Preoperative prehabilitation programmes for patients with colorectal cancer have been shown to reduce complications and hospital length of stay. However, supervised weekly physiotherapy is expensive and timeconsuming for both healthcare professionals and patients, leading to suboptimal implementation of prehabilitation programmes. A previous study demonstrated that offering home-based prehabilitation through an app is feasible and leads to outcomes comparable to supervised prehabilitation programmes. This study was conducted at a single hospital. To expand this promising modality nationwide, it is essential to identify key implementation determinants. We therefore initiated this multicentre study involving a more diverse and heterogeneous patient population. The findings of this study will provide valuable input for scaling strategies for prehabilitation programmes in the Netherlands and beyond.

In this prospective multicentre cohort study, approximately 300 patients with colorectal cancer scheduled for curative surgery will be enrolled over 12 months. The study adopts a hybrid type 3 design, reporting clinical outcomes while exploring implementation-related factors. Five hospitals with varied profiles (academic, non-academic teaching and general hospitals) and geographical locations (urban and rural, high and low socioeconomic areas) are participating. The primary endpoint is the identification of barriers and facilitators, using both qualitative (interviews) and quantitative (user statistics, questionnaires) data from stakeholders. Secondary endpoints include fitness and clinical outcomes such as complications and mortality.

This study was approved by the METC (Medisch Ethische Toetsings Commissie / Dutch Medical Ethics Committee) and was established not to apply to the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO / Wet Medisch Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek met mensen); submission was 21 April 2025. The app is proven safe and feasible in earlier studies and is CE certified (Conformité Européenne). Informed consent will be obtained from all patients (Supplement 1). Adverse events will be monitored and reported. Only researchers will have access to the final dataset. Results will be disseminated through publications, patient group briefings and implementation feedback to healthcare workers. Plans for sharing deidentified individual clinical trial participant-level data consist of quotes from interviews held on stakeholders. This study protocol adheres to the SPIRIT guidelines.

Ventilation tube insertion for paediatric otitis media (POM), including acute otitis media (AOM) and otitis media with effusion (OME), has been signalled in the past for potential unwarranted treatment variation. Quality improvement initiatives, like Audit & Feedback (A&F), often ignore the care pathway when identifying such variation, possibly overestimating variation at a specific care step. To gain more insight into the effect of prior care steps, this study examined (1) the degree of regional variation in each step of the care pathway (general practitioner (GP) contacts, referrals and surgeries) and (2) investigated the effect of adjusting for prior care steps.

Observational study using general practice electronic health record data linked to specialist claims data.

272 790 children ≤12 years with and without POM registered in 320 GP practices between 2017 and 2018.

Using multilevel logistic regression, the degree of regional variation in each step of the POM care pathway was assessed by calculating the coefficient of variation (CV).

The effect of adjusting for prior care steps was determined by estimating correlations between subsequent care steps and analysing the impact on the CV.

Regional variation in POM treatment was larger in each subsequent step in the care pathway (CV POM GP contacts 0.110; referral 0.179; surgery 0.239). In regions with a higher proportion of children with frequent AOM/persistent OME, referral rates were higher (POM: OR: 1.06; 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.11) and surgical rates were higher (for OME only: OR: 1.08; 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.15). Regional variation in referrals and surgery decreased after adjusting for the regional frequent AOM/persistent OME rate (CV referrals POM 0.103 vs 0.128; CV surgery OME 0.047 vs 0.059).

Regional variation is observed in GP contact rates for POM and is larger in referrals and surgeries. Adjusting for the proportion of frequent AOM/persistent OME significantly reduces regional variation in POM treatment. Future A&F should adjust for prior care processes and develop tailored interventions for quality improvement.

To examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the substitution of surgical procedures in benign gynaecology in the Netherlands.

Quantitative longitudinal study evaluating the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Nationwide healthcare delivery was analysed across six benign gynaecological pathways from 2016 to 2022 using Vektis and Dutch Hospital Data (DHD), accessed via Statistics Netherlands (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek).

The study focused on six benign gynaecological pathways classified using Dutch Diagnosis Treatment Combinations (DTCs): heavy menstrual blood loss (G11), uterine fibroids (G15), endometriosis (G17), prolapse (G25), infertility treatment (F11) and first trimester pregnancy complications (Z12). All patients receiving care within these pathways between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2022 were included. Exclusions applied to all patients under 18 years old and, only within the menstrual disorder pathway, patients over 51 years old to exclude most postmenopausal blood loss cases where no alternative treatment applies.

Cohorts from the initial pandemic year (2020) were compared with four prepandemic cohorts (2016–2019) and late-pandemic (2021) and postpandemic (2022) cohorts.

The primary outcome was the trend in the total number of patients in surgical and non-surgical procedure groups across cohort periods. Secondary outcomes included trends within individual pathways.

The analysis identified a significant reduction in benign gynaecological care during 2020, with an 18.3% (p

The COVID-19 pandemic significantly disrupted both surgical and non-surgical procedures within benign gynaecological pathways. Reduced care uptake during the pandemic waves was not recovered but instead forgone. The reduction in surgical procedures did not correspond with increased use of non-surgical alternatives. Future research should prioritise evaluating the long-term impacts of this disruption on patients and society.