To estimate the healthcare costs associated with post-stroke dysphagia during acute hospitalisation and to identify factors influencing these costs in a tertiary hospital setting in Vietnam.

A cross-sectional study using clinical and billing data from hospital records.

The study was conducted at the Neurology Center of Bach Mai Hospital, a tertiary care facility in Hanoi, Vietnam, between June 2020 and January 2022.

A total of 951 patients aged ≥18 years with acute ischaemic stroke confirmed by CT or MRI were included. Dysphagia was assessed using the Gugging Swallowing Screen.

Direct healthcare costs during hospitalisation were collected from the hospital billing system and categorised as medications, diagnostic imaging, medical supplies, accommodation, food, procedures and laboratory tests. All costs were converted to USD. Associations between patient characteristics and total healthcare costs were analysed using generalised linear models (Gamma distribution with log link), applying robust standard errors.

The median treatment cost was 10.08 million VND (436.24 USD) in the dysphagia group vs 6.37 million VND (275.78 USD) in the non-dysphagia group. Costs increased with dysphagia severity, reaching 22.64 million VND (979.49 USD) among patients with severe dysphagia. In multivariate analysis, dysphagia was associated with a 21% increase in costs (exp(β) = 1.21; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.33; p14, pneumonia, prolonged hospitalisation and higher educational level.

Post-stroke dysphagia substantially increases acute hospitalisation costs in Vietnam. Early screening, standardised management and preventive care for complications may improve outcomes and reduce costs.

The study was registered on the Research Registry website (https://www.researchregistry.com/) under the unique identification number: researchregistry8203.

Informal caregivers play a vital role in caring for individuals who choose to spend the end of their life at home. However, this caregiving role often imposes considerable physical, emotional, social and financial burdens that can negatively impact caregivers’ quality of life. A comprehensive understanding of the breadth of interventions designed to support caregivers of individuals receiving home-based palliative and end-of-life care is essential, along with insights into how these interventions are perceived by those who have received them. The objective of this review is to synthesise existing evidence on the effectiveness and appropriateness of interventions that support informal caregivers of patients receiving home-based palliative care in order to address the caregivers’ needs and improve their quality of life. Additionally, this review aims to explore the acceptability and perceived benefits of these interventions from the perspectives of informal caregivers who have received them.

A comprehensive search will be performed in the following databases: MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, Cairn.info, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). This review will include studies that focus on adult informal caregivers of adult patients with serious life-threatening illnesses receiving home-based palliative care. Interventional studies that employed quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods approaches will be considered. Quantitative studies will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and experimental and quasi-experimental designs. Qualitative studies will encompass research that explores informal caregivers’ experiences with the interventions, perceived benefits and barriers and enablers influencing intervention effectiveness. Mixed-methods studies using convergent, embedded or sequential designs will also be included.

The search will include studies published in English or French, with no restrictions on the publication period. Study selection, critical appraisal and data extraction will be conducted independently by two reviewers to ensure methodological rigour. This review will adhere to the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines for mixed-methods systematic reviews, using a convergent segregated approach. Findings will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

Ethical review is not required for this study, as it is a literature review that does not involve the collection of primary data. The findings of this review will be disseminated to the scientific community through conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications. Additionally, lay summaries will be prepared and shared with the general public and relevant stakeholders.

PROSPERO, registration number CRD420251006612.

The ageing population in Europe is experiencing a significant rise in urinary incontinence (UI), which affects millions and incurs substantial healthcare costs. While conservative treatment (eg, behavioural strategies, pelvic floor exercises) can help manage UI, there is a need for evidence-based eHealth solutions to improve adherence and treatment outcomes. The KOKU Bladder project aims to co-create, develop and test an eHealth intervention to improve bladder health (BH) and UI in adults aged 50 and over.

Phase 1 will consist of the co-creation and technological development of the eHealth solution. First, a rapid review will be undertaken to identify eHealth solutions (ie, technologies and websites), including behaviour change techniques (BCTs) and elements of gamification for self-management of BH and UI in adults aged 50 and over. Also, a consultation with eight experts on BH/UI and/or BCTs will be conducted to explore recommendations for the new eHealth solution. The PROSECO framework will facilitate an assessment of the co-creation process. Phase 1 will additionally include the conduction of at least six focus groups, to be held in Kaunas (Lithuania), Catalonia (Spain) and Manchester (UK) to co-create the contents of the digital solution. Each focus group will include 10–12 community-dwelling adults aged 50+, with different physical conditions and continence status, as well as health professionals and other stakeholders. The information collected will be analysed thematically. First, we will hold three focus groups, one in each country, to find out the opinion of the participants. Once the focus groups are finished and the first version of the technological solution is created, participants will test it and provide feedback in three additional focus groups. Participants’ opinions will be taken into account to make modifications to the solution and co-create the final version. Gamification methods and the Honeycomb model for user experience will be followed in order to achieve a technological solution that is adequate for its target population.

Phase 2 will consist of a multicentre pilot study with a mixed method (quantitative and qualitative) approach to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the newly developed technological solution. At least 120 participants (40 per country) will be recruited and randomised into two groups: intervention (KOKU Bladder) and control (indirect health education). The primary outcome will be the severity of UI, according to the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-UI short form. Secondary outcomes will include quality of life (EuroQol 5-Dimension, 5-Level), life-impact related to UI (Incontinence Impact Questionnaire-7), lower urinary tract symptoms (Symptoms of Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction Research Network Symptom Index-10 (LURN SI-10)), International Consultation Questionnaire on Incontinence Bowel Score, Patient Global Impression of Improvement; levels of physical activity and sedentary behaviour (accelerometer), as well as satisfaction with treatment (Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8)). The latter, together with recruitment, adherence, retention, attrition and data loss, will be used for measuring intervention feasibility and acceptability. Statistical and clinical significance, as well as effect size, will be calculated.

The project is approved by the Research Ethics Committee of IRIS-CC approved the project on 9 January 2025 (code 24/095), the Research Ethics Committee of Hospital Universitari Arnau de Vilanova of Lleida on 27 January 2025 (CEIC-3201), the Commission on Research Ethics of Lithuania on 3 March 2025 (SMTEK-31) and the Research Ethics Committee 3 of the University of Manchester on 13 August 2025 (2025-23619-43258). Participation and withdrawal will be voluntary. Informed consent will be obtained from candidates willing to join the project. Study results will be disseminated via publication of scientific articles, presentations at professional workshops, webinars and congresses, as well as through social media and lay summaries for participants and the general public.

NCT06583733.

CRD42024597624.

To estimate the direction and magnitude of socioeconomic inequalities in outcome, experience and care among adults consulting for a musculoskeletal pain condition.

Multicentre, prospective observational cohort with repeated measures at three waves (baseline, 3 months and 6 months after index consultation).

30 general practices in North Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, England.

1875 consecutive, eligible, consenting patients, aged 18 years and over, presenting with a relevant SNOMED CT-coded musculoskeletal pain condition between September 2021 and July 2022.

Standard care.

Primary outcome was patient-reported pain and function using the Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire (MSK-HQ score, 0–56). Secondary outcomes were patient experience (overall dissatisfaction with consultation experience, dichotomised) and an indicator of care received (opioid prescription within 14 days of index consultation). Using multilevel models, we examined inequalities in primary and secondary outcomes by area deprivation (Index of Multiple Deprivation derived from patient residential postcode), before and after adjusting for sociodemographic and survey administration variables, clinical case-mix and selected practice-level covariates.

Compared with patients from the least deprived neighbourhoods, patients from the most deprived neighbourhoods had significantly poorer MSK-HQ scores at baseline (mean 22.6 (SD 10.4) vs 27.6 (10.1)). At 6 months, the inequality gap in MSK-HQ score widened (difference in mean score after adjustment for all covariates: 1.94; 95% CI: –0.70 to 4.58). Opioid prescription was more common for patients living in the most deprived neighbourhoods (30% vs 19%; fully adjusted OR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.44 to 1.08). Only 6% of patients overall reported being dissatisfied with their consultation. Analysis of multiply imputed data produced a similar pattern of findings to complete-case analysis.

Substantial inequalities in the chronicity, severity and complexity of musculoskeletal pain problems are already present at the time of accessing care. Inequalities in pain and function do not reduce after accessing care and may even widen slightly.

ISRCTN18132064; Results.