Timely access to primary care and supporting specialist care relative to need is essential for health equity. However, use of services can vary according to an individual’s socioeconomic circumstances or where they live. This study aimed to quantify individual socioeconomic variation in general practitioner (GP) and specialist use in New South Wales (NSW), accounting for area-level variation in use.

Outcomes were GP use and quality-of-care and specialist use. Multilevel logistic regression was used to estimate: (1) median ORs (MORs) to quantify small area variation in outcomes, which gives the median increased risk of moving to an area of higher risk of an outcome, and (2) ORs to quantify associations between outcomes and individual education level, our main exposure variable. Analyses were adjusted for individual sociodemographic and health characteristics and performed separately by remoteness categories.

Baseline data (2006–2009) from the 45 and Up Study, NSW, Australia, linked to Medicare Benefits Schedule and death data (to December 2012).

267 153 adults aged 45 years and older.

GP (MOR=1.32–1.35) and specialist use (1.16–1.18) varied between areas, accounting for individual characteristics. For a given level of need and accounting for area variation, low education-level individuals were more likely to be frequent users of GP services (no school certificate vs university, OR=1.63–1.91, depending on remoteness category) and have continuity of care (OR=1.14–1.24), but were less likely to see a specialist (OR=0.85–0.95).

GP and specialist use varied across small areas in NSW, independent of individual characteristics. Use of GP care was equitable, but specialist care was not. Failure to address inequitable specialist use may undermine equity gains within the primary care system. Policies should also focus on local variation.

The objective of this study is to evaluate the comparative benefits and harms of opioids and cannabis for medical use for chronic non-cancer pain.

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, Cannabis-Med, Epistemonikos and the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) from inception to March 2021.

Randomised trials comparing any type of cannabis for medical use or opioids, against each other or placebo, with patient follow-up ≥4 weeks.

Paired reviewers independently extracted data. We used Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses to summarise the evidence and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach to evaluate the certainty of evidence and communicate our findings.

Ninety trials involving 22 028 patients were eligible for review, among which the length of follow-up ranged from 28 to 180 days. Moderate certainty evidence showed that opioids provide small improvements in pain, physical functioning and sleep quality versus placebo; low to moderate certainty evidence supported similar effects for cannabis versus placebo. Neither was more effective than placebo for role, social or emotional functioning (all high to moderate certainty evidence). Moderate certainty evidence showed there is probably little to no difference between cannabis for medical use and opioids for physical functioning (weighted mean difference (WMD) 0.47 on the 100-point 36-item Short Form Survey physical component summary score, 95% credible interval (CrI) –1.97 to 2.99), and cannabis resulted in fewer discontinuations due to adverse events versus opioids (OR 0.55, 95% CrI 0.36 to 0.83). Low certainty evidence suggested little to no difference between cannabis and opioids for pain relief (WMD 0.23 cm on a 10 cm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), 95% CrI –0.06 to 0.53) or sleep quality (WMD 0.49 mm on a 100 mm VAS, 95% CrI –4.72 to 5.59).

Cannabis for medical use may be similarly effective and result in fewer discontinuations than opioids for chronic non-cancer pain.

CRD42020185184.

To summarise evidence on the effectiveness of Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) gel and Leucocyte and Platelet Rich Fibrin (L-PRF) gel as agents promoting ulcer healing compared with the standard wound dressing techniques alone.

Systematic review.

Individual patient randomised controlled trials on skin ulcers of all types excluding traumatic lesions.

Intervention group: treatment with topical application of L-PRF gel or PRP gel to the wound surface.

Control group: treatment with standard skin ulcer care using normal saline, normgel or hydrogel dressings.

Medline (Ovid), Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Web of Science and manual search of studies from previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The papers published from 1946 to 2022 with no restriction on geography and language were included. The last date of the search was performed on 29 August 2022.

Independent reviewers identified eligible studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias using V.2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials tool and assessed certainty of evidence by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

Time to complete healing, proportion healed at a given time and rate of healing.

Seven studies met the inclusion criteria, five using PRP gel and two using L-PRF gel. One study showed a better proportion of complete healing, three reported reduced meantime to complete healing and five showed improved rate of healing per unit of time in the intervention group. The risk of bias was high across all studies with one exception and the GRADE showed very low certainty of evidence.

The findings show potential for better outcomes in the intervention; however, the evidence remains inconclusive highlighting a large research gap in ulcer treatment and warrant better-designed clinical trials.

CRD42022352418.

Implementation science (IS) frameworks, models and theories (FMTs) have gained popularity in guiding the implementation and evaluation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) for cancer screening. However, there are significant research gaps in understanding their applications in cancer health disparities contexts. This paper outlines a scoping review protocol designed to explore the utilisation of IS FMTs in cancer screening EBIs to inform intervention designs and adaptations.

This scoping review protocol adheres to Arksey and O’Malley’s five-step methodological framework for conducting scoping studies. Search strategies were conducted in five bibliographic databases: Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and EMBASE. The search was run on 22 June 2023 with an English language filter and a date limit of 2001-current. Two reviewers will independently screen studies for inclusion and exclusion criteria. A third reviewer will be consulted, where appropriate at any of the review stages, to achieve consensus or resolve conflicts. Data will be collected, managed and analysed using Covidence. A narrative synthesis, based on Popay et al’s methodology, will guide reporting and summarisation of results. The review will adhere to the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines.

This scoping review is a novel approach for examining a growing corpus of research literature on IS FMT applications used in cancer screening EBIs. As a secondary analysis, this scoping review does not require approval from an institutional review board. We anticipate the review will produce insightful information (eg, challenges, key areas for future directions) on the applications of IS TMFs in designing, deploying and testing EBIs for populations experiencing cancer screening disparities. We will disseminate the results through journals and conferences targeting IS and cancer prevention researchers and practitioners.

Poor medication adherence remains highly prevalent and adversely affects health outcomes. Patients frequently describe properties of the pills themselves, like size and shape, as barriers, but this has not been evaluated objectively. We sought to determine the extent to which oral medication properties thought to be influential translate into lower objectively-measured adherence.

Retrospective cohort study.

US nationwide commercial claims database, 2016–2019.

Among patients initiating first-line hypertension, diabetes or hyperlipidaemia treatment based on clinical guidelines, we measured pill size, shape, colour and flavouring, number of pills/day and fixed-dose combination status as properties.

Outcomes included discontinuation after the first fill (ie, never filling again over a minimum of 1-year follow-up) and long-term non-adherence (1-year proportion of days covered

Across 604 323 patients, 14.6% discontinued after filling once (ie, were non-persistent), and 54.0% were non-adherent over 1-year follow-up. Large pill size was associated with non-adherence, except for thiazides (eg, metformin adjusted OR (aOR): 1.12, 95% CI: 1.06 to 1.18). Greater pill burden was associated with a higher risk of non-adherence across all classes (eg, metformin aOR: 1.58, 95% CI: 1.53 to 1.64 for two pills/day). Taking less than one pill/day was also associated with higher risk of non-adherence and non-persistence (eg, non-persistence statin aOR: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.20 to 1.38). Pill shape, colour, flavouring and combination status were associated with mixed effects across classes.

Pill burden and pill size are key properties affecting adherence for almost all classes; others, like size and combination, could modestly affect medication adherence. Clinical interventions could screen patients for potential intolerance to medication and potentially implement more convenient dosing schedules.

Intranasal antihistamines and corticosteroids are some of the most frequently used drug classes in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. However, there is uncertainty as to whether effectiveness differences may exist among different intranasal specific medications. This systematic review aims to analyse and synthesise all evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of intranasal antihistamines and corticosteroids in rhinitis nasal and ocular symptoms and in rhinoconjunctivitis-related quality-of-life.

We will search four electronic bibliographic databases and three clinical trials databases for RCTs (1) assessing patients ≥12 years old with seasonal or perennial allergic rhinitis and (2) comparing the use of intranasal antihistamines or corticosteroids versus placebo. Assessed outcomes will include the Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS), the Total Ocular Symptom Score (TOSS) and the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (RQLQ). We will assess the methodological quality of included primary studies by using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Certainty in the body of evidence for the analysed outcomes will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We will perform a random-effects meta-analysis for each assessed medication and outcome, presenting results as pooled mean differences and standardised mean differences. Heterogeneity will be explored by sensitivity and subgroup analyses, considering (1) the risk of bias, (2) the follow-up period and (3) the drug dose.

Ethical considerations will not be required. Results will be disseminated in a peer-review journal.

CRD42023416573.