Vertigo is a prevalent and burdensome symptom. More than 80% of patients with vertigo are primarily treated by their general practitioner (GP) and are never referred to a medical specialist. Despite this therapeutic responsibility, the GP’s diagnostic toolkit has serious limitations. All recommended tests lack empirical evidence, because a diagnostic accuracy study on vestibular disorders (‘How well does test x discriminate between patients with or without target condition y?’) has never been performed in general practice. The VERtigo DIagnosis study aims to fill this gap.

We will perform a diagnostic accuracy study on vertigo of primary vestibular origin in general practice to assess the discriminative ability of history taking and physical examination. We will compare all index tests with a respective reference standard. We will focus on five target conditions that account for more than 95% of vertigo diagnoses in general practice: (1) benign paroxysmal positional vertigo, (2) vestibular neuritis, (3) Ménière’s disease, (4) vestibular migraine (VM) and (5) central causes other than VM. As these five target conditions have a different pathophysiology and lack one generally accepted gold standard, we will use consensus diagnosis as a construct reference standard. Data for each patient, including history, physical examination and additional tests as recommended by experts in an international Delphi procedure, will be recorded on a standardised form and independently reviewed by a neurologist and otorhinolaryngologist. For each patient, the reviewers have to decide about the presence/absence of each target condition. We will calculate sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, likelihood ratios and diagnostic ORs, followed by decision rules for each target condition.

The study obtained approval from the Vrije Universiteit Medical Center Medical Ethical Review Committee (reference: 2022.0817—NL83111.029.22). We will publish our findings in peer-reviewed international journals.

ISRCTN97250704.

To determine the well-being of physicians and nurses in hospital practice in Europe, and to identify interventions that hold promise for reducing adverse clinician outcomes and improving patient safety.

Baseline cross-sectional survey of 2187 physicians and 6643 nurses practicing in 64 hospitals in six European countries participating in the EU-funded Magnet4Europe intervention to improve clinicians’ well-being.

Acute general hospitals with 150 or more beds in six European countries: Belgium, England, Germany, Ireland, Sweden and Norway.

Physicians and nurses with direct patient contact working in adult medical and surgical inpatient units, including intensive care and emergency departments.

Burnout, job dissatisfaction, physical and mental health, intent to leave job, quality of care and patient safety and interventions clinicians believe would improve their well-being.

Poor work/life balance (57% physicians, 40% nurses), intent to leave (29% physicians, 33% nurses) and high burnout (25% physicians, 26% nurses) were prevalent. Rates varied by hospitals within countries and between countries. Better work environments and staffing were associated with lower percentages of clinicians reporting unfavourable health indicators, quality of care and patient safety. The effect of a 1 IQR improvement in work environments was associated with 7.2% fewer physicians and 5.3% fewer nurses reporting high burnout, and 14.2% fewer physicians and 8.6% fewer nurses giving their hospital an unfavourable rating of quality of care. Improving nurse staffing levels (79% nurses) and reducing bureaucracy and red tape (44% physicians) were interventions clinicians reported would be most effective in improving their own well-being, whereas individual mental health interventions were less frequently prioritised.

Burnout, mental health morbidities, job dissatisfaction and concerns about patient safety and care quality are prevalent among European hospital physicians and nurses. Interventions to improve hospital work environments and staffing are more important to clinicians than mental health interventions to improve personal resilience.

According to the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework, the theorisation of how multilevel, multicomponent interventions work and the understanding of their interaction with their implementation context are necessary to be able to evaluate them beyond their complexity. More research is needed to provide good examples following this approach in order to produce evidence-based information on implementation practices.

This article reports on the results of the process evaluation of a complex mental health intervention in small and medium enterprises (SMEs) tested through a pilot study. The overarching aim is to contribute to the evidence base related to the recruitment, engagement and implementation strategies of applied mental health interventions in the workplace.

The Mental Health Promotion and Intervention in Occupational Settings (MENTUPP) intervention was pilot tested in 25 SMEs in three work sectors and nine countries. The evaluation strategy of the pilot test relied on a mixed-methods approach combining qualitative and quantitative research methods. The process evaluation was inspired by the RE-AIM framework and the taxonomy of implementation outcomes suggested by Proctor and colleagues and focused on seven dimensions: reach, adoption, implementation, acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility and maintenance.

Factors facilitating implementation included the variety of the provided materials, the support provided by the research officers (ROs) and the existence of a structured plan for implementation, among others. Main barriers to implementation were the difficulty of talking about mental health, familiarisation with technology, difficulty in fitting the intervention into the daily routine and restrictions caused by COVID-19.

The results will be used to optimise the MENTUPP intervention and the theoretical framework that we developed to evaluate the causal mechanisms underlying MENTUPP. Conducting this systematic and comprehensive process evaluation contributes to the enhancement of the evidence base related to mental health interventions in the workplace and it can be used as a guide to overcome their contextual complexity.

ISRCTN14582090.