There are limited data on the longitudinal impact of Lyme disease. Predictors of recovery have not been fully established using validated data collection instruments. There are sparse data on the immunological response to infection over time.

This study is a longitudinal cohort study that will recruit 120 participants with Lyme disease in Ontario and Nova Scotia, Canada, with follow-up for up to 24 months. Data will be collected using the Short-Form 36 physical and mental component summaries, Depression and Anxiety Severity Scale Questionnaire, Fatigue Severity Scale and a battery of neuropsychological tests. Mononuclear cells, gene expression and cytokine profiling from blood samples will be used to assess immunological response. Analyses will include the use of non-linear mixed-effects modelling and proportional hazards models.

Ethics approval has been obtained from ethics boards at McMaster University (Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board) (7564), Queens University (EMD 315-20) and Nova Scotia Health Research Ethics Board (1027173), and the study is enrolling participants. Written informed consent is obtained from all participants. The results will be disseminated by publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at a relevant conference. A brief report will be provided to decision-makers and patient groups.

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.

The objective of this study is to analyse the relationship and psychosocial issues between working during the COVID-19 pandemic in primary healthcare (PHC) facilities located in the most vulnerable health region (HR) of the Federal District of Brazil (FDB) compared with a lesser region.

Mixed-method study data. The questionnaire was based on the World Health Survey and the Convid Behavioural Survey. Quantitative data were described in absolute and relative frequency. Pearson’s ² test verified differences according to the region (significance level

A representative sample of PHC professionals working at the Western HR and Central HR of the FDB.

111 women and 27 male PHC professionals, aged ≥ 18 years.

Psychosocial variables—personal emotions towards the clients, social relationships and use of psychoactive substances (PAS).

An online questionnaire (27 questions) and 1 open-ended question.

The sample comprised 138 PHC professionals; 80.40% were female aged between 40 and 49 years old (27.3%); declared themselves as black/pardo (58.7%); were married (53.60%), and worked in family healthcare teams (47.80%). No association between working in the most vulnerable HR compared with the least one and presenting psychosocial issues, except for anger towards clients (p=0.043). 55.10% worked much more than usual, 60.80% reported being depressed, 78.20% anxious, 76.80% stressed, 77.50% had no empathy and 78.30% felt isolated from family/friends. Towards the clients, 59.40% reported empathy and 72.5% no affection/care. The consume of psychotropic medications was reported by 34.80%, and 14.50% increased alcohol/PAS use. Qualitative data leverage quantitative findings: work overload, the indifference of the Federal Government and distance from family/friends.

Working in the most vulnerable region and in the least one affects the psychosocial aspects of the PHC professionals equally.

Common mental disorders, including depression, anxiety and related somatic health symptoms, are leading causes of disability worldwide. Especially in low-resource settings, psychosocial interventions delivered by non-specialist providers through task-sharing modalities proved to be valid options to expand access to mental healthcare. However, such interventions are usually eclectic multicomponent interventions consisting of different combinations of evidence-based therapeutic strategies. Which of these various components (or combinations thereof) are more efficacious (and for whom) to reduce common mental disorder symptomatology is yet to be substantiated by evidence.

Comprehensive search was performed in electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials—CENTRAL from database inception to 15 March 2023 to systematically identify all randomised controlled trials that compared any single component or multicomponent psychosocial intervention delivered through the task-sharing modality against any active or inactive control condition in the treatment of adults suffering from common mental disorders. From these trials, individual participant data (IPD) of all measured outcomes and covariates will be collected. We will dismantle psychosocial interventions creating a taxonomy of components and then apply the IPD component network meta-analysis (IPD-cNMA) methodology to assess the efficacy of individual components (or combinations thereof) according to participant-level prognostic factors and effect modifiers.

Ethics approval is not applicable for this study since no original data will be collected. Results from this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences.

Cognitive dysfunction, a leading cause of mortality and morbidity in the USA and globally, has been shown to disproportionately affect the socioeconomically disadvantaged and those who identify as black or Hispanic/Latinx. Poor sleep is strongly associated with the development of vascular and metabolic diseases, which correlate with cognitive dysfunction. Therefore, sleep may contribute to observed disparities in cognitive disorders. The Epidemiologic Study of Disparities in Sleep and Cognition in Older Adults (DISCO) is a longitudinal, observational cohort study that focuses on gathering data to better understand racial/ethnic sleep disparities and illuminate the relationship among sleep, race and ethnicity and changes in cognitive function. This investigation may help inform targeted interventions to minimise disparities in cognitive health among ageing adults.

The DISCO study will examine up to 495 individuals aged 55 and older at two time points over 24 months. An equal number of black, white and Hispanic/Latinx individuals will be recruited using methods aimed for adults traditionally under-represented in research. Study procedures at each time point will include cognitive tests, gait speed measurement, wrist actigraphy, a type 2 home polysomnography and a clinical examination. Participants will also complete self-identified assessments and questionnaires on cognitive ability, sleep, medication use, quality of life, sociodemographic characteristics, diet, substance use, and psychological and social health.

This study was approved by the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine Institutional Review Board. Deidentified datasets will be shared via the BioLINCC repository following the completion of the project. Biospecimen samples from the study that are not being analysed can be made available to qualified investigators on review and approval by study investigators. Requests that do not lead to participant burden or that conflict with the primary aims of the study will be reviewed by the study investigators.

Current treatment decision-making in high-grade soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) care is not informed by individualised risks for different treatment options and patients’ preferences. Risk prediction tools may provide patients and professionals insight in personalised risks and benefits for different treatment options and thereby potentially increase patients’ knowledge and reduce decisional conflict. The VALUE-PERSARC study aims to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of a personalised risk assessment tool (PERSARC) to increase patients’ knowledge about risks and benefits of treatment options and to reduce decisional conflict in comparison with usual care in high-grade extremity STS patients.

The VALUE-PERSARC study is a parallel cluster randomised control trial that aims to include at least 120 primarily diagnosed high-grade extremity STS patients in 6 Dutch hospitals. Eligible patients (≥18 years) are those without a treatment plan and treated with curative intent. Patients with sarcoma subtypes or treatment options not mentioned in PERSARC are unable to participate. Hospitals will be randomised between usual care (control) or care with the use of PERSARC (intervention). In the intervention condition, PERSARC will be used by STS professionals in multidisciplinary tumour boards to guide treatment advice and in patient consultations, where the oncological/orthopaedic surgeon informs the patient about his/her diagnosis and discusses benefits and harms of all relevant treatment options. The primary outcomes are patients’ knowledge about risks and benefits of treatment options and decisional conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale) 1 week after the treatment decision has been made. Secondary outcomes will be evaluated using questionnaires, 1 week and 3, 6 and 12 months after the treatment decision. Data will be analysed following an intention-to-treat approach using a linear mixed model and taking into account clustering of patients within hospitals.

The Medical Ethical Committee Leiden-Den Haag-Delft (METC-LDD) approved this protocol (NL76563.058.21). The results of this study will be reported in a peer-review journal.

NL9160, NCT05741944.

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.

Healthcare workers were recruited early in 2020 to chart effects on their health as the COVID-19 pandemic evolved. The aim was to identify modifiable workplace risk factors for infection and mental ill health.

Participants were recruited from four Canadian provinces, physicians (medical doctors, MDs) in Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, registered nurses (RNs), licensed practical nurses (LPNs) and healthcare aides (HCAs) in Alberta and personal support workers (PSWs) in Ontario. Volunteers gave blood for serology testing before and after vaccination. Cases with COVID-19 were matched with up to four referents in a nested case-referent study.

Overall, 4964/5130 (97%) of those recruited joined the longitudinal cohort: 1442 MDs, 3136 RNs, 71 LPNs, 235 PSWs, 80 HCAs. Overall, 3812 (77%) were from Alberta. Prepandemic risk factors for mental ill health and respiratory illness differed markedly by occupation. Participants completed questionnaires at recruitment, fall 2020, spring 2021, spring 2022. By 2022, 4837 remained in the cohort (127 had retired, moved away or died), for a response rate of 89% (4299/4837). 4567/4964 (92%) received at least one vaccine shot: 2752/4567 (60%) gave postvaccine blood samples. Ease of accessing blood collection sites was a strong determinant of participation. Among 533 cases and 1697 referents recruited to the nested case-referent study, risk of infection at work decreased with widespread vaccination.

Serology results (concentration of IgG) together with demographic data will be entered into the publicly accessible database compiled by the Canadian Immunology Task Force. Linkage with provincial administrative health databases will permit case validation, investigation of longer-term sequelae of infection and comparison with community controls. Analysis of the existing dataset will concentrate on effects on IgG of medical condition, medications and stage of pregnancy, and the role of occupational exposures and supports on mental health during the pandemic.

In population-based research, disease ascertainment algorithms can be as accurate as, and less costly than, performing supplementary clinical examinations on selected participants to confirm a diagnosis of a neurocognitive disorder (NCD), but they require cohort-specific validation. To optimise the use of the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA) to understand the epidemiology and burden of NCDs, the CLSA Memory Study will validate an NCD ascertainment algorithm to identify CLSA participants with these disorders using routinely acquired study data.

Up to 600 CLSA participants with equal numbers of those likely to have no NCD, mild NCD or major NCD based on prior self-reported physician diagnosis of a memory problem or dementia, medication consumption (ie, cholinesterase inhibitors, memantine) and/or self-reported function will be recruited during the follow-up 3 CLSA evaluations (started August 2021). Participants will undergo an assessment by a study clinician who will also review an informant interview and make a preliminary determination of the presence or absence of an NCD. The clinical assessment and available CLSA data will be reviewed by a Central Review Panel who will make a final categorisation of participants as having (1) no NCD, (2) mild NCD or, (3) major NCD (according to fifth version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria). These will be used as our gold standard diagnosis to determine if the NCD ascertainment algorithm accurately identifies CLSA participants with an NCD. Weighted Kappa statistics will be the primary measure of agreement. Sensitivity, specificity, the C-statistic and the phi coefficient will also be estimated.

Ethics approval has been received from the institutional research ethics boards for each CLSA Data Collection Site (Université de Sherbrooke, Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board, Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia Health Research Ethics Board, University of Manitoba, McGill University, McGill University Health Centre Research Institute, Memorial University of Newfoundland, University of Victoria, Élisabeth Bruyère Research Institute of Ottawa, University of British Columbia, Island Health (Formerly the Vancouver Island Health Authority, Simon Fraser University, Calgary Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board).

The results of this work will be disseminated to public health professionals, researchers, health professionals, administrators and policy-makers through journal publications, conference presentations, publicly available reports and presentations to stakeholder groups.

The pandemic and public health response to contain the virus had impacts on many aspects of young people’s lives including disruptions to daily routines, opportunities for social, academic, recreational engagement and early employment. Consequently, children, adolescents and young adults may have experienced mental health challenges that required use of mental health services. This study compared rates of use for inpatient and outpatient mental health services during the pandemic to pre-pandemic rates.

Population-based repeated cross-sectional study.

Publicly delivered mental healthcare in primary and secondary settings within the province of Ontario, Canada.

All children 6–12 years of age (n=2 043 977), adolescents 13–17 years (n=1 708 754) and young adults 18–24 years (n=2 286 544), living in Ontario and eligible for provincial health insurance between March 2016 and November 2021.

Outpatient mental health visits to family physicians and psychiatrists for: mood and anxiety disorders, alcohol and substance abuse disorders, other non-psychotic mental health disorders and social problems. Inpatient mental health visits to emergency departments and hospitalisations for: substance-related and addictive disorders, anxiety disorders, assault-related injuries, deliberate self-harm and eating disorders. All outcomes were analysed by cohort and sex.

During the pandemic, observed outpatient visit rates were higher among young adults by 19.01% (95% CI: 15.56% to 22.37%; 209 vs 175 per 1000) and adolescent women 24.17% (95% CI: 18.93% to 29.15%; 131 vs 105 per 1000) for mood and anxiety disorders and remained higher than expected. Female adolescents had higher than expected usage of inpatient care for deliberate self-harm, eating disorders and assault-related injuries.

Study results raise concerns over prolonged high rates of mental health use during the pandemic, particularly in female adolescents and young women, and highlights the need to better monitor and identify mental health outcomes associated with COVID-19 containment measures and to develop policies to address these concerns.

Eurycoma longifolia Jack (EL), profoundly recognised as ‘Tongkat Ali’, is a medicinal herb originating from Southeast Asia. It is commonly used in traditional ‘antiageing’ treatments to address decreased energy, mood, libido and hormonal imbalances. While the benefits of EL have been extensively studied among the male population, less attention has been given to its effects on women. Menopause can impact the overall well-being of middle-aged women and incorporation of herbal supplements can aid them in managing the menopausal symptoms.

This 12-week randomised double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study aims to evaluate the efficacy of the standardised water extract of EL known as Physta in increasing the quality of life of perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. The study involves 150 women aged 40–55 years who score more than 61 on the Menopause-Specific Quality of Life (MENQOL) assessment. These participants will be randomised into three groups, receiving Physta at either 50 mg or 100 mg or a placebo. The outcomes measures include mood state, quality of life, fatigue, sleep quality, sexual function and pain score assessed using Profile of Mood State, MENQOL, Chalder Fatigue Scale, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Female Sexual Function Index and the Brief Pain Inventory questionnaires, respectively. The secondary outcome of the study includes full blood analysis, urine analysis, female reproductive hormone profiling, inflammatory and oxidative stress biomarkers analysis.

The research protocol of the study was reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM/PPI/111/8/JEP-2021-898). The findings will be disseminated to participants, healthcare professionals and researchers via conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications.

ACTRN12622001341718.