Decisions about nurse staffing models are a concern for health systems globally due to workforce retention and well-being challenges. Nurse staffing models range from all Registered Nurse workforce to a mix of differentially educated nurses and aides (regulated and unregulated), such as Licensed Practical or Vocational Nurses and Health Care Aides. Systematic reviews have examined relationships between specific nurse staffing models and client, staff and health system outcomes (eg, mortality, adverse events, retention, healthcare costs), with inconclusive or contradictory results. No evidence has been synthesised and consolidated on how, why and under what contexts certain staffing models produce different outcomes. We aim to describe how we will (1) conduct a realist review to determine how nurse staffing models produce different client, staff and health system outcomes, in which contexts and through what mechanisms and (2) coproduce recommendations with decision-makers to guide future research and implementation of nurse staffing models.

Using an integrated knowledge translation approach with researchers and decision-makers as partners, we are conducting a three-phase realist review. In this protocol, we report on the final two phases of this realist review. We will use Citation tracking, tracing Lead authors, identifying Unpublished materials, Google Scholar searching, Theory tracking, ancestry searching for Early examples, and follow-up of Related projects (CLUSTER) searching, specifically designed for realist searches as the review progresses. We will search empirical evidence to test identified programme theories and engage stakeholders to contextualise findings, finalise programme theories document our search processes as per established realist review methods.

Ethical approval for this study was provided by the Health Research Ethics Board of the University of Alberta (Study ID Pro00100425). We will disseminate the findings through peer-reviewed publications, national and international conference presentations, regional briefing sessions, webinars and lay summary.

Young people aged 18–24 years old are a key demographic target for eliminating HIV transmission globally. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), a prevention medication, reduces HIV transmission. Despite good uptake by gay and bisexual men who have sex with men, hesitancy to use PrEP has been observed in other groups, such as young people and people from ethnic minority backgrounds. The aim of this study was to explore young people’s perceptions and attitudes to using PrEP.

A qualitative transcendental phenomenological design was used.

A convenience sample of 24 young people aged between 18 and 24 years was recruited from England.

Semistructured interviews and graphical elicitation were used to collect data including questions about current experiences of HIV care, awareness of using PrEP and decision-making about accessing PrEP. Thematic and visual analyses were used to identify findings.

Young people had good levels of knowledge about HIV but poor understanding of using PrEP. In this information vacuum, negative stigma and stereotypes about HIV and homosexuality were transferred to using PrEP, which were reinforced by cultural norms portrayed on social media, television and film—such as an association between using PrEP and being a promiscuous, white, gay male. In addition, young people from ethnic minority communities appeared to have negative attitudes to PrEP use, compared with ethnic majority counterparts. This meant these young people in our study were unable to make decisions about when and how to use PrEP.

Findings indicate an information vacuum for young people regarding PrEP. A strength of the study is that theoretical data saturation was reached. A limitation of the study is participants were largely from Northern England, which has low prevalence of HIV. Further work is required to explore the information needs of young people in relation to PrEP.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, most essential services experienced some level of disruption. Disruption in LMICs was more severe than in HICs. Early reports suggested that services for maternal and newborn health were disproportionately affected, raising concerns about health equity. Most disruption indicators measure demand-side disruption, or they conflate demand-side and supply-side disruption. There is currently no published guidance on measuring supply-side disruption. The primary objective of this review was to identify methods and approaches used to measure supply-side service disruptions to maternal and newborn health services in the context of COVID-19.

We carried out a systematic review and have created a typology of measurement methods and approaches using narrative synthesis.

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Global Health in January 2023. We also searched the grey literature.

We included empirical studies describing the measurement of supply-side service disruption of maternal and newborn health services in LMICs in the context of COVID-19.

We extracted the aim, method(s), setting, and study outcome(s) from included studies. We synthesised findings by type of measure (ie, provision or quality of services) and methodological approach (ie, qualitative or quantitative).

We identified 28 studies describing 5 approaches to measuring supply-side disruption: (1) cross-sectional surveys of the nature and experience of supply-side disruption, (2) surveys to measure temporal changes in service provision or quality, (3) surveys to create composite disruption scores, (4) surveys of service users to measure receipt of services, and (5) clinical observation of the provision and quality of services.

Our review identified methods and approaches for measuring supply-side service disruption of maternal and newborn health services. These indicators provide important information about the causes and extent of supply-side disruption and provide a useful starting point for developing specific guidance on the measurement of service disruption in LMICs.