Suboptimal feeding practices in children under five remain a critical concern, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Integrated Supplementary Feeding programmes (SFPs) combined with Social and Behaviour Change Communication (SBCC) interventions have shown potential, yet global evidence on their design and effectiveness remains scattered across diverse settings and varies widely in scope and quality. This review aims to map global evidence on integrated SFP and SBCC interventions for children aged 6–59 months, assessing their impact on anthropometric, biochemical, nutritional, health, developmental, functional, microbiological and infant and young child feeding (IYCF) outcomes, and to identify contextual factors, evidence gaps and successful strategies. The review will also aim to document cost effectiveness and economic outcomes of this integrated intervention.

The review will follow Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology, applying the Population–Concept–Context framework and the review title has been registered in Open Science Framework (OSF) (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ZJ5BG). Eligible studies published between 2000 and 2025 will include community-based interventions for children under five that combine SFP and SBCC. The review will focus on SFP interventions delivered through community-based or public health platforms, including but not limited to take home ration, hot cooked meal, micronutrient powders, coupled with SBCC modalities such as home visits, mobile health and mass media campaigns. Comprehensive searches will be conducted in MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane CENTRAL, Google Scholar and organisational websites. Two independent reviewers will screen, extract and appraise studies using Covidence and JBI tools. Data will be analysed using descriptive statistics to summarise study characteristics, intervention types and reported outcomes, helping understand patterns across time and settings. Qualitative findings will be synthesised through descriptive content analysis involving coding and theme development. Expected outcomes include a range of study designs from different settings across the globe, covering diverse delivery models of integrated SFP and SBCC with reported outcomes including dietary indicators, anthropometry, nutritional biomarkers, caregiver practices and cost-effectiveness.

This review is part of a larger cluster randomised controlled trial (NECCTAR) which has received ethical approval from the independent institutional ethics committee of all the participating institutes. The current review will involve only publicly available literature and does not have a separate institutional ethics committee approval. Findings will be disseminated through academic conferences and publications in peer-reviewed journals.

The review title has been registered in OSF (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ZJ5BG).

Case reports (CRs) are essential in physiotherapy, yet reporting remains heterogeneous and insufficiently standardised. The 2013 CAse REport (CARE) guideline improves transparency but lacks physiotherapy-specific detail. This study aimed to develop a consensus-driven extension of the CARE reporting guideline to support structured reporting of physiotherapy CRs, encompassing physiotherapy-specific assessments and interventions.

An e-Delphi consensus process study following the ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document (ACCORD) guidelines.

Online.

Forty-four international experts in physiotherapy practice, research and education, along with six core committee members.

Experts objectively scored items for relevance (5-point Likert scale) and provided open-ended responses for each item of the drafts. Scores and responses were analysed to facilitate iterative refinement of the Physiotherapy CAse REport (PhyCARE) reporting guidelines. Consensus was predetermined at over 70% agreement.

Round 1 had the majority of items achieving ≥70% agreement, except two items that did not meet the threshold were revised and replaced with an alternative. Five new items addressing physiotherapy-specific reporting needs were added, and 10 items were relocated. In round 2, all 35 items across 13 domains achieved 84%–100% agreement. The nomenclature of one domain was revised to ‘Outcomes and Follow-up’. Following two e-Delphi rounds, consensus was achieved, and suggestions from online meeting, piloting led to item rephrasing, after which the PhyCARE guidelines were finalised.

The PhyCARE guidelines have the potential to provide a physiotherapy-specific extension of CARE to support structured, transparent and reproducible reporting of physiotherapy CRs.

The Validating Outcomes by Including Consumer Experience (VOICE) project is developing patient reported experience measure (PREM) tools to collect consumer feedback for Indigenous primary healthcare (IPHC) services’ accreditation and quality improvement processes. This study aimed to explore the views of health service staff about: (1) optimising the feasibility of collection, analysis and interpretation of findings; and (2) resourcing requirements for implementation of the PREM.

A participatory action research qualitative study design, guided by an Indigenous advisory group. Our team of Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers conducted semistructured focus groups and individual interviews with IPHC staff. Focus groups and interviews were recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. Multiple sense-making meetings were conducted with the Indigenous advisory group.

Eight partner IPHC services across four Australian states and territories.

All staff were eligible and invited to participate in the study via purposive and snowball sampling. Administrative staff (eg, receptionist, programme facilitator), clinicians/practitioners (eg, general practitioner, nurse, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health workers and practitioners) and service managers (eg, CEO, practice manager) from partner health services participated.

63 staff participated; 44 attended across 13 focus groups, with the remainder participating in individual interviews. The majority of participants were between 35 years and 55 years old (52%), female (66%) and working in frontline IPHC service delivery roles (56%). Equal numbers identified as Indigenous (50%) and non-Indigenous (50%). Many had worked in the Indigenous health and well-being sector for over 10 years (40%). ‘Culturally safe care’ and ‘accountability’ were identified as primary themes and key reasons for gathering consumer feedback. Subthemes identified were ‘Relationships’, ‘trust and respect’, ‘communication about consumer feedback’, ‘timing and frequency of requesting consumer feedback’, ‘health service systems’, ‘health service and staff capacity’, ‘staff skills’ and ‘structure and administration of the PREM’. All themes and subthemes need to be considered for the successful design and implementation of PREMs in IPHC settings.

Many of the issues identified are not currently considered in the process of collecting PREM data for accreditation yet, if addressed, would likely improve the quality and relevance of data collected. The findings from this study will inform the co-design and validation of Indigenous-specific PREM tools to collect consumer feedback. Critically, service and community input will ensure the PREM tools meet service needs for continuous quality improvement and accreditation and reflect the priorities and values of Indigenous peoples.