Globally, guideline-recommended antenatal care for smoking cessation is not routinely delivered by antenatal care providers. Implementation strategies have been shown to improve the delivery of clinical practices across a variety of clinical services but there is an absence of evidence in applying such strategies to support improvements to antenatal care for smoking cessation in pregnancy. This study aims to determine the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of implementation strategies in increasing the routine provision of recommended antenatal care for smoking cessation in public maternity services.

A non-randomised stepped-wedge cluster-controlled trial will be conducted in maternity services across three health sectors in New South Wales, Australia. Implementation strategies including guidelines and procedures, reminders and prompts, leadership support, champions, training and monitoring and feedback will be delivered sequentially to each sector over 4 months. Primary outcome measures will be the proportion of: (1) pregnant women who report receiving a carbon monoxide breath test; (2) smokers or recent quitters who report receiving quit/relapse advice; and (3) smokers who report offer of help to quit smoking (Quitline referral or nicotine replacement therapy). Outcomes will be measured via cross-sectional telephone surveys with a random sample of women who attend antenatal appointments each week. Economic analyses will be undertaken to assess the cost effectiveness of the implementation intervention. Process measures including acceptability, adoption, fidelity and reach will be reported.

Ethics approval was obtained through the Hunter New England Human Research Ethics Committee (16/11/16/4.07; 16/10/19/5.15) and the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council (1236/16). Trial findings will be disseminated to health policy-makers and health services to inform best practice processes for effective guideline implementation. Findings will also be disseminated at scientific conferences and in peer-reviewed journals.

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry—ACTRN12622001010785.

Purrble, a socially assistive robot, was codesigned with children to support in situ emotion regulation. Preliminary evidence has found that LGBTQ+ youth are receptive to Purrble and find it to be an acceptable intervention to assist with emotion dysregulation and their experiences of self-harm. The present study is designed to evaluate the impact of access to Purrble among LGBTQ+ youth who have self-harmful thoughts, when compared with waitlist controls.

The study is a single-blind, randomised control trial comparing access to the Purrble robot with waitlist control. A total of 168 LGBTQ+ youth aged 16–25 years with current self-harmful ideation will be recruited, all based within the UK. The primary outcome is emotion dysregulation (Difficulties with Emotion Regulation Scale-8) measured weekly across a 13-week period, including three pre-deployment timepoints. Secondary outcomes include self-harm (Self-Harm Questionnaire), anxiety (Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7) and depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9). We will conduct analyses using linear mixed models to assess primary and secondary hypotheses. Intervention participants will have unlimited access to Purrble over the deployment period, which can be used as much or as little as they like. After all assessments, control participants will receive their Purrble, with all participants keeping the robot after the end of the study. After the study has ended, a subset of participants will be invited to participate in semistructured interviews to explore engagement and appropriation of Purrble, considering the young people’s own views of Purrble as an intervention device.

Ethical approval was received from King’s College London (RESCM-22/23-34570). Findings will be disseminated in peer review open access journals and at academic conferences.

NCT06025942.

To engage children who have experienced cancer, childhood cancer survivors, their families and professionals to systematically identify and prioritise research questions about childhood cancer to inform the future research agenda.

James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

UK health service and community.

A steering group oversaw the initiative. Potential research questions were collected in an online survey, then checked to ensure they were unanswered. Shortlisting via a second online survey identified the highest priority questions. A parallel process with children was undertaken. A final consensus workshop was held to determine the Top 10 priorities.

Children and survivors of childhood cancer, diagnosed before age 16, their families, friends and professionals who work with this population.

Four hundred and eighty-eight people submitted 1299 potential questions. These were refined into 108 unique questions; 4 were already answered and 3 were under active study, therefore, removed. Three hundred and twenty-seven respondents completed the shortlisting survey. Seventy-one children submitted questions in the children’s surveys, eight children attended a workshop to prioritise these questions. The Top 5 questions from children were taken to the final workshop where 23 questions in total were discussed by 25 participants (young adults, carers and professionals). The top priority was ‘can we find effective and kinder (less burdensome, more tolerable, with fewer short and long-term effects) treatments for children with cancer, including relapsed cancer?’

We have identified research priorities for children’s cancer from the perspectives of children, survivors, their families and the professionals who care for them. Questions reflect the breadth of the cancer experience, including diagnosis, relapse, hospital experience, support during/after treatment and the long-term impact of cancer. These should inform funding of future research as they are the questions that matter most to the people who could benefit from research.