To identify enablers and barriers for scaling up non-communicable disease (NCD) interventions across diverse global contexts and to map these factors to the WHO’s health system building blocks.

A multi-method qualitative study applying the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to analyse data from multiple projects nearing or completing scale-up.

Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases-funded implementation research projects conducted across 18 low- and middle-income countries and high-income settings.

Data was derived from documents (n=77) including peer-reviewed publications, policy briefs, and reports and interviews with stakeholders (n=18) (eg, principal investigators, medical professionals, public health workers).

Various context-specific interventions targeting sustainable scale-up of NCD (eg, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease) interventions at the community, primary care or policy levels.

The primary outcome was identifying contextual enablers and barriers to intervention scale-up. Secondary outcomes included exploring how these factors aligned with health system building blocks (eg, leadership/governance, healthcare workforce).

Twenty enablers (eg, intervention adaptability, strong stakeholder engagement, local empowerment) and 25 barriers (eg, resource limitations, intervention complexity, stakeholder burnout) were identified. Contextual alignment, supportive governance and capacity building were critical for sustainability, while cultural misalignment and socio-political instability frequently hampered scaling efforts.

Tailoring interventions to local health systems, ensuring stakeholder co-ownership and incorporating strategies to mitigate stakeholder burn-out are essential to achieving sustainable, scalable NCD solutions. Future research should focus on integrating systematic cultural adaptation, sustainable financing and workforce capacity building into scale-up planning.

Deaths related to drug overdose and suicide in the USA have increased 500% and 35%, respectively, over the last two decades. The human and economic costs to society associated with these ‘deaths of despair’ are immense. Great efforts and substantial investments have been made in treatment and prevention, yet these efforts have not abated these increasing trajectories of deaths over time. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated and highlighted these problems. Notably, some geographical areas (eg, Appalachia, farmland) and some communities (eg, low-income persons, ‘essential workers’, minoritised populations) have been disproportionately affected. Risk factors have been identified for substance use and suicide deaths: forms of adversity, neglect, opportunity indexes and trauma. Yet, the biological, psychological and social mechanisms driving risk are not uniform. Notably, most people exposed to risk factors do not become symptomatic and could broadly be considered resilient. Achieving a better understanding of biological, psychological and social mechanisms underlying both pathology and resilience will be crucial for improving approaches for prevention and treatment and creating precision medicine approaches for more efficient and effective treatment.

The State of Ohio Adversity and Resilience (SOAR) study is a prospective, longitudinal, multimodal, integrated familial study designed to identify biological, psychological and social risk and resilience factors and processes leading to mental health disorders, substance use disorders, substance overdose, suicide and associated psychological/medical comorbidities which reduce life expectancy and quality of life. It includes two nested longitudinal samples: (1) WD Survey: an address-based random population epidemiological sample of 15 000 individuals (unique households) representative of the state of Ohio assessed for psychosocial, psychiatric, behavioural health and substance use factors and (2) Brain Health Study: a family-based, multimodal, deep-phenotyping study conducted in 1200 families (up to 3600 persons aged 12–72 years) including MRI, electroencephalography, blood biomarkers and psychiatric diagnostic interviews, as well as neuropsychological, psychosocial functioning and family/community history, dynamics and support assessments. SOAR is designed to discover, develop and deploy advanced predictive analytics and interventions to transform mental health prevention, diagnosis, treatment and recovery.

All participants will provide written informed consent (or parental permission and assent for minors). The study was approved by The Ohio State University Institutional Review Board (study numbers 2023H0316 (Brain Health) and 2023H0350 (Wellness Survey). The Brain Health study was also approved by institutional review boards at each partnering institution involved in conducting participant assessments. Findings will be disseminated to academic peers, clinicians and healthcare consumers, policymakers and the general public, using local and international academic channels (academic journals, evidence briefs and conferences) and outreach (workshops and seminars).

Secondary and tertiary renal hyperparathyroidism (RHPT) are common sequelae of chronic kidney disease and are associated with worse patient mortality and quality of life. Clinical guidelines remain lacking with regard to recommendations for using intraoperative parathyroid hormone (IOPTH) during surgery for RHPT. A prospective randomised study will help evaluate the role of IOPTH in guiding surgery for secondary and tertiary RHPT.

Intraoperative parathyroid hormone monitoring to guide surgery in renal hyperparathyroidism is a pragmatic, multicentre, five-arm, parallel-group, patient-blinded and outcome assessor-blinded prospective pilot trial used to evaluate the feasibility of performing a definitive trial. Eligible participants include adult patients diagnosed with secondary or tertiary hyperparathyroidism who are candidates for subtotal or total parathyroidectomy. Consenting patients will be randomly assigned, through central allocation, in a 1:1:1:1:1 fashion to undergo surgery with IOPTH monitoring (four experimental arms: postexcision IOPTH samples taken at 10, 15, 20 or 25 min) or to undergo surgery without IOPTH monitoring (control arm). The primary feasibility objective is to estimate the percentage of eligible patients that are randomised: ≥70% proceed; 50–69% modify protocol before proceeding;

Ethics approval was obtained from the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board. Pilot trial results will be shared widely through local, national and international academic and clinical networks and will be disseminated through conference presentations and publication in peer-reviewed journals.

NCT06542315, registered on 6 August 2024.

Misinformation about cardiovascular health has the potential to negatively impact public health outcomes. Understanding the nature and spread of such misinformation is crucial for developing effective interventions to mitigate this potential risk. However, despite the critical importance of this issue, there is a gap in comprehensive reviews mapping the existing literature on cardiovascular health misinformation. This scoping review aims to map the existing literature on cardiovascular health misinformation, identifying its spread, prevalence, impact and strategies for correction across diverse populations and settings.

This review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines for conducting a scoping review. A comprehensive search will be conducted across multiple databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and Web of Science, along with grey literature sources. The last date of search was January 2025. The review will include studies without date that involve individuals affected by cardiovascular disease (CVD) misinformation, examine the spread, prevalence, impact or correction of misinformation related to cardiovascular health, and capture various cultural, geographic or setting-specific factors. The exclusion criteria include studies that do not directly address misinformation related to CVD. All identified records will be imported into Covidence systematic review software. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts, followed by full-text reviews of potentially relevant studies. Discrepancies will be resolved through discussion or by consulting a third reviewer. Data extraction will be conducted by two reviewers using a pre-piloted tool, and a descriptive presentation of the findings will be done. Both inductive and deductive content analysis methods will be employed for objectives related to the impact and strategies to combat misinformation.

Given that the study involves synthesising data from existing published literature, ethical approval is not required. The findings will be disseminated through international conference presentations, published in a peer-reviewed journal and shared with public health organisations and policymakers.