Recent data suggest that 464 million adults worldwide have pre-diabetes and are at increased risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D).1 Social risks (eg, food insecurity, housing instability, financial strain) largely contribute to health inequities, particularly in diabetes incidence.2 SP, also referred to as navigation, involves connecting patients to community-based programmes and resources to address health and social needs. This study by Calderón-Larrañaga et al used...

There are substantial variations in entry criteria for heart failure (HF) clinics, leading to variations in whom providers refer for these life-saving services. This study investigated actual versus ideal HF clinic inclusion or exclusion criteria and how that related to referring providers' perspectives of ideal criteria.

Two cross-sectional surveys were administered via research electronic data capture to clinic providers and referrers (eg, cardiologists, family physicians and nurse practitioners) across Canada.

Twenty-seven criteria selected based on the literature and HF guidelines were tested. Respondents were asked to list any additional criteria. The degree of agreement was assessed (eg, Kappa).

Responses were received from providers at 48 clinics (37.5% response rate). The most common actual inclusion criteria were newly diagnosed HF with reduced or preserved ejection fraction, New York Heart Association class IIIB/IV and recent hospitalisation (each endorsed by >74% of respondents). Exclusion criteria included congenital aetiology, intravenous inotropes, a lack of specialists, some non-cardiac comorbidities and logistical factors (eg, rurality and technology access). There was the greatest discordance between actual and ideal criteria for the following: inpatient at the same institution (=0.14), congenital heart disease, pulmonary hypertension or genetic cardiomyopathies (all =0.36). One-third (n=16) of clinics had changed criteria, often for non-clinical reasons. Seventy-three referring providers completed the survey. Criteria endorsed more by referrers than clinics included low blood pressure with a high heart rate, recurrent defibrillator shocks and intravenous inotropes—criteria also consistent with guidelines.

There is considerable agreement on the main clinic entry criteria, but given some discordance, two levels of clinics may be warranted. Publicising evidence-based criteria and applying them systematically at referral sources could support improved HF patient care journeys and outcomes.

To explore how healthcare practitioners (HCPs) made decisions about the implementation of digital health technologies (DHTs) in their clinical practice before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A multimethods study, comprising semistructured interviews conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, supplemented with an online survey that was conducted during the pandemic with a different sample, to ensure the qualitative findings remained relevant within the rapidly changing healthcare context. Participants were recruited through HCP networks, snowballing and social media. Data were analysed thematically.

Phone interviews and online survey.

HCPs represented a range of professions from primary and secondary care across England, with varied socioeconomic deprivation.

24 HCPs were interviewed, and 16 HCPs responded to the survey. In the interviews, HCPs described three levels where decisions were made, which determined who would have access to what DHTs: health organisation, HCP and patient levels. These decisions resulted in the unequal implementation of DHTs across health services, created barriers for HCPs using DHTs in their practice and influenced HCPs’ decisions on which patients to supply DHTs with. In the survey, HCPs described being provided support to overcome some of the barriers at the organisation and HCP level during the pandemic. However, they cited similar concerns to pre-pandemic about barriers patients faced using DHTs (eg, digital literacy). In the absence of centralised guidance on how to manage these barriers, health services made their own decisions about how to adapt their services for those who struggled with DHTs.

Decision-making at the health organisation, HCP and patient levels influences inequalities in access to DHTs for HCPs and patients. The mobilisation of centralised information and resources during the pandemic can be viewed as good practice for reducing barriers to use of DHTs for HCPs. However, attention must also be paid to reducing barriers to accessing DHTs for patients.

Diets low in vegetables are a main contributor to the health burden experienced by young adults in rural communities. Digital health interventions provide an accessible delivery model that can be personalised to meet the diverse preferences of young adults. A personalisable digital vegetable intake intervention (Veg4Me) was codesigned to meet the needs of young adults living in rural communities. This study will determine the feasibility of delivering a personalised Veg4Me programme and compare preliminary effects with a non-personalised Veg4Me (control).

A 12-week assessor-blinded, two-arm, parallel randomised controlled trial will be undertaken from August 2023 until April 2024. A total of 150 eligible and consenting young adults (18–35 years; eat

All procedures involving human subjects were approved by Deakin University’s Human Ethics Advisory Group—Health (HEAG-H 06_2023) on 6 March 2023. Dissemination events will be held in the City of Greater Bendigo and the Colac Otway Shire. Summaries of the results will be disseminated to participants via email. Results will be disseminated to the scientific community through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12623000179639p, prospectively registered on 21 February 2023, according to the World Health Organizational Trial Registration Data Set. Universal Trial Number U1111-1284-9027.

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced the implementation of physical distancing and self-isolation strategies worldwide. However, these measures have significant potential to increase social isolation and loneliness. Among older people, loneliness has increased from 40% to 70% during COVID-19. Previous research indicates loneliness is strongly associated with increased mortality. Thus, strategies to mitigate the unintended consequences of social isolation and loneliness are urgently needed. Following the Obesity-Related Behavioural Intervention Trials model for complex behavioural interventions, we describe a protocol for a three-arm randomised clinical trial to reduce social isolation and loneliness.

A multicentre, outcome assessor blinded, three-arm randomised controlled trial comparing 12 weeks of: (1) the HOspitals WoRking in Unity (‘HOW R U?’) weekly volunteer-peer support telephone intervention; (2) ‘HOW R U?’ deliver using a video-conferencing solution and (3) a standard care group. The study will follow Consolidated Standard of Reporting Trials guidelines.

We will recruit 24–26 volunteers who will receive a previously tested half day lay-training session that emphasises a strength-based approach and safety procedures. We will recruit 141 participants ≥70 years of age discharged from two participating emergency departments or referred from hospital family medicine, geriatric or geriatric psychiatry clinics. Eligible participants will have probable baseline loneliness (score ≥2 on the de Jong six-item loneliness scale). We will measure change in loneliness, social isolation (Lubben social network scale), mood (Geriatric Depression Score) and quality of life (EQ-5D-5L) at 12–14 weeks postintervention initiation and again at 24–26 weeks.

Approval has been granted by the participating research ethics boards. Participants randomised to standard care will be offered their choice of telephone or video-conferencing interventions after 12 weeks. Results will be disseminated through journal publications, conference presentations, social media and through the International Federation of Emergency Medicine.

NCT05228782.

Speech problems in patients with a cleft palate are often complex and multifactorial. Finding the optimal way of monitoring these problems is challenging. The International Consortium of Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) has developed a set of standardised outcome measures at specific ages for patients with a cleft lip and/or palate, including measures of speech assessment. This study evaluates the type and timing of speech outcome measures currently included in this ICHOM Standard Set. Additionally, speech assessments in other cleft protocols and initiatives are discussed.

An international, multicentre study was set up including centres from the USA and the Netherlands. Outcomes of clinical measures and Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) were collected retrospectively according to the ICHOM set. PROM data from a field test of the CLEFT-Q, a questionnaire developed and validated for patients with a cleft, were collected, including participants from countries with all sorts of income statuses, to examine the value of additional moments of measurement that are used in other cleft initiatives.

Data from 2500 patients were included. Measured outcomes contained univariate regression analyses, trend analyses, t-tests, correlations and floor and ceiling effects.

PROMs correlated low to moderate with clinical outcome measures. Clinical outcome measures correlated low to moderate with each other too. In contrast, two CLEFT-Q Scales correlated strongly with each other. All PROMs and the Percent Consonants Correct (PCC) showed an effect of age. In patients with an isolated cleft palate, a ceiling effect was found in the Intelligibility in Context Scale.

Recommendations for an optimal speech outcome assessment in cleft patients are made. Measurement moments of different cleft protocols and initiatives are considered in this proposition. Concerning the type of measures, adjustment of the current PCC score outcome seems appropriate. For centres with adequate resources and specific interest in research, translation and validation of an upcoming tool, the Cleft Audit Protocol for Speech Augmented, is recommended.

Middle-aged multidomain risk reduction interventions targeting modifiable risk factors for dementia may delay or prevent a third of dementia cases in later life. We describe the protocol of a cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT), HAPPI MIND (Holistic Approach in Primary care for PreventIng Memory Impairment aNd Dementia). HAPPI MIND will evaluate the efficacy of a multidomain, nurse-led, mHealth supported intervention for assessing dementia risk and reducing associated risk factors in middle-aged adults in the Australian primary care setting.

General practice clinics (n≥26) across Victoria and New South Wales, Australia, will be recruited and randomised. Practice nurses will be trained to implement the HAPPI MIND intervention or a brief intervention. Patients of participating practices aged 45–65 years with ≥2 potential dementia risk factors will be identified and recruited (approximately 15 patients/clinic). Brief intervention participants receive a personalised report outlining their risk factors for dementia based on Australian National University Alzheimer’s Disease Risk Index (ANU-ADRI) scores, education booklet and referral to their general practitioner as appropriate. HAPPI MIND participants receive the brief intervention as well as six individualised dementia risk reduction sessions with a nurse trained in motivational interviewing and principles of behaviour change, a personalised risk reduction action plan and access to the purpose-built HAPPI MIND smartphone app for risk factor self-management. Follow-up data collection will occur at 12, 24 and 36 months. Primary outcome is ANU-ADRI score change at 12 months from baseline. Secondary outcomes include change in cognition, quality of life and individual risk factors of dementia.

Project approved by Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (ID: 28273). Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and at healthcare conferences. If effective in reducing dementia risk, the HAPPI MIND intervention could be integrated into primary care, scaled up nationally and sustained over time.

ACTRN12621001168842.

Photobiomodulation (PBM) using low-level laser can affect tissue repair mechanisms and seems promising in reducing pain intensity. However, few studies support the effectiveness of PBM on postpartum period complications, such as nipple and/or perineal trauma and pain, probably due to the low doses used. The primary objective of this study is to analyse the effectiveness of PBM on pain intensity in the nipple and perineal trauma in women in the immediate postpartum period. Secondary objectives are to evaluate the effect on tissue healing and the women’s satisfaction.

A double-blind, multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial will be performed in two public referral maternity hospitals in Brazil with 120 participants, divided into two arms: 60 participants in the nipple trauma arm and 60 participants in the perineal trauma arm. Participants will be women in the immediate postpartum period, who present with nipple trauma or perineal trauma and report pain intensity greater than or equal to 4 points on the Numerical Rating Scale for Pain. Block randomisation will be performed, followed by blinding allocation. In the experimental group, one application of PBM will be performed between 6 hours and 36 hours after birth. For the sham group, the simulation will be carried out without triggering energy. Both participants and the research evaluator will be blinded to the allocation group. Intention-to-treat method and the between-group and within-group outcome measures analysis will be performed.

This research protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committees of the University of Campinas, Brazil, and of the School Maternity Assis Chateaubriand, Brazil (numbers CAAE: 59400922.1.1001.5404; 59400922.1.3001.5050). Participants will be required to sign the informed consent form to participate. Results will be disseminated to the health science community.

Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (RBR-2qm8jrp).

Women from social disadvantage are at greater risk of poor birth outcomes. The midwife-led continuity of care (MCC) model, which offers flexible and relational care from a small team of midwives, has demonstrated improved birth outcomes. In the general population, the impact of MCC on socially disadvantaged women and on birth outcomes is still unclear. This protocol describes a pragmatic evaluation of the MCC model in a socially disadvantaged population.

An open-labelled individual prospective randomised controlled trial with an internal pilot, process evaluation and economic analysis, from 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2024.

Women will be randomly allocated to MCC or standard care as part of usual midwifery practice. Participants and midwives will not be blinded, but researchers will be. An internal pilot will test the feasibility of this process.

Participants are those randomised into MCC or standard care, who consent to participate in one of two Born in Bradford (BiB) birth cohort studies. Outcomes are taken from routinely linked health data, supplemented by additional data capture. The sample size is fixed by the capacity of MCC teams, commissioning duration and numbers recruited into the cohort. The estimated maximum fixed sample size is 1,410 pregnancies (minimum 734).

Intention to treat (ITT) analysis will be undertaken to assess the impact of MCC on two independent primary outcomes. An economic evaluation will explore the impact on health resource use and a process evaluation will explore fidelity to the MCC model, and barriers/facilitators to implementation from midwives’ and women’s perspectives.

Ethical approval has been obtained for the randomisation in midwifery practice, use of the cohort data for evaluation and for the process evaluation. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals, presented at conferences and translated into policy briefings.

IsRCTNhttps://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN31836167

Provide insights into the experiences and perspectives of healthcare staff who treated scabies or managed outbreaks in formal and informal refugee/migrant camps in Europe 2014–2017.

Retrospective qualitative study using semistructured telephone interviews and framework analysis. Recruitment was done primarily through online networks of healthcare staff involved in medical care in refugee/migrant settings.

Formal and informal refugee/migrant camps in Europe 2014–2017.

Twelve participants (four doctors, four nurses, three allied health workers, one medical student) who had worked in camps (six in informal camps, nine in formal ones) across 15 locations within seven European countries (Greece, Serbia, Macedonia, Turkey, France, the Netherlands, Belgium).

Participants reported that in camps they had worked, scabies diagnosis was primarily clinical (without dermatoscopy), and treatment and outbreak management varied highly. Seven stated scabicides were provided, while five reported that only symptomatic management was offered. They described camps as difficult places to work, with poor living standards for residents. Key perceived barriers to scabies control were (1) lack of water, sanitation and hygiene, specifically: absent/limited showers (difficult to wash off topical scabicides), and inability to wash clothes and bedding (may have increased transmission/reinfestation); (2) social factors: language, stigma, treatment non-compliance and mobility (interfering with contact tracing and follow-up treatments); (3) healthcare factors: scabicide shortages and diversity, lack of examination privacy and staff inexperience; (4) organisational factors: overcrowding, ineffective interorganisational coordination, and lack of support and maltreatment by state authorities (eg, not providing basic facilities, obstruction of self-care by camp residents and non-governmental organisation (NGO) aid).

We recommend development of accessible scabies guidelines for camps, use of consensus diagnostic criteria and oral ivermectin mass treatments. In addition, as much of the work described was by small, volunteer-staffed NGOs, we in the wider healthcare community should reflect how to better support such initiatives and those they serve.