People with serious mental illness (SMI) can experience significant physical health challenges. The Health Champions intervention was developed to support their physical health through using trained volunteers. However, volunteer and patient perspectives on the impact and implementation of this intervention have yet to be understood.

To compare the views of patients and volunteers on the Health Champions intervention.

A qualitative thematic analysis was conducted on interviews with 29 study participants. Interviews were carried out either face-to-face, via Microsoft Teams, or by telephone and included 12 patients (6 men and 6 women) and 17 volunteers (the Health Champions) (5 men and 12 women).

Four overarching themes were identified, highlighting both similarities and differences between stakeholders’ perspectives: (1) supporting goal setting; (2) impact on positive lifestyle; (3) experiences and perception of the programme and (4) navigating challenges during the programme. Both groups found the programme to be largely successful, by motivating patients to work towards their physical health goals and facilitating successful matching of patients with volunteers. Volunteers and patients valued good communication with the research team. Though both groups shared some views on the challenges with scheduling and a lack of face-to-face contact during the COVID-19 pandemic, their perceptions on how patients incorporated their health changes during and after the programme, as well as other administrative concerns such as views on the efficacy of journaling and breakdown of roles, differed.

The Health Champions intervention was perceived as useful to improve the physical health of patients with SMI. Differences in the views between the two stakeholders may result from their distinct experiences and expectations. Future volunteering programmes should further support the diverse physical health needs of patients with SMI.

Engaging patients in surgical safety is challenging and has not been thoroughly investigated. Although surgical checklists and other safety protocols have been introduced across various surgical fields, preventable adverse events still occur, highlighting the need for additional research. A Patient’s Safety Checklist (PASC) has been developed and validated for use by surgical patients. Its effect on patient safety and patient outcomes is currently being investigated in a Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial (NCT03105713). In connection with this trial, we have examined elective patients’ experiences with using the PASC.

An exploratory qualitative study was conducted based on individual in-depth telephone interviews with 31 elective surgical patients. The interviews were carried out across three Norwegian hospitals including seven surgical specialties. The patients interviewed were part of the trial’s intervention arm and had used PASC. The interviews were transcribed verbatim, and reflective thematic analysis was applied.

Three themes were identified in the data: patient awareness, patient actions and utility value. Patients perceived PASC to increase awareness around surgical information, preparations, what to speak up about and which information to seek and repeat. This awareness led to a series of actions, such as ensuring medication control, optimising their own health, contacting healthcare professionals, asking questions, and for some no actions were needed. Patients perceived PASC to have high utility value for their surgical preparation.

The PASC enhanced patients’ involvement in surgical care and safety by ensuring they received systematic, accurate, clear, and understandable information and instructions throughout the surgical pathway. It is one of the few existing interventions that specifically focuses on assisting patients in preparing for surgery and managing their recovery. Further research is needed on the implementation of PASC and its adaptation to other clinical settings.

NCT03105713.

Chronic inflammatory skin diseases, despite low mortality, significantly impair quality of life (QoL). Up to 80% of patients with dermatological conditions experience severe itch and poor sleep, as well as related mental health challenges such as anxiety and depression. The relationship between skin diseases and mental health highlights the challenges that doctors face in treating these conditions. Existing psychotherapeutics, such as mindfulness training, cognitive behavioural therapy and acceptance and commitment therapy, are widely used and effective in the treatment of mental health illnesses. However, there is limited evidence on the application of such interventions in dermatology, and most mental health apps lack robust clinical evaluation. We report the design of a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and implementation of a mobile app containing dermatology-specified psychotherapeutic strategies in reducing QoL burden.

English-speaking patients aged 16 years and older with psoriasis, eczema or chronic urticaria will be recruited and randomised into the intervention arm (psychotherapeutic application) or active control group (Healthy365 app, a general wellness application managed by the Singapore Health Promotion Board). This allows a comparative assessment of app-usage-specific outcomes while preserving the blinding of all participants. The primary outcome is the change in the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score from baseline to week 8. Secondary outcomes include physician-assessed disease severity at weeks 8 and 16 relative to baseline, differences in other patient-reported measures at weeks 8, 16 and 32, self-reported treatment adherence and initiation/escalation of systemic medications. To understand how patients engage with the app, we will evaluate the implementation process, focusing on key measures such as engagement, satisfaction and willingness to pay. Statistical analysis will be carried out on an intention-to-treat basis, and missing data will be analysed using last observation carried forward.

All participants will receive both verbal and written study information that aligns with Good Clinical Practice guidelines. Ethical approval has been obtained from the National Healthcare Group’s Domain Specific Review Board (reference number: 2022/00751). Results will be disseminated via publication in a relevant journal. Data will be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

NCT06702293.