To assess the comparative effectiveness of educational interventions in neurological disease for healthcare workers and students.

Systematic review.

Medline, Embase and Cochrane through to 1 June 2025.

Studies evaluating neurological disease educational interventions with a comparator group (observational cohort/randomised controlled trial (RCT)) were included.

A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-compliant systematic review was conducted (PROSPERO: CRD42023461838). Knowledge acquisition and educational methodologies were collected from each study. Study outcomes were classified using the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick four-level model (learner reaction, knowledge acquisition, behavioural change, clinical outcome).¹ Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for non-randomised studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs.^{2 3}

A total of 67 studies involving 4728 participants were included. Of these, 36 were RCTs, and 31 were observational studies. Virtual interventions were the most common (67.2%, n=45 studies), primarily targeting either medical students (46.3%, n=31 studies) or specialists (40.3%, n=27 studies). Overall, 70.1% (n=47) of studies demonstrated outcomes in favour of the intervention. However, few studies used K&K level 3/4 outcomes, with two studies evaluating behaviour change (level 3) and three assessing clinical outcomes (level 4 combined with other levels). No study exclusively assessed level 4 outcomes. Meta-analysis of 22 RCTs with calculable standardised mean differences (SMDs) (n=1748) showed a significant benefit of interventions (SMD 0.75, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.27, p=0.0056).

This review highlights a growing body of research particularly focusing on virtual techniques, specialist audiences and treatment-oriented content. Few studies assessed changes in practice or patient care. Non-specialists remain underrepresented. Future studies should prioritise assessing the clinical impact of educational interventions within non-specialist audiences.

This study explored how Structured Medication Reviews (SMRs) are being undertaken and the challenges to their successful implementation and sustainability.

A cross-sectional mixed methods online survey.

Primary care in England.

120 clinical pharmacists with experience in conducting SMRs in primary care.

Survey responses were received from clinical pharmacists working in 15 different regions. The majority were independent prescribers (62%, n=74), and most were employed by Primary Care Networks (65%, n=78), delivering SMRs for one or more general practices. 61% (n=73) had completed, or were currently enrolled in, the approved training pathway. Patient selection was largely driven by the primary care contract specification: care home residents, patients with polypharmacy, patients on medicines commonly associated with medication errors, patients with severe frailty and/or patients using potentially addictive pain management medication. Only 26% (n=36) of respondents reported providing patients with information in advance. The majority of SMRs were undertaken remotely by telephone and were 21–30 min in length. Much variation was reported in approaches to conducting SMRs, with SMRs in care homes being deemed the most challenging due to additional complexities involved. Challenges included not having sufficient time to prepare adequately, address complex polypharmacy and complete follow-up work generated by SMRs, issues relating to organisational support, competing national priorities and lack of ‘buy-in’ from some patients and General Practitioners.

These results offer insights into the role being played by the clinical pharmacy workforce in a new country-wide initiative to improve the quality and safety of care for patients taking multiple medicines. Better patient preparation and trust, alongside continuing professional development, more support and oversight for clinical pharmacists conducting SMRs, could lead to more efficient medication reviews. However, a formal evaluation of the potential of SMRs to optimise safe medicines use for patients in England is now warranted.

Examine patterns in declined referrals to secondary healthcare in New Zealand by sociodemographics, region, health specialty and over time, as an important marker of potential unmet healthcare need (UMN) for specialist care. The primary hypothesis was that UMN varies by sociodemographic groups, region and health specialty and has increased over time.

A repeated cross-sectional analysis using administrative data from the National Patient Flow (NPF) Collection (2018–2022).

Nationwide, encompassing all first specialist assessments (FSA) referrals to public hospital specialists in New Zealand.

Individuals referred by general practitioners for FSA.

The primary outcome was FSA referrals being declined at prioritisation.

Among 2 918 557 first referrals for FSA, the observed rate of declined at prioritisation was 13.1%. Among those referred, females had a significantly higher risk of being declined (relative risk (RR), 1.069; 95% CI, 1.062 to 1.075), while those in younger (0–9 years: RR, 0.853; 95% CI, 0.841 to 0.865 and 10–19 years: RR, 0.891; 95% CI, 0.879 to 0.904) and older (80+years: RR, 0.955; 95% CI, 0.944 to 0.967) age groups as well as Māori (RR, 0.817; 95% CI, 0.810 to 0.824) and Pacific peoples (RR, 0.706; 95% CI, 0.695 to 0.716) had a significantly lower risk. There was also significant variation in risk of being declined by region and health specialty. The overall risk of being declined increased by 4.1% annually (RR, 1.041; 95% CI, 1.039 to 1.044). Significant increases in risk of declined over time were also observed across all sociodemographic groups, with higher risks for non-Māori/non-Pacific individuals (RR, 1.045; 95% CI, 1.043 to 1.048) and those in less deprived areas (RR, 1.057; 95% CI, 1.052 to 1.063).

UMN in New Zealand has significantly increased, exacerbating health inequities and straining primary care. Policy interventions are urgently needed to address these disparities, particularly in high-risk specialties and populations. This method of quantifying an important marker of UMN may inform global health equity initiatives.

The evidence for the optimal duration of psychotherapy for borderline personality disorder (BPD) is scarce. Two previous trials have compared different durations of psychotherapy. The first compared 6 months versus 12 months of dialectical behaviour therapy for BPD (the FASTER trial). The second compared 5 months versus 14 months of mentalisation-based therapy for BPD (the MBT-RCT trial). The primary objective of the present study will be to provide an individual patient data pooled analysis of two randomised clinical trials by combining the two short-term groups and the two long-term groups from the FASTER and MBT-RCT trials, thereby providing greater statistical power than the individual trials. Accordingly, we will evaluate the overall evidence on the effects of short-term versus long-term psychotherapy for BPD and investigate whether certain subgroups might benefit from short-term versus long-term psychotherapy.

An individual patient data pooled analysis of the FASTER trial and the MBT-RCT trial will be conducted. The primary outcome will be a composite of the proportion of participants with a suicide, a suicide attempt or a psychiatric hospitalisation. The secondary outcome will be the proportion of participants with self-harm. Exploratory outcomes will be BPD symptoms, symptom distress, level of functioning and quality of life. We will primarily assess outcomes at 15 months after randomisation for the FASTER trial and at 16 months after randomisation for the MBT-RCT trial. Predefined subgroups based on the design variables in the original trials will be tested for interaction with the intervention as follows: trial, sex (male compared with female), age (below or at 30 years compared with above 30 years) and baseline level of functioning (Global Assessment of Functioning baseline score at 0–49 compared with 50–100).

The statistical analyses will be performed on anonymised trial data that have already been approved by the respective ethical committees that originally assessed the included trials. The final analysis will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and the results will be presented at national seminars and international conferences.

CRD42024612840.