Despite growing evidence to characterise cancer-associated cognitive decline (CACD) in women with breast cancer, interventions to mitigate CACD are limited. Emerging evidence suggests aerobic exercise may enhance cognition after breast cancer diagnosis and treatment; yet, CACD remains an understudied outcome of exercise, and few high-quality studies have been conducted. In addition to knowledge gaps in effectiveness, the translation of exercise interventions to community settings remains challenging. The Breast cancer Reasoning and Activity INtervention (BRAIN) investigates the effectiveness of aerobic exercise training, delivered in a community-based setting, for improving cognitive function in women with breast cancer and gathers information on the implementation success of the intervention.

This Hybrid Type I effectiveness–implementation study is conducted at an academic medical centre in the southwestern United States in partnership with a non-profit, community health and wellness organisation. The study enrols 160 women diagnosed with stage I–IIIa breast cancer and within 3–36 months of treatment completion into a 1:1 randomised controlled trial. Individuals randomised to the exercise group receive a 6-month, individually tailored aerobic exercise programme delivered by exercise trainers employed at local community fitness centres. The programme is progressive in nature and designed to help participants achieve aerobic exercise levels consistent with guidelines for cancer survivors. Individuals randomise to the control group receive a 6-month health education control intervention delivered virtually by hospital-based health educators. Cognitive performance (primary), self-reported cognition, patient-reported outcomes, physical activity and cardiorespiratory fitness are measured at baseline, 6 months (postintervention) and 12 months (follow-up). Brain structure and function are measured via magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at baseline and 6 months. Implementation outcomes are defined by the RE-AIM framework, which includes reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance. RE-AIM outcomes are measured at baseline, 6 months, 12 months and ongoing during the study.

This study was approved by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board (#23-000020). All participants provide informed consent prior to participation. Findings will be disseminated to scientific, clinical and community audiences through manuscripts, presentations and newsletters.

NCT04816006.

Amid growing concerns about primary care accessibility and the need to support longitudinal, community-based models of care, Canadian provinces have implemented major reforms to how family physicians are paid. These models share objectives of making longitudinal, community-based family practice more attractive and, to some degree, addressing long-standing disparities in pay between family medicine and other specialties. These new remuneration models require robust evaluation to guide improvements, future investments and planning.

We will conduct a multimethod study to explore physician perceptions and outcomes of these new models. First, we will complete semi-structured interviews with family physicians in British Columbia, Manitoba and Nova Scotia (provinces where a new blended compensation model has been introduced). Interviews will explore family physicians’ motivations for moving onto the blended compensation model; how the model has impacted their practice, administrative burden, visit length, capacity, changes to care coordination; and other areas of interest. Second, using provincial and national administrative datasets, we will assess the impact of these payment reforms on service volume, attachment/enrolment, continuity of care, and costs.

We have obtained cross-jurisdictional ethics approvals from Research Ethics British Columbia for the qualitative components and Nova Scotia Health for the quantitative components of this research. Harmonised ethics approvals have been obtained from additional institutions across all study regions. We will create summaries of findings of provincial and cross-provincial analyses and share them with relevant policymakers, physician associations and study participants. Our dissemination will also include traditional publications such as peer-reviewed articles, commentaries/editorials, and academic conferences.

Despite expert recommendations to prioritise non-invasive and patient-centred approaches for behavioural crisis management, physical restraints are commonly used in the emergency department (ED). Patients describe the restraint process as coercive and dehumanising. The use of peer support workers, who are individuals with lived experience of mental illness and behavioural conditions, has shown positive patient outcomes when assisting individuals experiencing behavioural crises. However, there is limited evidence of the implementation of such an approach in the ED setting. The goal of this study is to evaluate if the implementation of a Peer support enhanced Agitation Crisis response Team (PACT) for behavioural crisis management in the ED is more effective than usual care to reduce restraint use and improve outcomes among patients presenting to the ED with behavioural crises.

We will first conduct a stakeholder-informed needs assessment to codesign the protocol and then train staff and peers in PACT intervention readiness. Next, a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised controlled trial will be conducted over 3 years at five ED sites across a healthcare system in the Northeast USA. The PACT intervention will integrate peer delivery of trauma-informed care within a structured, interprofessional, team-based response protocol for behavioural crisis management. The primary outcome is the rate of physical restraint and/or sedation use. The secondary outcome is the level of patient agitation during the ED visit. Analyses of primary and secondary outcomes will be conducted using generalised linear mixed models.

This protocol has been approved by the Yale University Human Investigation Committee (protocol number 2000037554). The study is deemed minimal risk and has been granted a waiver of consent for trial participants. However, verbal consent will be obtained for a subset of patients receiving follow-up data collection. Results will be disseminated through publications in open-access, peer-reviewed journals, via scientific presentations, or through direct mail notifications.

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT06556069.

To codevelop (with children and young people with diabetes (CYPD)) an intervention to improve diabetes control and future health outcomes of CYPD from ‘underserved’ groups, to reduce treatment outcome inequalities between different socioeconomic and ethnic groups. To follow Medical Research Council guidance for complex interventions and the COM-B (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behaviour) model for behaviour change intervention development.

In phase 1 (previously reported), we established the evidence base, conducted literature reviews and analysed data from semistructured interviews with CYPD and their carers. In phase 2 (this report), we applied the COM-B framework to identify intervention components; in phase 3 (this report), we evaluated these components, including focus groups with CYPD, their carers’ and healthcare practitioner (HCP) surveys, using the Acceptability, Practicability, Effectiveness, Affordability, Spill-Over Effects, Equity criteria.

Secondary care; children, young people and their carers’ were approached from two large paediatric diabetes services in England, both with socioeconomically and ethnically diverse underserved populations; paediatric diabetes HCPs were surveyed across four English regions.

N=69 underserved CYPD (aged 5–19 years) and/or family members took part in interviews; N=48 paediatric diabetes HCP survey respondents (survey 1); N=34 paediatric diabetes HCP survey respondents (survey 2); N=3 young people’s advisory group participants; N=17 underserved CYPD/carers focus group participants; N=9 wider stakeholder participants.

The codevelopment process and integration of COM-B established four elements for an intervention package: (1) an enhanced peer support/mentoring programme; (2) provision of a health and well-being coach to CYPD/families; (3) family/community support to address social and community issues and (4) training for HCPs, including cultural competence, poverty proofing and to emphasise the need for increased sensitivity and better supported communication in work with CYPD from underserved groups.

The Diversity in Diabetes codevelopment work informed an intervention to improve diabetes care in underserved groups, reflecting sociocultural contexts and plausible support options at the individual, community and clinical levels. The ‘Diversity in Diabetes’ programme will next test feasibility and further refine the intervention package in two more paediatric diabetes centres in England.