The evidence for the optimal duration of psychotherapy for borderline personality disorder (BPD) is scarce. Two previous trials have compared different durations of psychotherapy. The first compared 6 months versus 12 months of dialectical behaviour therapy for BPD (the FASTER trial). The second compared 5 months versus 14 months of mentalisation-based therapy for BPD (the MBT-RCT trial). The primary objective of the present study will be to provide an individual patient data pooled analysis of two randomised clinical trials by combining the two short-term groups and the two long-term groups from the FASTER and MBT-RCT trials, thereby providing greater statistical power than the individual trials. Accordingly, we will evaluate the overall evidence on the effects of short-term versus long-term psychotherapy for BPD and investigate whether certain subgroups might benefit from short-term versus long-term psychotherapy.

An individual patient data pooled analysis of the FASTER trial and the MBT-RCT trial will be conducted. The primary outcome will be a composite of the proportion of participants with a suicide, a suicide attempt or a psychiatric hospitalisation. The secondary outcome will be the proportion of participants with self-harm. Exploratory outcomes will be BPD symptoms, symptom distress, level of functioning and quality of life. We will primarily assess outcomes at 15 months after randomisation for the FASTER trial and at 16 months after randomisation for the MBT-RCT trial. Predefined subgroups based on the design variables in the original trials will be tested for interaction with the intervention as follows: trial, sex (male compared with female), age (below or at 30 years compared with above 30 years) and baseline level of functioning (Global Assessment of Functioning baseline score at 0–49 compared with 50–100).

The statistical analyses will be performed on anonymised trial data that have already been approved by the respective ethical committees that originally assessed the included trials. The final analysis will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and the results will be presented at national seminars and international conferences.

CRD42024612840.

To examine trends in Chuna manual therapy utilisation for musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) following its inclusion in the National Health Insurance (NHI) system in Korea in 2019 using claims data from the Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service (HIRA).

Retrospective analysis of NHI claims data.

Nationwide medical institutions, based on HIRA claims data from April 2019 to December 2021.

All patients who received at least one Chuna therapy session during the study period.

Primary outcome: Annual trends in Chuna manual therapy claims. Secondary outcome: Patient demographics, therapy frequency, MSD diagnoses and concurrent therapies.

A total of 12 729 625 Chuna therapy claims were analysed, showing a gradual annual increase in utilisation from 2019 to 2021. The most common age group was 45–54 years (22.3%), with female patients comprising a higher proportion (55.8%) than male patients.

Low back pain (M54.5), lumbar sprain and strain (S33.5) and cervicalgia (M54.2) were the most common diagnoses. Patients receiving Complex Chuna (50% co-payment) had more treatment sessions than those receiving Simple Chuna or Complex Chuna (80% co-payment), with spinal disorders such as spinal stenosis (M48.0) and intervertebral disc disorders (M51.1, M50.1) associated with higher treatment frequency. Acupuncture was the most common concurrent therapy (97.4%).

This study is the first to comprehensively analyse Chuna therapy utilisation using nationwide NHI claims data. The findings confirm that Chuna therapy is widely used for MSDs, particularly among middle-aged and elderly patients with spinal or muscle-related conditions. Patients with severe or chronic spinal diseases were more likely to receive frequent Chuna therapy sessions. These results provide insights into the utilisation patterns of Chuna therapy and highlight the need for further research to refine reimbursement policies based on disease severity and patient characteristics.

Elder neglect by both informal and formal caregivers is common, particularly among persons with dementia, and has serious health consequences but is under-recognised and under-reported. Persons with dementia are often unable to report neglect due to memory and language impairments, increasing their vulnerability. Screening for elder mistreatment and initiation of intervention in primary care clinics may be helpful, but few evidence-based tools or strategies exist. We plan to: (1) develop a novel primary care screening tool to identify elder neglect in persons with dementia, (2) develop an innovative technology-driven intervention for caregivers and (3) pilot both for feasibility and acceptability in primary care.

We will use a multistep process to develop a screening tool, including a modified Delphi approach with experts, and multivariable analysis comparing confirmed cases of neglect in patients with dementia from the existing data registry to non-neglected controls. We will develop an evidence-based, technology-driven caregiving intervention for neglect with an expert panel and iterative beta testing. Following the development of the protocol for implementation of the tool and intervention with associated training, we will pilot test both the tool and intervention in older adult patients and caregivers. We will conduct provider focus groups and interviews with patients and caregivers to assess usability and will modify the tool and intervention. These studies are in preparation for a future randomised trial.

Initial phases of this project have been reviewed and approved by the Weill Cornell Medicine Institutional Review Board, protocol #22-06024967, with initial approval on 1 July 2022. We aim to disseminate our results in peer-reviewed journals, at national and international conferences and among interested patient groups and the public.

To describe self-reported treatment and exercise strategies among patients with long-lasting low back pain (LBP) 1 month after consultation at a specialised hospital-based Medical Spine Clinic and evaluate their associations with changes in pain and disability 1 and 3 months after consultation.

Prospective cohort study using questionnaire data before consultation (baseline) and 1 and 3 months after consultation.

Specialised hospital-based Medical Spine Clinic, Denmark.

1686 patients with long-lasting LBP completed the baseline questionnaire; 908 patients responded at 1 month, of them 623 responded at 3 month.

Patients were categorised by treatment (physiotherapy, chiropractic treatment, physiotherapy+chiropractic treatment and no recommended treatment) and exercise strategy (exercise continued, exercise ceased, exercise initiated and not exercising).

Pain was assessed by the numeric rating scale (NRS: 0–10), and disability was assessed by the Oswestry disability index (ODI: 0–100).

1-month postconsultation, half of the patients received no recommended treatment; most others received physiotherapy (42%). Nearly half of the patients continued exercise, 28% continued to be inactive, and 22% initiated exercise. For the population as a whole, pain changed by –0.74 (95% CI –0.90; –0.58) and –1.02 (95% CI –1.22; –0.83) points on the NRS at 1- and 3-month follow-up, respectively, and disability by –2.65 (95% CI –3.51; –1.78) and –4.48 (95% CI –5.59; –3.38) points on the ODI. Differences between treatment strategies were small. However, the two groups not exercising improved less compared with those who continued exercise when adjusted for age, sex and baseline level (order of magnitude from 0.07 to 1.18 points on the NRS and from 4.01 to 9.08 points on the ODI). For pain, these group differences were statistically significant at 1 month (p

Mean improvement was negligible, with no differences between treatment strategies. However, patients not exercising showed no or less improvement, highlighting the importance of exercise in managing long-lasting LBP.