Chronic malnutrition is a serious problem in southern Angola with a prevalence of 49.9% and 37.2% in the provinces of Huila and Cunene, respectively. The MuCCUA (Mother and Child Chronic Undernutrition in Angola) trial is a community-based randomised controlled trial (c-RCT) which aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a nutrition supplementation plus standard of care intervention and a cash transfer plus standard of care intervention in preventing stunting, and to compare them with a standard of care alone intervention in southern Angola. This protocol describes the planned economic evaluation associated with the c-RCT.

We will conduct a cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness analysis nested within the MuCCUA trial with a societal perspective, measuring programme, provider, participant and household costs. We will collect programme costs prospectively using a combined calculation method including quantitative and qualitative data. Financial costs will be estimated by applying activity-based costing methods to accounting records using time allocation sheets. We will estimate costs not included in accounting records by the ingredients approach, and indirect costs incurred by beneficiaries through interviews, household surveys and focus group discussions. Cost-efficiency will be estimated as cost per output achieved by combining activity-specific cost data with routine data on programme outputs. Cost-effectiveness will be assessed as cost per stunting case prevented. We will calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios comparing the additional cost per improved outcome of the different intervention arms and the standard of care. We will perform sensitivity analyses to assess robustness of results.

This economic evaluation will provide useful information to the Angolan Government and other policymakers on the most cost-effective intervention to prevent stunting in this and other comparable contexts. The protocol was approved by the República de Angola Ministério da Saúde Comité de Ética (27C.E/MINSA.INIS/2022). The findings of this study will be disseminated within academia and the wider policy sphere.

ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT05571280).

Timely access to safe and affordable surgery is essential for universal health coverage. To date, there are no studies evaluating 2-hour access to Bellwether procedures (caesarean section, laparotomy, open fracture management) in the Philippines. The objectives of this study were to measure the proportion of the population able to reach a Bellwether hospital within 2 hours in the Philippines and to identify areas in the country with the most surgically underserved populations.

All public hospitals with Bellwether capacities were identified from the Philippines Ministry of Health website. The service area tool in ArcGIS Pro was used to determine the population within a 2-hour drive time of a Bellwether facility. Finally, suitability modelling was conducted to identify potential future sites for a surgical facility that targets the most underserved regions in the Philippines.

428 Bellwether capable hospitals were identified. 85.1% of the population lived within 2 hours of one of these facilities. However, 6 regions had less than 80% of its population living within 2 hours of a Bellwether capable facility: Bicol, Eastern Visayas, Zamboanga, Autonomous region of Muslim Mindanao, Caraga and Mimaropa. Suitability analysis identified four regions—Caraga, Mimaropa, Calabarzon and Zamboanga—as ideal locations to build a new hospital with surgical capacity to improve access rates.

85.1% of the population of the Philippines are able to reach Bellwether capable hospitals within 2 hours, with regional disparities in terms of access rates. However, other factors such as weather, traffic conditions, financial access, availability of 24-hour surgical services and access to motorised vehicles should also be taken into consideration, as they also affect actual access rates.

Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer death worldwide and most patients present with extensive disease. One-year survival is improving but remains low (37%) despite novel systemic anti-cancer treatments forming the current standard of care. Although new therapies improve survival, most patients have residual disease after treatment, and little is known on how best to manage it. Therefore, residual disease management varies across the UK, with some patients receiving only maintenance systemic anti-cancer treatment while others receive local consolidative treatment (LCT), alongside maintenance systemic anti-cancer treatment. LCT can be a combination of surgery, radiotherapy and/or ablation to remove all remaining cancer within the lung and throughout the body. This is intensive, expensive and impacts quality of life, but we do not know if it results in better survival, nor the extent of impact on quality of life and what the cost might be for healthcare providers. The RAMON study (RAdical Management Of Advanced Non-small cell lung cancer) will evaluate the acceptability, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of LCT versus no LCT after first-line systemic treatment for advanced lung cancer.

RAMON is a pragmatic open multicentre, parallel group, superiority randomised controlled trial. We aim to recruit 244 patients aged 18 years and over with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer from 40 UK NHS hospitals. Participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive LCT alongside maintenance treatment, or maintenance treatment alone. LCT will be tailored to each patient’s specific disease sites. Participants will be followed up for a minimum of 2 years. The primary outcome is overall survival from randomisation.

The West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee (22/WS/0121) gave ethical approval in August 2022 and the Health Research Authority in September 2022. Participants will provide written informed consent before participating in the study. Findings will be presented at international meetings, in peer-reviewed publications, through patient organisations and notifications to patients.

ISRCTN11613852.

Over half of the populations with knee osteoarthritis (OA) have obesity. These individuals have many other shared metabolic risk factors. Metformin is a safe, inexpensive, well-tolerated drug that has pleiotropic effects, including structural protection, anti-inflammatory and analgesic effects in OA, specifically the knee. The aim of this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial is to determine whether metformin reduces knee pain over 6 months in individuals with symptomatic knee OA who are overweight or obese.

One hundred and two participants with symptomatic knee OA and overweight or obesity will be recruited from the community in Melbourne, Australia, and randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive either metformin 2 g or identical placebo daily for 6 months. The primary outcome is reduction of knee pain [assessed by 100 mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)] at 6 months. The secondary outcomes are OMERACT-OARSI (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology-Osteoarthritis Research Society International) responder criteria [Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain, function and participant’s global assessment (VAS)] at 6 months; change in knee pain, stiffness, function using WOMAC at 6 months and quality of life at 6 months. Adverse events will be recorded. The primary analysis will be by intention to treat, including all participants in their randomised groups.

Ethics approval has been obtained from the Alfred Hospital Ethics Committee (708/20) and Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (28498). Written informed consent will be obtained from all the participants. The findings will be disseminated through peer-review publications and conference presentations.

ACTRN12621000710820 .

To establish a consensus on the structure and process of healthcare services for patients with concussion in England to facilitate better healthcare quality and patient outcome.

This consensus study followed the modified Delphi methodology with five phases: participant identification, item development, two rounds of voting and a meeting to finalise the consensus statements. The predefined threshold for agreement was set at ≥70%.

Specialist outpatient services.

Members of the UK Head Injury Network were invited to participate. The network consists of clinical specialists in head injury practising in emergency medicine, neurology, neuropsychology, neurosurgery, paediatric medicine, rehabilitation medicine and sports and exercise medicine in England.

A consensus statement on the structure and process of specialist outpatient care for patients with concussion in England.

55 items were voted on in the first round. 29 items were removed following the first voting round and 3 items were removed following the second voting round. Items were modified where appropriate. A final 18 statements reached consensus covering 3 main topics in specialist healthcare services for concussion; care pathway to structured follow-up, prognosis and measures of recovery, and provision of outpatient clinics.

This work presents statements on how the healthcare services for patients with concussion in England could be redesigned to meet their health needs. Future work will seek to implement these into the clinical pathway.

To determine the socio-demographic profile of all students enrolled to study medicine in Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ).

Observational, cross-sectional study. Data were sought from the Universities of Auckland and Otago, the two NZ tertiary education institutions providing medical education, for the period 2016–2020 inclusive. These data are a subset of the larger project ‘Mirror on Society’ examining all regulated health professional enrolled students in NZ. Variables of interest: gender, citizenship, ethnicity, rural classification, socioeconomic deprivation, school type and school socioeconomic scores. NZ denominator population data (18–29 years) were sourced from the 2018 census.

2858 students were enrolled to study medicine between 2016 and 2020 inclusive.

There were more women (59.1%) enrolled to study medicine than men (40.9%) and the majority (96.5%) were in the 18–29 years age range. Māori students (rate ratio 0.92; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.0) and Pacific students (rate ratio 0.85; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.98) had lower overall rates of enrolment. For all ethnic groups, irrespective of rural or urban origin, enrolment rates had a nearly log-linear negative relationship with increasing socioeconomic deprivation. Enrolments were lower for students from rural areas compared with those from urban areas (rate ratio 0.53; 95% CI 0.46–0.61). Overall NZ’s medical students do not reflect the diverse communities they will serve, with under-representation of Māori and Pacific students and students who come from low socioeconomic and rural backgrounds.

To meaningfully address these issues, we suggest the following policy changes: universities commit and act to Indigenise institutional ways of knowing and being; selection policies are reviewed to ensure that communities in greatest need of doctors are prioritised for enrolment into medicine (specifically, the impact of low socioeconomic status should be factored into selection decisions); and the government fund more New Zealanders to study medicine.

To investigate whether intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) improves neurological outcomes in children with encephalitis when administered early in the illness.

Phase 3b multicentre, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial.

Twenty-one hospitals in the UK.

Children aged 6 months to 16 years with a diagnosis of acute or subacute encephalitis, with a planned sample size of 308.

Two doses (1 g/kg/dose) of either IVIG or matching placebo given 24–36 hours apart, in addition to standard treatment.

The primary outcome was a ‘good recovery’ at 12 months after randomisation, defined as a score of≤2 on the Paediatric Glasgow Outcome Score Extended.

The secondary outcomes were clinical, neurological, neuroimaging and neuropsychological results, identification of the proportion of children with immune-mediated encephalitis, and IVIG safety data.

18 participants were recruited from 12 hospitals and randomised to receive either IVIG (n=10) or placebo (n=8) between 23 December 2015 and 26 September 2017. The study was terminated early following withdrawal of funding due to slower than anticipated recruitment, and therefore did not reach the predetermined sample size required to achieve the primary study objective; thus, the results are descriptive. At 12 months after randomisation, 9 of the 18 participants (IVIG n=5/10 (50%), placebo n=4/8 (50%)) made a good recovery and 5 participants (IVIG n=3/10 (30%), placebo n=2/8 (25%)) made a poor recovery. Three participants (IVIG n=1/10 (10%), placebo n=2/8 (25%)) had a new diagnosis of epilepsy during the study period. Two participants were found to have specific autoantibodies associated with autoimmune encephalitis. No serious adverse events were reported in participants receiving IVIG.

The IgNiTE (ImmunoglobuliN in the Treatment of Encephalitis) study findings support existing evidence of poor neurological outcomes in children with encephalitis. However, the study was halted prematurely and was therefore underpowered to evaluate the effect of early IVIG treatment compared with placebo in childhood encephalitis.

Clinical Trials.gov NCT02308982; ICRCTN registry ISRCTN15791925.

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.

One-third of children in England have special educational needs (SEN) provision recorded during their school career. The proportion of children with SEN provision varies between schools and demographic groups, which may reflect variation in need, inequitable provision and/or systemic factors. There is scant evidence on whether SEN provision improves health and education outcomes.

The Health Outcomes of young People in Education (HOPE) research programme uses administrative data from the Education and Child Health Insights from Linked Data—ECHILD—which contains data from all state schools, and contacts with National Health Service hospitals in England, to explore variation in SEN provision and its impact on health and education outcomes. This umbrella protocol sets out analyses across four work packages (WP). WP1 defined a range of ‘health phenotypes’, that is health conditions expected to need SEN provision in primary school. Next, we describe health and education outcomes (WP1) and individual, school-level and area-level factors affecting variation in SEN provision across different phenotypes (WP2). WP3 assesses the impact of SEN provision on health and education outcomes for specific health phenotypes using a range of causal inference methods to account for confounding factors and possible selection bias. In WP4 we review local policies and synthesise findings from surveys, interviews and focus groups of service users and providers to understand factors associated with variation in and experiences of identification, assessment and provision for SEN. Triangulation of findings on outcomes, variation and impact of SEN provision for different health phenotypes in ECHILD, with experiences of SEN provision will inform interpretation of findings for policy, practice and families and methods for future evaluation.

Research ethics committees have approved the use of the ECHILD database and, separately, the survey, interviews and focus groups of young people, parents and service providers. These stakeholders will contribute to the design, interpretation and communication of findings.