Poor indoor air quality and heat, individually and together, cause serious health impacts on children. Thus, there is a growing interest in creating school classroom environments that reduce health risks associated with these indoor environmental conditions. However, it is unclear if the existing evidence provides effective, practical and reliable interventions or strategies that can be implemented in classrooms. Additionally, the pertinence of these strategies for low-income communities needs to be elucidated. This scoping review will, therefore, document the findings of studies that have analysed interventions and strategies to improve school classroom conditions by reducing heat exposure and poor air quality to protect the health and well-being of children. This scoping review will consider: (1) interventions or adaptation strategies that have reduced heat exposure in classrooms; (2) interventions or adaptation strategies that have reduced air pollutant exposure in classrooms; (3) classroom building modifications that reduce exposure to heat and poor air quality and (4) improved health outcomes in children due to reduced heat and air pollutants. Studies that report reductions in heat or air pollutant exposure and show significant improvements in learner health outcomes will be prioritised for deeper analysis and considered particularly valuable for informing evidence-based recommendations.

We will explore original and review articles from both high-income and low-income settings that evaluate interventions and strategies for preventing or reducing heat exposure and poor air quality, to safeguard the health and well-being of children in classrooms. A comprehensive literature search will be conducted on Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Global Health, PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect and Web of Science. Searches will be limited to literature published in the last 10 years (2015–2025). Results will be exported to EndNote for deduplication and to Abstrackr software for screening. Four reviewers will do abstract screening to ensure consistency. Data from included papers will be presented in tables with a narrative commentary.

No ethical approval is required for this study as primary data collection will not be conducted. A manuscript detailing the findings from this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Cirrhosis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Patients with decompensated cirrhosis, or end-stage liver disease (ESLD), have a high symptom burden and an increased mortality risk. Yet, the uptake of palliative care in patients with ESLD remains low and variable. Despite robust evidence of the value of home palliative care in other advanced diseases, this has not been well studied in patients with ESLD. Hence, the primary aim of this study is to explore the implementation, feasibility and acceptability of home palliative care in patients with ESLD and healthcare professionals. We also aim to describe its impact on the quality of life (QoL), mood, symptom burden, caregiver burden and healthcare utilisation of patients with ESLD.

The study is a single-centre, mixed-methods feasibility study. Eligible patients include those with decompensated liver cirrhosis who are admitted under the gastroenterology and hepatology service and fulfil the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicator Tools (SPICT) criteria. Recruited patients will be followed up by a multi-disciplinary homecare team led by a palliative care physician for 6 months. Both qualitative and quantitative measures will be used to evaluate the primary aim and include the uptake of the service by both eligible patients and physicians. Semistructured interviews with key stakeholder groups will be conducted to determine their perspectives and experiences. Secondary outcome measures include changes in health-related QoL using the Chronic Liver Disease Questionnaire, depression severity, goals of care discussions, patient symptom burden, caregiver burden and healthcare utilisation.

This study will adhere to the Declaration of Helsinki and has been approved by the research ethics committee of the National Healthcare Group (DSRB (Domain Specific Review Board) reference: 2023/00852). Results will be submitted for publication in international peer-reviewed journals.

Simulation is well established in medical education. However, with rising numbers of medical students globally, provision of high-quality, equitable simulation teaching on a large, multisite scale is increasingly challenging. We sought to explore whether a centrally designed, multisite simulation programme could enhance student confidence equitably across multiple clinical sites with differing resources.

An evaluative study on the changes in medical student confidence on defined intended learning outcomes (ILOs) in 3 undergraduate year groups across 11 simulation sessions delivered at eight different clinical sites with variable resources and facilitators.

Eight hospitals affiliated with Imperial College School of Medicine.

Students’ self-reported confidence in achieving the ILOs via a questionnaire at the end of each session. Changes in confidence following each session were analysed and compared across sites.

522 students responded to the survey over 3 academic years. Students’ mean confidence in achieving ILOs increased in all sessions. Nine out of 10 sessions showed no statistically significant difference in the confidence increases between sites.

Our study suggests it is possible to deliver an equitable, centrally designed, large-scale simulation teaching programme to medical students across multiple clinical sites with different facilitator teams. The programme is sustainable, easily facilitated by new teaching fellows each year and is likely adaptable to other healthcare professions and settings.

To study the reliability and validity of adverse childhood experiences (ACE) scores measured using a questionnaire versus abstraction of medical records, and to test whether the scores vary by history of bilateral oophorectomy, or by age and presence of anxiety or depressive symptoms at the time of questionnaire administration.

The study involved a reliability component and a predictive validity component.

A population-based sample in Olmsted County, Minnesota, was derived from the Mayo Clinic Cohort Study of Oophorectomy and Aging-2.

We included 198 women who underwent premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy for a non-malignant indication between 1988 and 2007 and 174 referent women of the same age randomly sampled from the general population (total of 372 women). At a later time (median of 22.7 years later), the women were contacted and invited to self-administer the ACE questionnaire during an inperson visit. Independent of the visit, their medical records were abstracted for ACE by a physician.

Questionnaire and abstraction-based ACE scores.

Agreement between the two ACE scores (reliability; weighted kappa statistics) and comparison of incidence of multimorbidity in women with ACE scores ≥1 vs 0 (predictive validity; survival analyses). Data were analysed in March and April 2024.

The 372 women in the study had a median age of 65 years at the time of ACE questionnaire self-administration (IQR, 62–69). Questionnaire-based ACE scores showed moderate agreement with abstracted ACE scores (weighted kappa 0.44 (95% CI 0.34 to 0.54)). The cut-off score of ACE ≥1 showed an overall fair agreement between the two scores (kappa 0.33 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.43)). A comparison of the cumulative incidence of multimorbidity in women with an ACE score ≥1 versus women with ACE score of 0 yielded a HR of 1.13 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.27) for abstracted ACE and 1.13 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.27) for questionnaire-based ACE. The best predictive validity was for ACE measured by both methods combined (either or) with a HR of 1.29 (95% CI 1.13 to 1.46).

Questionnaire-based ACE scores have moderate agreement with medical records abstracted ACE scores. However, both sets of ACE scores are predictive of the accumulation of multimorbidity at older age and should be considered complementary.