Preservation of brain health is an urgent priority for the world’s ageing population. The evidence base for brain health optimisation strategies is rapidly expanding, but clear recommendations have been limited by heterogeneity in measurement of brain health outcomes. We performed a scoping review to systematically evaluate brain health measurement in the scientific literature to date, informing development of a core outcome set.

Scoping review.

Medline, APA PsycArticles and Embase were searched through until 25 January 2023.

Studies were included if they described brain health evaluation methods in sufficient detail in human adults and were in English language.

Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts for inclusion and extracted data using Covidence software.

From 6987 articles identified by the search, 727 studies met inclusion criteria. Study publication increased by 22 times in the last decade. Cohort study was the most common study design (n=609, 84%). 479 unique methods of measuring brain health were identified, comprising imaging, cognitive, mental health, biological and clinical categories. Seven of the top 10 most frequently used brain health measurement methods were imaging based, including structural imaging of grey matter and hippocampal volumes and white matter hyperintensities. Cognitive tests such as the trail making test accounted for 286 (59.7%) of all brain health measurement methods.

The scientific literature surrounding brain health has increased exponentially, yet measurement methods are highly heterogeneous across studies which may explain the lack of clinical translation. Future studies should aim to develop a selected group of measures that should be included in all brain health studies to aid interstudy comparison (core outcome set), and broaden from the current focus on neuroimaging outcomes to include a range of outcomes.

Sexual and gender minoritised (SGM) populations are disproportionately impacted by multilevel risk factors for obstetrical and perinatal outcomes, including structural (eg, stigma, discrimination, access to care) and individual risk factors (eg, partner violence, poor mental health, substance use). Emerging evidence shows SGM childbearing people have worse obstetrical outcomes and their infants have worse perinatal outcomes, when compared with their cisgender and heterosexual counterparts; this emerging evidence necessitates a comprehensive examination of existing literature on obstetrical and perinatal health among SGM people. The goal of this scoping review is to comprehensively map the extent, range and nature of scientific literature on obstetrical and perinatal physical health outcomes among SGM populations and their infants. We aim to summarise findings from existing literature, potentially informing clinical guidelines on perinatal care, as well as highlighting knowledge gaps and providing directions for future research.

We will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review framework and report findings according to the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. We will conduct a broad systematic search in Medline/PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science Core Collection. Eligible studies will include peer-reviewed, empirical, English-language publications pertaining to obstetrical and perinatal physical health outcomes of SGM people or their infants. No temporal or geographical limitations will be applied to the search. Studies conducted in all settings will be considered. Records will be managed, screened and extracted by two independent reviewers. Study characteristics, key findings and research gaps will be presented in tables and summarised narratively.

Ethical approval is not required as primary data will not be collected. The findings of this scoping review will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations.

Open Science Framework https://osf.io/6fg4a/.

In Australia, only 22% of male and 8% of female adolescents meet the muscle-strengthening physical activity guidelines, and few school-based interventions support participation in resistance training (RT). After promising findings from our effectiveness trial, we conducted a state-wide dissemination of the ‘Resistance Training for Teens’ (RT4T) intervention from 2015 to 2020. Despite high estimated reach, we found considerable variability in programme delivery and teachers reported numerous barriers to implementation. Supporting schools when they first adopt evidence-based programmes may strengthen programme fidelity, sustainability, and by extension, programme impact. However, the most effective implementation support model for RT4T is unclear.

To compare the effects of three implementation support models on the reach (primary outcome), dose delivered, fidelity, sustainability, impact and cost of RT4T.

We will conduct a hybrid type III implementation–effectiveness trial involving grade 9 and 10 (aged 14–16 years) students from 90 secondary schools in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Schools will be recruited across one cohort in 2023, stratified by school type, socioeconomic status and location, and randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive one of the following levels of implementation support: (1) ‘low’ (training and resources), (2) ‘moderate’ (training and resources+external support) or ‘high’ (training and resources+external support+equipment). Training includes a teacher workshop related to RT4T programme content (theory and practical sessions) and the related resources. Additional support will be provided by trained project officers from five local health districts. Equipment will consist of a pack of semiportable RT equipment (ie, weighted bars, dumbbells, resistance bands and inverted pull up bar stands) valued at ~$A1000 per school. Study outcomes will be assessed at baseline (T0), 6 months (T1) and 18 months (T2). A range of quantitative (teacher logs, observations and teacher surveys) and qualitative (semistructured interviews with teachers) methods will be used to assess primary (reach) and secondary outcomes (dose delivered, fidelity, sustainability, impact and cost of RT4T). Quantitative analyses will use logistic mixed models for dichotomous outcomes, and ordinal or linear mixed effects regression models for continuous outcomes, with alpha levels set at p

Ethics approval has been obtained from the University of Newcastle (H-2021-0418), the NSW Department of Education (SERAP:2022215), Hunter New England Human Research Ethics Committee (2023/ETH00052) and the Catholic Schools Office. The design, conduct and reporting will adhere to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement, the Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies statement and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist. Findings will be published in open access peer-reviewed journals, key stakeholders will be provided with a detailed report. We will support ongoing dissemination of RT4T in Australian schools via professional learning for teachers.

ACTRN12622000861752.