Equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) in the healthcare field are crucial in meeting the healthcare needs of a progressively diverse society. In fact, a diverse healthcare workforce enables culturally sensitive care, promotes health equity and enhances the understanding of various needs and patients’ viewpoints, potentially resulting in more effective patient treatment and improved patient outcomes. Despite this, information on the effectiveness of policies or programmes promoting EDI in health institutions is scarce. The objective of this systematic review is to assess the effects and outcomes of EDI programmes in healthcare institutions.

We will conduct Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-compliant systematic review of studies on EDI programmes and describe their effects and outcomes in healthcare institutions. We will search PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases. Selected studies will include randomised control trials (RCTs), non-RCTs and cross-sectional studies published either in English or French. Quality appraisal of studies and a narrative synthesis of extracted data will be conducted as well as a meta-analysis if possible. The quality of evidence in this review will be assessed by the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

We anticipate that this systematic review will reveal information on the effect of EDI programmes and their outcomes in healthcare institutions. We expect this information will provide insights that will lead to improvements in designing EDI policies and programmes in healthcare institutions.

No ethical clearance is required for this study as no primary data will be collected. The final manuscript will be submitted to a journal for publication. In addition to this, the results of the study will also be disseminated through conference presentations to inform the research and clinical practice.

This protocol has been registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; registration number CRD42024502781.

Hip osteoarthritis (OA) is a major cause of pain and disability worldwide. Lack of effective therapies may reflect poor knowledge on its aetiology and risk factors, and result in the management of end-stage hip OA with costly joint replacement. The Worldwide Collaboration on OsteoArthritis prediCtion for the Hip (World COACH) consortium was established to pool and harmonise individual participant data from prospective cohort studies. The consortium aims to better understand determinants and risk factors for the development and progression of hip OA, to optimise and automate methods for (imaging) analysis, and to develop a personalised prediction model for hip OA.

World COACH aimed to include participants of prospective cohort studies with ≥200 participants, that have hip imaging data available from at least 2 time points at least 4 years apart. All individual participant data, including clinical data, imaging (data), biochemical markers, questionnaires and genetic data, were collected and pooled into a single, individual-level database.

World COACH currently consists of 9 cohorts, with 38 021 participants aged 18–80 years at baseline. Overall, 71% of the participants were women and mean baseline age was 65.3±8.6 years. Over 34 000 participants had baseline pelvic radiographs available, and over 22 000 had an additional pelvic radiograph after 8–12 years of follow-up. Even longer radiographic follow-up (15–25 years) is available for over 6000 of these participants.

The World COACH consortium offers unique opportunities for studies on the relationship between determinants/risk factors and the development or progression of hip OA, by using harmonised data on clinical findings, imaging, biomarkers, genetics and lifestyle. This provides a unique opportunity to develop a personalised hip OA risk prediction model and to optimise methods for imaging analysis of the hip.

Potentially harmful non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) utilisation persists at undesirable rates worldwide. The purpose of this paper is to review the literature on interventions to de-implement potentially harmful NSAIDs in healthcare settings and to suggest directions for future research.

Scoping review.

PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Central and Google Scholar (1 January 2000 to 31 May 2022).

Studies reporting on the effectiveness of interventions to systematically reduce potentially harmful NSAID utilisation in healthcare settings.

Using Covidence systematic review software, we extracted study and intervention characteristics, including the effectiveness of interventions in reducing NSAID utilisation.

From 7818 articles initially identified, 68 were included in the review. Most studies took place in European countries (45.6%) or the USA (35.3%), with randomised controlled trial as the most common design (55.9%). Interventions were largely clinician-facing (76.2%) and delivered in primary care (60.2%) but were rarely (14.9%) guided by an implementation model, framework or theory. Academic detailing, clinical decision support or electronic medical record interventions, performance reports and pharmacist review were frequent approaches employed. NSAID use was most commonly classified as potentially harmful based on patients’ age (55.8%), history of gastrointestinal disorders (47.1%), or history of kidney disease (38.2%). Only 7.4% of interventions focused on over-the-counter (OTC) NSAIDs in addition to prescription. The majority of studies (76.2%) reported a reduction in the utilisation of potentially harmful NSAIDs. Few studies (5.9%) evaluated pain or quality of life following NSAIDs discontinuation.

Many varied interventions to de-implement potentially harmful NSAIDs have been applied in healthcare settings worldwide. Based on these findings and identified knowledge gaps, further efforts to comprehensively evaluate the effectiveness of interventions and the combination of intervention characteristics associated with effective de-implementation are needed. In addition, future work should be guided by de-implementation theory, focus on OTC NSAIDs and incorporate patient-focused strategies and outcomes, including the evaluation of unintended consequences of the intervention.

Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder caused by alcohol exposure during pregnancy. FASD is associated with neurodevelopmental deviations, and 50%–94% of children with FASD meet the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-fifth edition diagnostic criteria for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). There is a paucity of evidence around medication efficacy for ADHD symptoms in children with FASD. This series of N-of-1 trials aims to provide pilot data on the feasibility of conducting N-of-1 trials in children with FASD and ADHD.

A pilot N-of-1 randomised trial design with 20 cycles of stimulant and placebo (four cycles of 2-week duration) for each child will be conducted (n=20) in Melbourne, Australia.

Feasibility and tolerability will be assessed using recruitment and retention rates, protocol adherence, adverse events and parent ratings of side effects. Each child’s treatment effect will be determined by analysing teacher ADHD ratings across stimulant and placebo conditions (Wilcoxon rank). N-of-1 data will be aggregated to provide an estimate of the cohort treatment effect as well as individual-level treatment effects. We will assess the sample size and number of cycles required for a future trial. Potential mediating factors will be explored to identify variables that might be associated with treatment response variability.

The study was approved by the Hospital and Health Service Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/74678/MonH-2021-269029), Monash (protocol V6, 25 June 2023).

Individual outcome data will be summarised and provided to participating carers and practitioners to enhance care. Group-level findings will be presented at a local workshop to engage stakeholders. Findings will be presented at national and international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. All results will be reported so that they can be used to inform prior information for future trials.

NCT04968522.

Improving sustainable transportation options will help cities tackle growing challenges related to population health, congestion, climate change and inequity. Interventions supporting active transportation face many practical and political hurdles. Implementation science aims to understand how interventions or policies arise, how they can be translated to new contexts or scales and who benefits. Sustainable transportation interventions are complex, and existing implementation science frameworks may not be suitable. To apply and adapt implementation science for healthy cities, we have launched our mixed-methods research programme, CapaCITY/É. We aim to understand how, why and for whom sustainable transportation interventions are successful and when they are not.

Across nine Canadian municipalities and the State of Victoria (Australia), our research will focus on two types of sustainable transportation interventions: all ages and abilities bicycle networks and motor vehicle speed management interventions. We will (1) document the implementation process and outcomes of both types of sustainable transportation interventions; (2) examine equity, health and mobility impacts of these interventions; (3) advance implementation science by developing a novel sustainable transportation implementation science framework and (4) develop tools for scaling up and scaling out sustainable transportation interventions. Training activities will develop interdisciplinary scholars and practitioners able to work at the nexus of academia and sustainable cities.

This study received approval from the Simon Fraser University Office of Ethics Research (H22-03469). A Knowledge Mobilization Hub will coordinate dissemination of findings via a website; presentations to academic, community organisations and practitioner audiences; and through peer-reviewed articles.

Supervised exercise training is among the first-line therapies for patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD). Current recommendations for exercise include guidance focusing on claudication pain, programme and session duration, and frequency. However, no guidance is offered regarding exercise training intensity. This study aims to compare the effects of 12-week-long supervised walking exercise training (high-intensity interval training (HIIT) vs moderate-intensity exercise (MOD)) in patients with chronic symptomatic PAD.

This study is a monocentric, interventional, non-blinded randomised controlled trial. 60 patients (30 in each group) will be randomly allocated (by using the random permuted blocks) to 12 weeks (three times a week) of HIIT or MOD. For HIIT, exercise sessions will consist of alternating brief high-intensity (≥85% of the peak heart rate (HR_peak)) periods (≤60 s) of work with periods of passive rest. Patients will be asked to complete 1 and then 2 sets of 5–7 (progressing to 10–15x60 s) walking intervals. For the MOD group, exercise training sessions will consist of an alternation of periods of work performed at moderate intensity (≤76% HR_peak) and periods of passive rest. Interventions will be matched by training load. The primary outcome will be the maximal walking distance. Secondary outcomes will include functional performance, functional capacity, heath-related quality of life, self-perceived walking abilities, physical activity and haemodynamic parameters.

The Angiof-HIIT Study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Canton de Vaud (study number: 2022-01752). Written consent is mandatory prior to enrolment and randomisation. The results will be disseminated via national and international scientific meetings, scientific peer-reviewed journals and social media.

NCT05612945.

Characterised by chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) symptoms including diarrhoea, abdominal pain and fatigue can significantly impact patient’s quality of life. Therapeutic developments in the last 20 years have revolutionised treatment. However, clinical trials and real-world data show primary non-response rates up to 40%. A significant challenge is an inability to predict which treatment will benefit individual patients.

Current understanding of IBD pathogenesis implicates complex interactions between host genetics and the gut microbiome. Most cohorts studying the gut microbiota to date have been underpowered, examined single treatments and produced heterogeneous results. Lack of cross-treatment comparisons and well-powered independent replication cohorts hampers the ability to infer real-world utility of predictive signatures.

IBD-RESPONSE will use multi-omic data to create a predictive tool for treatment response. Future patient benefit may include development of biomarker-based treatment stratification or manipulation of intestinal microbial targets. IBD-RESPONSE and downstream studies have the potential to improve quality of life, reduce patient risk and reduce expenditure on ineffective treatments.

This prospective, multicentre, observational study will identify and validate a predictive model for response to advanced IBD therapies, incorporating gut microbiome, metabolome, single-cell transcriptome, human genome, dietary and clinical data. 1325 participants commencing advanced therapies will be recruited from ~40 UK sites. Data will be collected at baseline, week 14 and week 54. The primary outcome is week 14 clinical response. Secondary outcomes include clinical remission, loss of response in week 14 responders, corticosteroid-free response/remission, time to treatment escalation and change in patient-reported outcome measures.

Ethical approval was obtained from the Wales Research Ethics Committee 5 (ref: 21/WA/0228). Recruitment is ongoing. Following study completion, results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific meetings. Publications will be summarised at www.ibd-response.co.uk.

ISRCTN96296121.

Physical restraint (PR) is prescribed in patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU) to avoid unplanned removal of medical devices. However, it is associated with an increased risk of delirium. We hypothesise that a restrictive use of PR, as compared with a systematic use, could reduce the duration of delirium in ICU patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation.

The Restrictive use of Restraints and Delirium Duration in ICU (R2D2-ICU) study is a national multicentric, parallel-group, randomised (1:1) open-label, controlled, superiority trial, which will be conducted in 10 ICUs. A total of 422 adult patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation for an expected duration of at least 48 hours and eligible for prescription of PR will be randomly allocated within 6 hours from intubation to either the restrictive PR use group or the systematic PR use group, until day 14, ICU discharge or death, whichever comes first. In both groups, PR will consist of the use of wrist straps. The primary endpoint will be delirium or coma-free days, defined as the number of days spent alive in the ICU without coma or delirium within the first 14 days after randomisation. Delirium will be assessed using the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU twice daily. Key secondary endpoints will encompass agitation episodes, opioid, propofol, benzodiazepine and antipsychotic drug exposure during the 14-day intervention period, along with a core outcome set of measures evaluated 90 days postrandomisation.

The R2D2-ICU study has been approved by the Comité de Protection des Personnes (CPP) ILE DE FRANCE III—PARIS (CPP19.09.06.37521) on June 10th, 2019). Participant recruitment started on 25 January 2021. Results will be published in international peer-reviewed medical journals and presented at conferences.

NCT04273360.

We conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effect of colchicine treatment on clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19.

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, medRxiv and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to January 2023.

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the efficacy of colchicine treatment in patients with COVID-19 as compared with placebo or standard of care were included. There were no language restrictions. Studies that used colchicine prophylactically were excluded.

We extracted all information relating to the study characteristics, such as author names, location, study population, details of intervention and comparator groups, and our outcomes of interest. We conducted our meta-analysis by using RevMan V.5.4 with risk ratio (RR) and mean difference as the effect measures.

We included 23 RCTs (28 249 participants) in this systematic review. Colchicine did not decrease the risk of mortality (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.05; I²=0%; 20 RCTs, 25 824 participants), with the results being consistent among both hospitalised and non-hospitalised patients. There were no significant differences between the colchicine and control groups in other relevant clinical outcomes, including the incidence of mechanical ventilation (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.18; p=0.22; I²=40%; 8 RCTs, 13 262 participants), intensive care unit admission (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.49 to 1.22; p=0.27; I²=0%; 6 RCTs, 961 participants) and hospital admission (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.16; p=0.19; I²=70%; 3 RCTs, 8572 participants).

The results of this meta-analysis do not support the use of colchicine as a treatment for reducing the risk of mortality or improving other relevant clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. However, RCTs investigating early treatment with colchicine (within 5 days of symptom onset or in patients with early-stage disease) are needed to fully elucidate the potential benefits of colchicine in this patient population.

CRD42022369850.

Patients with congenital heart disease (CHD) have an increased cancer risk. The aim of this study was to determine cancer-related mortality in CHD patients compared with non-CHD controls, compare ages at cancer diagnosis and death, and explore the most fatal cancer diagnoses.

Registry-based cohort study.

CHD patients born between 1970 and 2017 were identified using Swedish Health Registers. Each was matched by birth year and sex with 10 non-CHD controls. Included were those born in Sweden with a cancer diagnosis.

Cancer developed in 758 out of 67814 CHD patients (1.1%), with 139 deaths (18.3%)—of which 41 deaths occurred in patients with genetic syndromes. Cancer was the cause of death in 71.9% of cases. Across all CHD patients, cancer accounted for 1.8% of deaths. Excluding patients with genetic syndromes and transplant recipients, mortality risk between CHD patients with cancer and controls showed no significant difference (adjusted HR 1.17; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.49). CHD patients had a lower median age at cancer diagnosis—13.0 years (IQR 2.9–30.0) in CHD versus 24.6 years (IQR 8.6–35.1) in controls. Median age at death was 15.1 years (IQR 3.6–30.7) in CHD patients versus 18.5 years (IQR 6.1–32.7) in controls. The top three fatal cancer diagnoses were ill-defined, secondary and unspecified, eye and central nervous system tumours and haematological malignancies.

Cancer-related deaths constituted 1.8% of all mortalities across all CHD patients. Among CHD patients with cancer, 18.3% died, with cancer being the cause in 71.9% of cases. Although CHD patients have an increased cancer risk, their mortality risk post-diagnosis does not significantly differ from non-CHD patients after adjustements and exclusion of patients with genetic syndromes and transplant recipients. However, CHD patients with genetic syndromes and concurrent cancer appear to be a vulnerable group.

Exploring clinical information-seeking behaviour (CISB) and its associated factors contributes to its theoretical advancement and offers a valuable framework for addressing physicians’ information needs. This study delved into the dimensions, interactions, strategies and determinants of CISB among physicians at the point of care.

A grounded theory study was developed based on Strauss and Corbin’s approach. Data were collected by semistructured interviews and then analysed through open, axial and selective coding.

The study was conducted at academic centres affiliated with Isfahan University of Medical Sciences.

This investigation involved recruiting 21 specialists and subspecialists from the academic centres.

The findings revealed that physicians’ CISB encompassed multiple dimensions when addressing clinical inquiries. Seven principal themes emerged from the analysis: ‘clinical information needs’, ‘clinical question characteristics’, ‘clinical information resources’, ‘information usability’, ‘factors influencing information seeking’, ‘action/interaction encountering clinical questions’ and ‘consequences of CISB’. The core category identified in this study was ‘focused attention’.

The theoretical explanation demonstrated that the CISB process was interactive and dynamic. Various stimuli, including causal, contextual and intervening conditions, guide physicians in adopting information-seeking strategies and focusing on resolving clinical challenges. However, insufficient stimuli may hinder physicians’ engagement in CISB. Understanding CISB helps managers, policy-makers, clinical librarians and information system designers optimally implement several interventions, such as suitable training methods, reviewing monitoring and evaluating information systems, improving clinical decision support systems, electronic medical records and electronic health records, as well as monitoring and evaluating these systems. Such measures facilitate focused attention on clinical issues and promote CISB among physicians.

Incisional hernia (IH) is a prevalent and potentially dangerous complication of abdominal surgery, especially in high-risk groups. Mesh reinforcement of the abdominal wall has been studied as a potential intervention to prevent IHs. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated that prophylactic mesh reinforcement after abdominal surgery, in general, is effective and safe. In patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), prophylactic mesh reinforcement after open repair has not yet been recommended in official guidelines, because of relatively small sample sizes in individual trials. Furthermore, the identification of subgroups that benefit most from prophylactic mesh placement requires larger patient numbers. Our primary aim is to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of the use of a prophylactic mesh after open AAA surgery to prevent IH by performing an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA). Secondary aims include the evaluation of postoperative complications, pain and quality of life, and the identification of potential subgroups that benefit most from prophylactic mesh reinforcement.

We will conduct a systematic review to identify RCTs that study prophylactic mesh placement after open AAA surgery. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection and Google Scholar will be searched from the date of inception onwards. RCTs must directly compare primary sutured closure with mesh closure in adult patients who undergo open AAA surgery. Lead authors of eligible studies will be asked to share individual participant data (IPD). The risk of bias (ROB) for each included study will be assessed using the Cochrane ROB tool. An IPDMA will be performed to evaluate the efficacy, with the IH rate as the primary outcome. Any signs of heterogeneity will be evaluated by Forest plots. Time-to-event analyses are performed using Cox regression analysis to evaluate risk factors.

No new data will be collected in this study. We will adhere to institutional, national and international regulations regarding the secure and confidential sharing of IPD, addressing ethics as indicated. We will disseminate findings via international conferences, open-source publications in peer-reviewed journals and summaries posted online.

CRD42022347881.

Gonorrhoea, the sexually transmissible infection caused by Neisseria gonorrhoeae, has a substantial impact on sexual and reproductive health globally with an estimated 82 million new infections each year worldwide. N. gonorrhoeae antimicrobial resistance continues to escalate, and disease control is largely reliant on effective therapy as there is no proven effective gonococcal vaccine available. However, there is increasing evidence from observational cohort studies that the serogroup B meningococcal vaccine four-component meningitis B vaccine (4CMenB) (Bexsero), licensed to prevent invasive disease caused by Neisseria meningitidis, may provide cross-protection against the closely related bacterium N. gonorrhoeae. This study will evaluate the efficacy of 4CMenB against N. gonorrhoeae infection in men (cis and trans), transwomen and non-binary people who have sex with men (hereafter referred to as GBM+).

This is a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial in GBM+, either HIV-negative on pre-exposure prophylaxis against HIV or living with HIV (CD4 count >350 cells/mm³), who have had a diagnosis of gonorrhoea or infectious syphilis in the last 18 months (a key characteristic associated with a high risk of N. gonorrhoeae infection). Participants are randomised 1:1 to receive two doses of 4CMenB or placebo 3 months apart. Participants have 3-monthly visits over 24 months, which include testing for N. gonorrhoeae and other sexually transmissible infections, collection of demographics, sexual behaviour risks and antibiotic use, and collection of research samples for analysis of N. gonorrhoeae-specific systemic and mucosal immune responses. The primary outcome is the incidence of the first episode of N. gonorrhoeae infection, as determined by nucleic acid amplification tests, post month 4. Additional outcomes consider the incidence of symptomatic or asymptomatic N. gonorrhoeae infection at different anatomical sites (ie, urogenital, anorectum or oropharynx), incidence by N. gonorrhoeae genotype and antimicrobial resistance phenotype, and level and functional activity of N. gonorrhoeae-specific antibodies.

Ethical approval was obtained from the St Vincent’s Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee, St Vincent’s Hospital Sydney, NSW, Australia (ref: 2020/ETH01084). Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and via presentation at national and international conferences.

NCT04415424.

To analyse the effectiveness of rapid diagnostic clinics (RDCs) as an alternative pathway for patients with concerning symptoms and a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) result

A retrospective and prospective cohort study.

GSTT RDC, one of England’s largest single-centre RDCs. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of FIT

Patients with an FIT result

A total of 1299 patients with an FIT

This study demonstrates the effectiveness of RDCs as an alternate pathway for FIT

Understanding human mobility’s role in malaria transmission is critical to successful control and elimination. However, common approaches to measuring mobility are ill-equipped for remote regions such as the Amazon. This study develops a network survey to quantify the effect of community connectivity and mobility on malaria transmission.

We measure community connectivity across the study area using a respondent driven sampling design among key informants who are at least 18 years of age. 45 initial communities will be selected: 10 in Brazil, 10 in Ecuador and 25 in Peru. Participants will be recruited in each initial node and administered a survey to obtain data on each community’s mobility patterns. Survey responses will be ranked and the 2–3 most connected communities will then be selected and surveyed. This process will be repeated for a third round of data collection. Community network matrices will be linked with each country’s malaria surveillance system to test the effects of mobility on disease risk.

This study protocol has been approved by the institutional review boards of Duke University (USA), Universidad San Francisco de Quito (Ecuador), Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia (Peru) and Universidade Federal Minas Gerais (Brazil). Results will be disseminated in communities by the end of the study.

Estimate the incremental costs and benefits of scaling up hypertension care in adults in 24 select countries, using three different systolic blood pressure (SBP) treatment cut-off points—≥140, ≥150 and ≥160 mm Hg.

Strengthening the hypertension care cascade compared with status quo levels, with pharmacological treatment administered at different cut-points depending on the scenario.

Adults aged 30+ in 24 low-income and middle-income countries spanning all world regions.

Societal.

30 years.

4%.

2020 USD.

Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation’s Epi Visualisations database—country-specific cardiovascular disease (CVD) incidence, prevalence and death rates. Mean SBP and prevalence—National surveys and NCD-RisC. Treatment protocols—WHO HEARTS. Treatment impact—academic literature. Costs—national and international databases.

Health outcomes—averted stroke and myocardial infarction events, deaths and disability-adjusted life-years; economic outcomes—averted health expenditures, value of averted mortality and workplace productivity losses.

Across 24 countries, over 30 years, incremental scale-up of hypertension care for adults with SBP≥140 mm Hg led to 2.6 million averted CVD events and 1.2 million averted deaths (7% of expected CVD deaths). 68% of benefits resulted from treating those with very high SBP (≥160 mm Hg). 10 of the 12 highest-income countries projected positive net benefits at one or more treatment cut-points, compared with 3 of the 12 lowest-income countries. Treating hypertension at SBP≥160 mm Hg maximised the net economic benefit in the lowest-income countries.

The model only included a few hypertension-attributable diseases and did not account for comorbid risk factors. Modelled scenarios assumed ambitious progress on strengthening the care cascade.

In areas where economic considerations might play an outsized role, such as very low-income countries, prioritising treatment to populations with severe hypertension can maximise benefits net of economic costs.

International trials can be challenging to operationalise due to incompatibilities between country-specific policies and infrastructures. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the operational complexities of conducting international trials and identify potential solutions for overcoming them.

Systematic review.

Medline, Embase and Health Management Information Consortium were searched from 2006 to 30 January 2023.

All studies reporting operational challenges (eg, site selection, trial management, intervention management, data management) of conducting international trials were included.

Search results were independently screened by at least two reviewers and data were extracted into a proforma.

38 studies (35 RCTs, 2 reports and 1 qualitative study) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The median sample size was 1202 (IQR 332–4056) and median number of sites was 40 (IQR 13–78). 88.6% of studies had an academic sponsor and 80% were funded through government sources. Operational complexities were particularly reported during trial set-up due to lack of harmonisation in regulatory approvals and in relation to sponsorship structure, with associated budgetary impacts. Additional challenges included site selection, staff training, lengthy contract negotiations, site monitoring, communication, trial oversight, recruitment, data management, drug procurement and distribution, pharmacy involvement and biospecimen processing and transport.

International collaborative trials are valuable in cases where recruitment may be difficult, diversifying participation and applicability. However, multiple operational and regulatory challenges are encountered when implementing a trial in multiple countries. Careful planning and communication between trials units and investigators, with an emphasis on establishing adequately resourced cross-border sponsorship structures and regulatory approvals, may help to overcome these barriers and realise the benefits of the approach.

osf-registrations-yvtjb-v1.

The study aims to investigate the perceptions of patients with thyroid cancer on the potential impact of diagnosis and treatment delays during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This study involved qualitative semi-structured telephone interviews. The interviews were transcribed verbatim, analysed using the thematic framework analysis method and reported using the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research.

Participants in the study were treated and/or managed at hospital sites across New South Wales and Victoria, Australia.

17 patients with thyroid cancer were interviewed and included in the analysis (14 females and 3 males).

The delays experienced by patients ranged from 12 months. The patients reported about delays to diagnostic tests, delays to surgery and radioactive iodine treatment, perceived disease progression and, for some, the financial burden of choosing to go through private treatment to minimise the delay. Most patients also reported not wanting to experience delays any longer than they did, due to unease and anxiety.

This study highlights an increased psychological burden in patients with thyroid cancer who experienced delayed diagnosis and/or treatment during COVID-19. The impacts experienced by patients during this time may be similar in the case of other unexpected delays and highlight the need for regular clinical review during delays to diagnosis or treatment.