To describe current levels of interest and action around decarbonisation in general practice settings, and awareness and use of currently available materials designed to support general practice teams undertake decarbonisation activity.

Cross-sectional, mixed methods, online survey.

473 general practices in three Integrated Care Board regions in England.

Multiprofessional general practice staff.

There were 328 responses from 163 (34.5%) practices. Most respondents were general practitioner (GP) partners (98; 29.9%), other clinical staff (93; 28.3%) or managerial staff (76; 23.2%). 229 (69.8%) respondents felt that acting to reduce carbon emissions from primary care is a legitimate part of general practice activity. However, only 44 (13.4%) felt that there is sufficient training and resources to support such activity, and only 59 (18.0%) agreed that there was sufficient leadership from higher levels within the health service to enable this. 58 (35.6%) practices had a lead for sustainability, generally managerial staff (22; 37.9%) or GP partners (17; 29.3%). Compared to other practices, those with a decarbonisation lead reported increased levels of decarbonisation actions currently being undertaken (mean = 5.2 vs 3.1; t(161) = 7.7, p2=31.9, p2=32.3, p

This survey provides insight into how English general practices and their staff regard decarbonisation activities. The findings highlight the importance of leadership, resources and incentives in driving such activities and have implications for initiatives to help achieve wider decarbonisation goals in healthcare.

Amid growing concerns about primary care accessibility and the need to support longitudinal, community-based models of care, Canadian provinces have implemented major reforms to how family physicians are paid. These models share objectives of making longitudinal, community-based family practice more attractive and, to some degree, addressing long-standing disparities in pay between family medicine and other specialties. These new remuneration models require robust evaluation to guide improvements, future investments and planning.

We will conduct a multimethod study to explore physician perceptions and outcomes of these new models. First, we will complete semi-structured interviews with family physicians in British Columbia, Manitoba and Nova Scotia (provinces where a new blended compensation model has been introduced). Interviews will explore family physicians’ motivations for moving onto the blended compensation model; how the model has impacted their practice, administrative burden, visit length, capacity, changes to care coordination; and other areas of interest. Second, using provincial and national administrative datasets, we will assess the impact of these payment reforms on service volume, attachment/enrolment, continuity of care, and costs.

We have obtained cross-jurisdictional ethics approvals from Research Ethics British Columbia for the qualitative components and Nova Scotia Health for the quantitative components of this research. Harmonised ethics approvals have been obtained from additional institutions across all study regions. We will create summaries of findings of provincial and cross-provincial analyses and share them with relevant policymakers, physician associations and study participants. Our dissemination will also include traditional publications such as peer-reviewed articles, commentaries/editorials, and academic conferences.

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research involves an active collaboration between patients/members of the public and researchers in equal partnership. PPI in health research ensures the research benefits those most impacted by the research and is a well-established necessity of high-quality research. PPI for large programmes of work involving multiple studies frequently relies on a single PPI group that oversees the entire programme. We believe that this ‘traditional’ approach can negatively contribute to the power imbalance between researchers and PPI members, since PPI members have a very wide remit and are unable to embed themselves fully in all aspects of the research.

The study aimed to evaluate a novel PPI approach, the ‘Patient Bridge Role’, designed to promote a more equal distribution of power between public collaborators and researchers in a large research programme. The Patient Bridge Role involves assigning specific public collaborators to each work package, facilitating deeper engagement and communication.

The Patient Bridge Role addresses the limitations of traditional PPI. This approach requires clear role definitions and collaborative development of guidelines to ensure effective communication and shared decision-making. Despite initial challenges related to role clarity and boundaries, the Patient Bridge Roles successfully promoted a more balanced partnership between researchers and public collaborators.

Active partnerships between public collaborators and researchers are critical to creating more relevant and higher quality research. Yet, there are many practical and conceptual barriers to this. The Patient Bridge Role offers a promising strategy for enhancing PPI in large research programmes.

To determine whether an enhanced community rehabilitation intervention (the Fracture in the Elderly Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation (FEMuR) intervention) was more effective than usual National Health Service care, following surgical repair of hip fracture, in terms of the recovery of activities of daily living (ADLs).

Definitive, pragmatic, multisite, parallel-group, two-armed, superiority randomised controlled trial with 1:1 allocation ratio.

Participant recruitment in 13 hospitals across England and Wales, with the FEMuR intervention delivered in the community.

Patients aged over 60 years, with mental capacity, recovering from surgical treatment for hip fracture and living in their own home prior to fracture.

Usual rehabilitation care (control) was compared with usual rehabilitation care plus the FEMuR intervention, which comprised a patient-held workbook and goal-setting diary to improve self-efficacy, and six additional therapy sessions delivered in-person in the community, or remotely during COVID-19 restrictions (intervention), to increase the practice of exercise and ADL.

Primary outcome was the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living (NEADL) scale at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Falls Self-Efficacy-International scale, hip pain intensity, fear of falling, grip strength and Short Physical Performance Battery. Outcomes were collected by research assistants in participants’ homes, whenever possible, but had to be collected remotely during COVID-19 restrictions.

In total, 205 participants were randomised (n=104 experimental; n=101 control). Trial processes were adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. There were 20 deaths, 34 withdrawals and three lost to follow-up. At 52 weeks, there was no significant difference in NEADL score between the FEMuR intervention and control groups. Joint modelling analysis testing for difference in longitudinal outcome adjusted for missing values also found no significant difference with a mean difference of 0.1 (95% CI –1.1, 1.3). There were no significant between-group differences in secondary outcomes. Sensitivity analyses, examining the impact of COVID-19 restrictions, produced similar results. A median of 4.5 extra rehabilitation sessions were delivered to the FEMuR intervention group, with a median of two sessions delivered in-person. Instrumental variable regression did not find any effect of the amount of rehabilitation on the main outcome. There were 53 unrelated serious adverse events (SAEs) including 11 deaths in the control group: 41 SAEs including nine deaths in the FEMuR intervention group.

The FEMuR intervention was not more effective than usual rehabilitation care. The trial was severely impacted by COVID-19. Possible reasons for lack of effect included limited intervention fidelity (fewer sessions than planned and remote delivery), lack of usual levels of support from health professionals and families, and change in recovery beliefs and behaviours during the pandemic.

ISRCTN28376407.