Childhood cancer survivors (CCSs) experience educational disruptions during and following treatment, yet robust, longitudinal evidence on educational performance remains limited. We will investigate differences in educational outcomes between CCSs and non-cancer peers during primary and secondary school. We will also explore how sociodemographic factors and age at diagnosis contribute to potential differences in General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) examinations, a critical indicator of future academic and employment prospects.

We will use the Education and Child Health Insights from Linked Data (ECHILD) to capture linked health and education data for children born in National Health Service (NHS)-funded hospitals in England. We will generate birth cohorts spanning September 1997 to August 2015 (estimated sample size: ~10 million), formed of pupils expected to have undertaken national curriculum assessments between academic years 2004/2005 and 2021/2022 including Key Stage (KS) 1, 2 and 4, corresponding to ages 7, 11 and 16 respectively. Cancer diagnosis will be identified from inpatient hospital records, using International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision codes (ICD-10). We will investigate differences between CCS and their non-cancer peers in terms of their sociodemographic characteristics and describe trends in educational performances at all KSs, recorded Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) and school absences. Differences in KS4 (GCSE) performances between CCS and non-cancer peers will be quantified, according to and accounting for geographic region, sex, deprivation, ethnicity and birth characteristics. To assess whether cancer diagnosis disrupts academic trajectories, we will restrict analysis to those with KS2 attainment data and investigate KS4 performance. We will finally explore the influence of age at diagnosis on educational performance at KS4.

Ethics approval was granted by NHS Health Research Authority Research Ethics Committee (20/EE/0180). Findings will be shared with academics, policymakers, children and families affected by childhood cancer, and published in journals. Code/metadata will be shared on ECHILD GitHub repository.

Artificial intelligence (AI)-based clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) are currently being developed to aid prescribing in primary care. There is a lack of research on how these systems will be perceived and used by healthcare professionals and subsequently on how to optimise the implementation process of AI-based CDSSs (AICDSSs).

To explore healthcare professionals’ perspectives on the use of an AICDSS for prescribing in co-existing multiple long-term conditions (MLTC), and the relevance to shared decision making (SDM).

Qualitative study using template analysis of semistructured interviews, based on a case vignette and a mock-up of an AICDSS.

Healthcare professionals prescribing for patients working in the English National Health Service (NHS) primary care in the West Midlands region.

A purposive sample of general practitioners/resident doctors (10), nurse prescribers (3) and prescribing pharmacists (2) working in the English NHS primary care.

The proposed tool generated interest among the participants. Findings included the perception of the tool as user friendly and as a valuable complement to existing clinical guidelines, particularly in a patient population with multiple long-term conditions and polypharmacy, where existing guidelines may be inadequate. Concerns were raised about integration into existing clinical documentation systems, medicolegal aspects, how to interpret findings that were inconsistent with clinical guidelines, and the impact on patient-prescriber relationships. Views differed on whether the tool would aid SDM.

AICDSSs such as the OPTIMAL tool hold potential for optimising pharmaceutical treatment in patients with MLTC. However, specific issues related to the tool need to be addressed and careful implementation into the existing clinical practice is necessary to realise the potential benefits.

Retinal neurodegeneration has recently been shown to occur in tandem with neurodegenerative disease. In the expectation that disease-modifying treatments for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and Parkinson’s disease (PD) will soon become available, it will be important to have clinically useful biomarkers for neurodegenerative disease subtyping to guide early diagnosis, inform on prognosis and stratify subgroups for treatment. Understanding differences in detectable retina changes in individuals with different neurodegenerative disease subtypes is therefore fundamental. The emerging field of oculomics posits that systemic and neurodegenerative disease can be characterised using detectable ocular biomarkers within retinal diagnostics. The aim of this review is to compare the performance of common retinal imaging modalities in neurodegenerative disease detection and subtyping.

This protocol has been reported in accordance with the PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols) guidelines. A comprehensive literature search will be conducted in PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus. Eligible studies will have reported using retinal diagnostic tools defined as optical coherence tomography (OCT), OCT angiography (OCTA), colour fundus photography (CFP) and electroretinography (ERG) in individuals with neurodegenerative diseases, including AD, PD, dementia with Lewy bodies, frontotemporal dementia, vascular dementia and mild cognitive impairment. There will be no time restrictions placed in these searches. Studies not written in English, not peer-reviewed and grey literature will be excluded. Screening for eligible studies and data extraction will be conducted by two independent reviewers, using predefined inclusion criteria. Any disagreements between the reviewers will be settled by discussion, and if required, third senior reviewer arbitration. The systematic review primary outcome is the performance of retinal diagnostics, namely OCT, OCTA, CFP and ERG in the detection and subtyping of aforementioned neurodegenerative diseases. The secondary outcome is to evaluate the association between changes in retinal diagnostic features (eg, retinal layer thicknesses) and neurodegenerative disease subtypes. The quality of the included studies will be assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations) tool. A narrative synthesis approach will be used to analyse the results, with meta-analysis performed if there is sufficient data.

Ethical approval for this manuscript is not required, as this is a protocol for a systematic review and therefore no data are to be collected. Findings for this systematic review will be disseminated as a peer-reviewed publication and presentations at national and international symposiums including International Lewy Body Dementia Conference, International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders, The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology.

CRD42023434024.

Transitions of care (TOC) between hospital, ambulatory and home settings for high-risk adults with chronic diseases are complex, costly and often result in poor health outcomes. Suboptimal care transitions lead to medication errors, non-adherence, decreased self-management skills and inadequate follow-up, all of which contribute to readmissions or emergency department visits. The Transitional Care Model aims to address these challenges through patient-centred, in-home interventions. We propose to implement and evaluate TELE-TOC: Telehealth Education Leveraging Electronic Transitions Of Care for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) patients. This study will evaluate the added value of a virtual, pharmacy-based intervention integrated into an existing COPD TOC program within a single healthcare system.

Informed by the Proctor Framework implementation, service and health outcome domains, we will conduct a randomised controlled trial comparing the addition of at-home pharmacy team-based virtual visits to the standard of care (ie, our existing COPD TOC programme). Adult patients hospitalised for a COPD exacerbation will be randomised to receive the standard COPD TOC programme alone or the standard programme plus TELE-TOC virtual at-home pharmacy visits. We will use a pragmatic type II hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial. The primary effectiveness outcome is inhaler technique at 30 days postdischarge, and the primary implementation outcome is the proportion of patients receiving the intervention. Intention-to-treat analysis will be applied to all outcomes with ² and logistic regression models adjusting for demographic factors. Treatment effects through 30 days will be assessed with generalised estimating equations and generalised linear mixed models.

This study, the waiver of consent and the opt-out flyer were approved by the University of Chicago Institutional Review Board (23–0934). Dissemination of the findings is planned for up to 4 years of completion of the study to local, regional and national conferences and peer-reviewed journals.

NCT05897125.

Testing rates for hepatitis C virus (HCV) of new prison entrants vary considerably between prisons, with particularly low rates in category B male remand prisons. Improvement in testing rates will require an understanding of the underlying reasons.

To investigate the rates and uptake of testing for HCV in new entrants to three category B prisons in England and to use an implementation science framework to analyse the facilitators and barriers to meeting national standards for HCV testing in a prison healthcare environment.

This mixed-methods non-interventional study collated three data sets: anti-HCV testing uptake in prisons, plus data on the prior location of each individual (transfer from another prison or community) and their length of stay; a questionnaire designed to identify reasons for decline of a test administered to people in prison (PIP) who refused testing; qualitative interviews with key stakeholders in the process of prison HCV testing, with analysis based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to enable identification of barriers and facilitators to testing.

This study was conducted in the East Midlands region of England.

Data were obtained from three category B male remand prisons.

Primary outcome measures: This descriptive study sought to understand factors that influence anti-HCV test uptake in three English remand prisons. The selected prisons serve a combined population of 2.3 million and have the capacity to accommodate a total of 2030 prisoners. The testing rates within 4 weeks of arrival in the three prisons over a 12-month study period (March 2022–March 2023) were 17.2%, 28.3% and 42.5%. PIP were more likely to be tested if they arrived from the community compared with interprison transfer (39.13% vs 29.5%). Testing uptake rates increased with length of prison stay (12.4%, 33.6% and 40.7% for stays of 0–7, 15–21 and >28 days, respectively). The most common reasons for not accepting a test were a lack of interest and not wanting to be retested. 13 semistructured interviews revealed 21 barriers and 9 facilitators to testing, summarised in 5 overarching themes: misunderstanding of the concept of opt-out testing; nurses not meeting performance targets due to competing priorities; prison regime hampering healthcare delivery; absence of a specifically appointed co-ordinator who is held to account; incentivising nurses to test and PIP to accept testing.

The rates of testing for HCV in three category B male remand prisons were far below national standards. Key recommendations to improve testing rates, based on the CFIR analysis are (1) to appoint a dedicated senior healthcare staff member who combines responsibility, accountability and authority to proactively oversee testing and ongoing referral processes; (2) to reintroduce an education programme for prison healthcare teams to teach about HCV, cirrhosis and how to deliver ‘opt-out’ conversations and respond to typical responses and (3) to adopt more widely the strategy already shown to be successful in increasing test uptake by the Hepatitis C Trust HITT programme and offer simple incentives.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is characterised by progressive airflow limitation that is not fully reversible and is associated with an abnormal inflammatory response of lungs to noxious particles and gases. The inflammatory and reparative processes occurring in the lungs induce a ‘spill-over’ of inflammatory mediators into the circulation, resulting in an increase in systemic inflammation, which is further increased during acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD), leading to the development of extra-pulmonary comorbidities, such as cognitive impairment. Cognitive impairment affects up to 61% of people living with COPD. Heightened levels of inflammation have been linked to increased risk of cognitive impairments; however, the exact mechanisms remain unclear, thus hampering the development of therapeutics. This study aims to determine whether patients hospitalised with an acute COPD exacerbation show impaired cognitive function compared with recovery (~day 45), and whether such dysfunction is associated with systemic inflammation and oxidative stress.

A prospective, observational study will be conducted at Austin Health in Victoria, Australia. Eligible participants will be assessed during admission for AECOPD and following stabilisation (approximately day 45). The primary outcome is the difference in cognitive function between admission for AECOPD to recovery using non-verbal cognitive tests. Secondary outcomes are changes in systemic markers of inflammation, oxidative stress and ACE2 catalytic activity. Tertiary outcomes are anxiety and depression scores.

Ethical approval has been granted in Australia by Austin Health Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC 56099) with governance approval at Austin Hospital. The results will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presented at national and international scientific conferences. Findings will be disseminated to consumers in publications for lay audiences.

Inhaled anaesthetics can be used in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients to provide sedation. This approach to sedation potentially improves patient and health system outcomes, but further supportive evidence is needed. The objective of the SAVE-ICU clinical trial is to compare the effectiveness of inhaled versus intravenous sedation in ventilated adults with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure.

SAVE-ICU is a multicentre, open-label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial conducted in 15 intensive care units (ICUs) in Canada and the USA. Eligible patients include mechanically ventilated and sedated adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure from COVID-19 or non-COVID causes with PaO₂/F_IO₂ ratio 12 hour). A hierarchy of outcomes was identified at the time of trial design, as the trial was launched during the COVID-19 pandemic when study drug shortages, staffing challenges and healthcare system pressures were prevalent and there was a requirement for rapid evidence generation and implementation on this topic. The primary outcome and highest in the hierarchy is hospital mortality (requiring 758 participants). Secondary and lower hierarchical outcomes are ventilator-free days at day 30 (200 patients), quality of life at 3 months (144 participants) and ICU-free days at day 30 (128 participants). Additional secondary outcomes include median daily oxygenation at day 3 (PaO₂/F_IO₂ ratio), need for adjunctive acute respiratory distress syndrome therapies (prone positioning, inhaled nitric oxide, paralysis with a neuromuscular blocking agent and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) during ICU stay, days alive and free from delirium and coma at day 14, hospital-free days at day 60 and disability score at 3 months and 12 months after enrolment.

The protocol was approved by all hospital ethics committees and by Health Canada. Informed consent will be obtained from substitute decision makers or deferred consent (as permitted by site ethics board). Trial findings will be shared at the end of the study using peer-review publications, conference presentations and social media as part of the trial knowledge translation plan.

NCT04415060.

Endometriosis is a chronic condition affecting up to 11% of people presumed female at birth by the age of 44 years, characterised by the growth of tissue similar to the lining of the uterus on other organs. Endometriosis significantly impacts health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and imposes a substantial burden on both individuals and the healthcare system. International guidelines recommend the interdisciplinary management of endometriosis due to its significant biopsychosocial burden; however, research aimed at exploring psychological approaches for endometriosis is limited. This trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness of CodeEndo, an online co-designed interdisciplinary supportive care program, compared with a waitlist control (WLC), on HRQoL and biopsychosocial outcomes in people with a diagnosis of endometriosis.

A hybrid type 1 effectiveness and implementation randomised controlled trial (RCT) will be conducted. Eligible participants will be randomly allocated to either the CodeEndo program (n=176) or WLC group (n=176) for 8 weeks. The primary outcome will be HRQoL, and secondary outcomes will include psychological symptoms (anxiety, depression, stress), self-efficacy, menstrual, bladder and gastrointestinal symptoms, pain, fatigue, sleep, exercise, diet, symptom bothersomeness and physical and psychological well-being, measured at 8 weeks post-randomisation (T2) and 6-month follow-up (T3). Cost-effectiveness will also be examined. Longitudinal qualitative individual interviews (up to n=40) will be conducted with participants who complete the CodeEndo program to explore benefits, barriers and facilitators of ongoing use. Additionally, the CodeEndo program will undergo evaluation by a group of endometriosis healthcare providers, who will assess potential barriers and facilitators to its real-world implementation. Various process evaluation strategies will also be measured to inform future implementation. Data analyses will incorporate mixed-effects regression models on an intention-to-treat basis, cost-consequences and cost-utility, dietary and qualitative thematic analysis.

This protocol received ethics approval from Deakin University Research Ethics Committee (DUREC Ref: 2024-157). Dissemination is expected to include peer-reviewed journal articles, reports, conference presentations as well as websites or social media platforms of relevant chronic pain organisations. Participants will be sent a summary of trial results.

ACTRN12623000598684p.

Evidence suggests a 38% risk reduction in breast and bowel cancer-specific mortality with higher levels of exercise, however, most of this evidence is observational. More clinical trials are needed to build strong evidence for exercise’s impact on recurrence and survival. This study aims to assess the feasibility, acceptability and potential efficacy of a remote, tailored exercise programme on disease-free survival in patients recently completing curative treatment for early-stage, high-risk lung, breast or bowel cancer.

This UK-based, multicentre randomised controlled basket feasibility trial compares a personalised, remote-delivered exercise programme supported by exercise professionals against usual care. Potential participants are approached if they are: aged 18 or over, diagnosed with high-risk, early-stage breast, bowel or lung cancer, and within 24 weeks of completing primary curative treatments. Participants complete objective measures of physical function (submaximal cardiovascular fitness, endurance, muscle strength and balance), body composition (bioelectrical impedance) and self-reported outcomes (total physical activity, sleep quality, general quality of life (QoL), cancer-related QoL and exercise confidence/motivation). Clinical case note review provides disease-free survival outcomes at 6, 12 and 24 months. The 12-week programme is delivered remotely (via phone, email and/or video conference) with trainer contact tapering off over the subsequent 12 weeks (24 weeks total). Recruitment is ongoing with a 660-participant goal. Descriptive measures (quantitative and qualitative) will be reported for feasibility outcomes: recruitment, adherence, retention rates, data collection quality, adverse events, intervention acceptability and fidelity. A process evaluation is being conducted concurrently and is reported separately. Kaplan-Meier curves will be plotted and median disease-free survival calculated for each arm. To determine intervention impact, a log-rank test (unadjusted) will compare 2-year disease-free survival between groups within and among cancer types. Secondary outcomes (physical function status, general/cancer-specific QoL and determinants of meeting activity guidelines) will be reported at each time point.

Ethical approvals were obtained through Hull York Medical School (ID: 23/SS/0060) and UK NHS Health Research Authority (ID: 327663). Findings will be submitted for publication in high-impact journals, presentation at national and international conferences, press releases where appropriate, and dissemination activities to be decided on with the Patient Advisory Group.

ISRCTN97662203.

Patients with metastatic oncogene-driven non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are experiencing longer and uncertain trajectories of life-limiting illness due to advances in precision medicine. These advanced cancer survivors face new challenges related to living with uncertainty and desire more support to maximize their health and quality of life. Therefore, we developed a population-specific, blended palliative and survivorship care intervention to address the supportive care needs of patients recently diagnosed with advanced lung cancer and who are receiving targeted therapy for NSCLC with EGFR, ALK, ROS1 or RET driver mutations.

This study is a single-site, non-blinded pilot randomised controlled trial of an intervention for patients with metastatic oncogene-driven NSCLC, Patient-centred, Optimal Integration of Survivorship and palliative carE (POISE) versus usual care. POISE consists of a brief series of structured visits with a trained palliative care clinician to address coping with uncertainty, increase prognostic awareness and promote healthy lifestyle behaviours. We will recruit 60 patients from the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center. Patients will be randomised into a 1:1 ratio to the intervention arm or the usual care arm. Patients randomised to the intervention arm will complete four 60 min virtual or in-person visits with a palliative care physician. The usual care arm will receive standard oncology care. Patients in both arms will complete survey assessments at enrolment, 12 weeks and 20 weeks after enrolment, and patients in the intervention group will complete an exit interview. The primary outcome measure of this trial is feasibility, which will be defined by ≥60% enrolment among eligible patients, ≥70% completion of all sessions for participants in the intervention arm and ≥70% completion of all surveys for all study participants. Exploratory outcomes include acceptability, emotional coping with prognosis, self-efficacy for chronic disease management, prognostic awareness, quality of life, anxiety, depression, intolerance of uncertainty and documentation of goals and values discussions in the electronic health record.

This study was approved by the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center’s institutional review board (protocol 20-722). The protocol is reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials guidelines, and the study will be reported in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement for non-pharmacological trials.

NCT04900935.

Various psychological, cognitive, behavioural, medication and neurostimulation treatments can improve the outcomes of people with depressive and anxiety disorders. However, in usual practice, there is large variability in treatment delivery and treatments are poorly characterised. The effectiveness and quality of mental health services in the community are not accurately monitored and are poorly understood. At present, healthcare organisations, payers and policy makers know little about the quality of care they support. Similarly, patients and families have limited information on quality to guide choice of provider or organisation. It will be necessary to implement monitoring of treatment quality so that treatment and outcomes can be improved. This study develops, tests and validates a new, transdiagnostic outcome-focused mental health quality measure. This measure is based on routine, regular patient reports of their symptoms. It is designed to be aggregated at the provider, clinic, organisation or plan level; inform choice of provider; and be used to improve routine delivery of services and quality of care among patients with common psychiatric disorders.

The project analyses existing data with responses to a wide variety of items that are known to assess depression or anxiety and empirically selects symptom items for a transdiagnostic outcome-focused quality measure. The project informs risk adjustment and benchmarking of the quality measure by studying how patient, provider and practice factors, including health-related social needs, baseline symptom severity and diagnoses, affect outcomes. Drawing on these, the project specifies an outcome-focused quality measure that includes risk adjustment and benchmarks for improvement; and studies, at practices nationally, its feasibility and psychometric properties, the effect of treatment characteristics on the quality of care, and the effect of quality on health-related quality of life.

Results will be published. The quality measure is designed to be broadly relevant across community settings and populations and to be submitted for endorsement by regulatory and governing bodies.