health economics and patient-reported measures.

This programme uses a type I and type II hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial design sequentially. The complex clinical intervention is precision oncology—matching the targeted treatment or risk management strategy to the right patient, based on their genomic, cancer staging, environmental, lifestyle and biological characteristics, etc. The service intervention is the PCC, providing centralised multidisciplinary review to facilitate shared decision-making with clinicians for the provision of optimal precision oncology care for their patients. The implementation intervention is the co-designed implementation platform—applying evidence-based implementation approaches and Learning Health System principles to enhance feasibility and sustainability. All adult patients across Australia referred to the PCC (n=est. 100–150/year), and healthcare professional interest holders involved in the delivery of precision oncology services, are eligible to participate. Over the study course, phase I involves using a mixed-methods approach to inform iterative co-design and pilot testing of the first PCC with an accompanying implementation platform, and a suite of outcome measures to assess effectiveness; phase II (hybrid type I) includes the implementation of the PCC and evaluation of the outcome measures designed in phase I; phase III (hybrid type II) involves a co-design of local adaptations and testing the effectiveness of the PCC model nationally.

The study received ethical approval from the St Vincent’s Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (2023/ETH00373). Study results will be presented at relevant conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.

NCT06077110

To assess the impact of opening a large community-based asynchronous review ophthalmic clinic on attendance delays among patients with stable chronic eye disease attending a London teaching eye hospital network.

Interrupted time-series analysis of routine electronic health records of appointment attendances.

A large eye hospital network with facilities across London, UK, between June 2018 and April 2023.

We analysed 69 257 attendances from 39 357 patients, with glaucoma and medical retina accounting for 62% (n=42 982) and 38% (n=26 275) of visits, respectively. Patients over 65 made up 54% (n=37 824) of attendances, while 53% (n=37 014) were from the more deprived half of the population, and 51% (n=35 048) were males.

An asynchronous review clinic opened in a shopping centre in London, in autumn 2021, following the COVID-19 lockdown in spring 2020.

Average attendance delays (days), calculated as the difference between follow-up attendance date and the latest clinically appropriate date determined at the preceding attendance.

Pre-COVID-19, attendance delays for chronic eye disease monitoring were increasing by 0.9 days per week (95% CI, 0.8 to 0.9) on average, worsening to 2.0 days per week (95% CI, 2.0 to 2.0) after the first COVID-19 national lockdown, mid-March 2020. Opening the asynchronous review clinic increased appointment capacity, with delays decreasing on average by 8.1 days per week (95% CI, 8.1 to 8.2) shortly after opening. The rate of decrease slowed to 0.3 days per week (95% CI, 0.3 to 0.3) after 5 months. We found no significant differences in average attendance delays by age, gender or level of deprivation.

The asynchronous review clinic significantly reduced attendance delays across the hospital network, addressing pre-existing backlog for stable chronic eye diseases. The reduction appeared to be maintained after the initial backlog had been cleared.