More than 170 countries have implemented disability-targeted social protection programmes, although few have been rigorously evaluated. Consequently, a non-randomised controlled trial is being conducted of a pilot ‘cash-plus’ programme implemented by UNICEF Laos and the Laos government for children with disabilities in the Xiengkhouang Province in Laos. The intervention combines a regular cash transfer with provision of assistive devices and access for caregivers to a family support programme.

The non-randomised controlled trial will involve 350 children with disabilities across 3 districts identified by programme implementers as eligible for the programme (intervention arm). Implementers have also identified approximately 180 children with disabilities in neighbouring districts, who would otherwise meet eligibility criteria but do not live in the project areas (control arm). The trial will assess the impact of the programme on child well-being (primary outcome), as well as household poverty, caregiver quality of life and time use (secondary outcomes). Baseline data are being collected May–October 2023, with endline 24 months later. Analysis will be intention to treat. A complementary process evaluation will explore the implementation, acceptability of the programme, challenges and enablers to its delivery and mechanisms of impact.

The study has received ethical approval from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and the National Ethics Committee for Health Research in Laos. Informed consent and assent will be taken by trained data collectors. Data will be collected and stored on a secure, encrypted server and its use will follow a detailed data management plan. Findings will be disseminated in academic journals and in short briefs for policy and programmatic actors, and in online and in-person events.

ISRCTN80603476.

Building on Existing Tools To improvE chronic disease pRevention and screening in primary care Wellness of cancer survIvorS and patiEnts (BETTER WISE) was designed to assess the effectiveness of a cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) programme. Here, we compare outcomes in participants living with and without financial difficulty.

Secondary analysis of a cluster-randomised controlled trial.

Patients of 59 physicians from 13 clinics enrolled between September 2018 and August 2019.

596 of 1005 trial participants who responded to a financial difficulty screening question at enrolment.

1-hour CCDPS visit versus usual care.

Eligibility for a possible 24 CCDPS actions was assessed at baseline and the primary outcome was the percentage of eligible items that were completed at 12-month follow-up. We also compared the change in response to the financial difficulty screening question between baseline and follow-up.

55 of 265 participants (20.7%) in the control group and 69 of 331 participants (20.8%) in the intervention group reported living with financial difficulty. The primary outcome was 29% (95% CI 26% to 33%) for intervention and 23% (95% CI 21% to 26%) for control participants without financial difficulty (p=0.01). Intervention and control participants with financial difficulty scored 28% (95% CI 24% to 32%) and 32% (95% CI 27% to 38%), respectively (p=0.14). In participants who responded to the financial difficulty question at both time points (n=302), there was a net decrease in the percentage of participants who reported financial difficulty between baseline (21%) and follow-up (12%, p

The BETTER intervention improved uptake of CCDPS manoeuvres in participants without financial difficulty, but not in those living with financial difficulty. Improving CCDPS for people living with financial difficulty may require a different clinical approach or that social determinants be addressed concurrently with clinical and lifestyle needs or both.

ISRCTN21333761.

This study aims to evaluate the usage and implementation of video remote (VR) interpreting and telephone remote (TR) interpreting in primary healthcare settings.

This publication forms part of a larger three-pronged study in which we compared both remote interpreting modalities to each other and to a control group. This paper conveys the findings of the qualitative evaluation of the implementation and usage of both remote interpreting solutions. The quantitative evaluation of the 6-month intervention period (September 2018–February 2019) has been reported previously. After this period, we conducted focus groups with the healthcare professionals involved. The focus groups were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the structured qualitative content analysis.

We provided either VR or TR tools to 10 different primary healthcare practices (general medicine, gynaecology and paediatrics) in the city of Hamburg, Germany.

Three physicians and two physician’s assistants took part in the TR focus group. The VR focus group consisted of four physicians.

The main topics identified were the importance of communication for diagnostic and therapeutic processes, previous solutions to language barriers, as well as advantages and disadvantages of the two remote interpreting solutions. Advantages included the possibility to adequately communicate with language discordant patients and the high quality of the interpreting. Disadvantages included the habituation time required for new technology as well as time constraints.

Our evaluation found that these solutions were highly appreciated, if not considered indispensable, for the delivery of appropriate medical care to language-discordant patients. Differences between the two modalities were named and concrete suggestions for improvement were made. Policy-makers should consider providing VR or TR as an adequate and safe interpreting service alternative when professional in-person interpreters are not available or too expensive.