Cancer screening appointments are an opportunity to encourage positive behavioural changes. Up to 80% of cancer screening attendees are open to discussing physical activity during cancer screening, but some say this would deter them from future screening. This study aimed to gain an in-depth understanding of individuals’ receptivity to physical activity advice at cancer screening.

Interview-based qualitative study.

The study was conducted from May 2017 to September 2018 in the UK. Participants were recruited using adverts on two university campuses, Facebook and a participant recruitment agency. To be eligible, participants had to have an upcoming cancer screening appointment within 2 weeks. There were 30 participants.

Participants recorded their receptivity to physical activity advice in the days before and after screening. Data-prompted semi-structured interviews explored these responses. Interviews were analysed using a thematic framework analysis.

Participants felt discussing physical activity at cancer screening would be relevant. However, participants experienced anxiety related to the screening process which could increase or decrease their receptivity. Participants felt if information was delivered in a judgemental way, it could negatively impact future screening participation.

Screening attendees’ receptivity could be influenced by the timing of a discussion and by their levels of anxiety throughout screening. Participants’ anxiety during screening can either reduce their ability to engage in a discussion or increase the relevance of the discussion. The communication style of the healthcare practitioner was key for why some screening attendees could be deterred from future cancer screening.

Community health workers (CHWs) are trained lay people and trusted members of communities worldwide who play crucial roles in bridging healthcare gaps in low–middle-income countries yet remain underused and not well integrated within high-income countries like Canada. The objective of this scoping review is to map out available evidence on the integration of CHWs in high-income countries with universal healthcare systems.

This scoping review will include all available literature involving CHWs, or similar designations, and their integration into universal health systems within high-income countries. Literature will be excluded if it does not involve CHWs, universal healthcare systems, address integration or is conducted in low–middle-income countries. This review will include all available literature (including those that show null or negative results) that examines the integration of CHWs in high-income countries with a universal healthcare system. Documents describing integration may include, but are not limited to: tools, policies, models, frameworks, programmes or organisational features that seek to promote positive integration. Peer-reviewed and grey literature examining CHW integration in high-income countries with universal healthcare systems will be eligible for inclusion. Databases/sources to be searched (from inception until November 2025) will include: Medline (Ovid), Embase (Elsevier), Scopus (Elsevier), CINAHL (EBSCO), PsycINFO (EBSCO), Academic Search Premier (EBSCO), Business Source Complete (EBSCO), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. Retrieval of full-text, all language studies (and other literature), data extraction, synthesis and mapping will be performed independently by two reviewers, following Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. Findings will be organised and presented according to the Levesque conceptual framework for healthcare access.

Ethics approval is not required for this scoping review and literature search will start in October 2025 or on acceptance of this protocol. The findings of the scoping review will be available (February 2026) and will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

To compare the quality and time efficiency of physician-written summaries with customised large language model (LLM)-generated medical summaries integrated into the electronic health record (EHR) in a non-English clinical environment.

Cross-sectional non-inferiority validation study.

Tertiary academic hospital.

52 physicians from 8 specialties at a large Dutch academic hospital participated, either in writing summaries (n=42) or evaluating them (n=10).

Physician writers wrote summaries of 50 patient records. LLM-generated summaries were created for the same records using an EHR-integrated LLM. An independent, blinded panel of physician evaluators compared physician-written summaries to LLM-generated summaries.

Primary outcome measures were completeness, correctness and conciseness (on a 5-point Likert scale). Secondary outcomes were preference and trust, and time to generate either the physician-written or LLM-generated summary.

The completeness and correctness of LLM-generated summaries did not differ significantly from physician-written summaries. However, LLM summaries were less concise (3.0 vs 3.5, p=0.001). Overall evaluation scores were similar (3.4 vs 3.3, p=0.373), with 57% of evaluators preferring LLM-generated summaries. Trust in both summary types was comparable, and interobserver variability showed excellent reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.975). Physicians took an average of 7 min per summary, while LLMs completed the same task in just 15.7 s.

LLM-generated summaries are comparable to physician-written summaries in completeness and correctness, although slightly less concise. With a clear time-saving benefit, LLMs could help reduce clinicians’ administrative burden without compromising summary quality.

Guidelines for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA) dictate the initiation of conservative treatment (physical therapy, analgesics and intra-articular injections with corticosteroids) as a first line defence. When conservative treatment fails, the golden standard is invasive joint replacement surgery, but for a substantial group of patients who do not respond to the current conservative treatment, this is not (yet) indicated. The RADIOPHENOL study investigates if denervation of knee sensory (genicular) nerves can serve the gap between conservative and invasive treatment for younger patients and for patients who cannot undergo joint replacement surgery due to comorbid health conditions.

The RADIOPHENOL study is a multicentre unblinded randomised controlled trial with three parallel arms (1:1:1). In total, 192 patients with knee OA Kellgren-Lawrence grades 2–4 but not eligible for joint replacement according to the orthopaedic surgeon due to young age, old age and/or comorbidity or technical reasons are eligible and will be randomised to three groups of 64 patients. Group A: traditional radiofrequency ablation, group B: chemical neurolysis with phenol, group C: conservative medical management. Primary outcome is the Oxford Knee Score at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, knee pain by numeric rating scale, physical functionality, health-related quality of life, mental health, change in medication use, predictive value of a diagnostic block, procedure time, patient discomfort score during the intervention and adverse events.

The protocol (V.2.0, 15 May 2023), was approved by the Ethics Committee of Amsterdam UMC (NL83410.018.22 – METC2022.0890) on 31 July 2023. We aim to publish our results in international peer-reviewed journals.

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06094660, including the WHO Trial Registration data set items. Registered on 20 October 2023, first patient enrolled on 27 November 2023.