Microcirculatory dysfunction drives the end-organ pathophysiology of circulatory shock but is not reflected within existing clinical indices of perfusion, such as blood pressure. The choroidal vasculature of the retina can be measured non-invasively and we hypothesised that this may reflect dysfunction in other organs. We tested the feasibility of measuring the choroid in intensive care and explored associations between choroidal measurements and clinical parameters.

A pilot study of optical coherence tomography conducted in a sample of general intensive care unit (ICU) patients.

A tertiary mixed ICU within the UK.

15 patients were recruited. One patient was excluded following withdrawal of active treatment. 12/14 (86%) of the remaining patients had successful baseline imaging and 6 (40%) of these had follow-up imaging within intensive care. These patients had a mean age of 56.3 years, were 71% (10/14) male and mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation 2 (APACHE2) score on ICU admission was 20.4.

Choroidal anatomy, including choroidal and suprachoroidal thickness, as well as volumetric analysis of intrachoroidal blood vessels, was assessed using automated image segmentation along with clinical, physiological and biochemical data at ICU admission and after an interval of 12–72 hours. Feasibility and safety data were assessed throughout ICU admission.

Baseline choroidal vascular index and choroidal thickness were positively associated with fluid balance, and negatively with APACHE2 score, haematocrit and albumin content. A measurable suprachoroidal space was seen in nine (75%) patients (range 25.0–110.0 microns) and was inversely associated with heart rate. There was substantial intraindividual variation in choroidal measurements over time. There were no safety concerns.

Measuring the choroid is feasible in patients with Intensive Care Society Level 2 or Level 3 requirements. The suprachoroidal space may be markedly enlarged in these patients. Exploratory associations with systemic variables suggest that the choroid may provide information about the microvascular function of other major organs. Size and change of choroidal measurements may reflect perfusion pressure and vascular leakage.

Many researchers conduct a process evaluation alongside an effectiveness trial of a public health intervention to better understand mechanisms behind observed effects. Yet, there is no standardised, scientifically accepted guideline for reporting such process evaluations, which impedes interpretation and comparison of study results. The aim of this project was to develop a consensus-based and expert-based guideline for reporting process evaluations of public health interventions conducted alongside an effectiveness trial.

We conducted an e-Delphi study with a large panel of international experts.

Based on purposive sampling, we invited 137 international experts that had been involved in the design of process evaluations, researchers who published high-profile process evaluations or frameworks, editors of journals that publish process evaluations, and authors of other reporting guidelines.

Based on a literature search, a first draft of the reporting guideline included 32 items, which was proposed to panel members during the first round. Of the invited 137 invited international experts, 73 (53%) participated in at least one round of the e-Delphi study. Participants rated the inclusion and comprehensibility of the proposed items on a 5-point Likert scale and provided comments and suggestions for relevance and definitions of the items. Adjustments to the items and descriptions were proposed to the e-Delphi panel until consensus of ≥67% for each individual item was reached. In total, 64 (88% of 73) completed round 2, and 55 (76% of 73) completed round 3. This resulted in 19 items that are included in the consensus-based process evaluation reporting guideline for public health intervention studies (CONPHES) guideline. The items cover a detailed description of the intervention that is evaluated, the implementation strategies applied, and underlying causal pathways, and the role of the delivery and support team. The guideline also requires describing the evaluation framework and how evaluation outcomes were assessed. Lastly, the guideline includes items on providing a detailed description of applied analyses (both quantitative and qualitative) and measures for assuring quality. The guideline is accompanied by an Explanation and Elaboration document, with a more detailed explanation of each item.

We expect that the CONPHES reporting guideline for process evaluations of public health interventions can improve the reporting of process evaluations of interventions aimed at promoting public health. This can potentially facilitate more effective translation of public health research into practice and contribute to improving both individual and population health outcomes.

We aimed to describe the current evidence for interventions to enhance gender equality and equity in academic medicine. We also wished to characterise the nature of the interventions, who delivered them and whether they seek to ‘fix the women’, or target issues at organisational and systemic levels.

We extracted data using a form developed for the study and applied the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) and Morahan frameworks to describe and characterise interventions. We used the Quality Assessment with Diverse Studies (QUADS) tool to critically appraise included studies.

We searched five electronic databases in November 2022 and August 2023 (Medline (OVID), Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Google Scholar) and undertook handsearching.

We included qualitative or quantitative original studies published in full that described any new intervention designed to enhance gender equality/equity in recruitment, retention or promotion in academic medicine. The settings were Schools/Faculties of Medicine in Higher Education Institutions. The population of interest was female clinical academics/physician scientists.

Data were extracted by one researcher using an Excel form specifically designed for this study with a second researcher applying the form to a subset of seven studies; significant agreement was achieved. Four researchers applied the TIDieR framework to the included studies. Due to the small number of studies and significant heterogeneity, it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis.

The search of electronic databases yielded 1747 studies. A further 62 were identified through handsearching. Following removal of duplicates, 764 articles were screened for eligibility, and 199 full-text articles were screened. Of these, 27 met the inclusion criteria.

The most commonly reported interventions were career development or leadership skills programmes, followed by mentorship and multifaceted interventions. Most papers reported positive findings, but many relied on subjective measures. Robustly designed studies often reported mixed findings. The majority of interventions aimed to ‘fix the women’, with few addressing inequality at organisational level.

Acknowledging the possibility of publication delay, we found that despite strong evidence of the negative effects of the pandemic on women’s research productivity, there were no new interventions designed to mitigate this. Many existing interventions create ‘institutional housekeeping’ by relying on women for their delivery. This can result in failure, especially during a crisis like COVID. Most studies were low to moderate quality. More robust research and a more holistic approach are needed, moving away from ‘fixing the women’ to address the organisational and systemic structures which underpin inequality.

CRD42023391086.

Providing care management, treatment and support to patients with Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias (ADRD) is a difficult task for health systems. Over the past 20 years, interventions designed to improve outcomes for patients living in the community with dementia and their care partners have moved progressively, but separately, from large scale trials and pragmatic models of collaborative care. Given the projected increase in the number of people living with dementia coupled with the realignment of payment for services to be value-based and provided in the community, system-level approaches are needed to address the complex needs of patients with a dementia diagnosis and their care partners. We designed a statewide, pragmatic trial to evaluate virtual delivery of an evidence-based dementia collaborative care program on patient healthcare utilization and medication use.

The Aging Brain Care Virtual (ABCV) program is a 12-month embedded, cluster randomized, usual care controlled trial designed to test the effectiveness of a virtual dementia collaborative care program in 24 Indiana University Health primary care clinics (12 intervention, 12 control) across the state of Indiana, enrolling 860 persons living with dementia (430 intervention, 430 control) and their care partners. ABCV relies on a tailored approach in which dyad needs are identified during virtual visits and addressed with standardized protocols previously tested in a randomized controlled trial delivered in person. The ABCV trial will measure emergency department utilization (primary outcome) and appropriate medication use (secondary outcome) at 12 months using electronic medical record data. Additionally, this study will use semi-structured interviews with care partners and clinicians to explore the implementation context, process and outcomes of the ABCV program.

Ethics approval was obtained from the Indiana University Institutional Review Board (20249). Research findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific conferences.

NCT06245499.

Mycobacteroides abscessus (MABS) is within the non-tuberculous mycobacteria family. It inhabits soil and water, exhibits multi-antibiotic resistance and causes opportunistic lung infections, which may progress to symptomatic MABS-pulmonary disease (MABS-PD) associated with substantial morbidity, increased healthcare utilisation, impaired quality of life and increased mortality. Treatment regimens for MABS-PD are highly variable, not evidence-based and involve complex, expensive drug combinations administered for prolonged periods (>12 months) with frequent adverse effects and treatment failure. There is an urgent need for safe, efficacious and cost-effective MABS-PD therapy. Here, we describe the Master Protocol for the Finding the Optimal Regimen for Mycobacteroides abscessus Treatment (FORMaT) trial. FORMaT aims to determine the most effective and best tolerated treatment for MABS-PD as defined by MABS clearance from respiratory samples with good treatment tolerance.

FORMaT is an international multicentre, adaptive platform trial evaluating treatment combinations for MABS-PD. Participants are randomised multiple times during the trial, with assessment of the primary outcome of clearance of MABS infection with good treatment tolerance. Initially, therapies recommended in international consensus guidelines are being tested. Data obtained will eliminate therapies lacking efficacy or causing unacceptable toxicity. Novel treatments can then be added and tested against previously determined optimal approaches, leading in an iterative fashion to improved microbiological clearance and health outcomes. In parallel, an Observational cohort and several integrated and discovery studies are embedded in FORMaT to identify biomarkers of MABS-PD and MABS clearance, clinical and radiographic treatment response, drug pharmacokinetics and Mycobacteroides genomics and resistome.

The FORMaT Master Protocol and related documents are approved by regulatory authorities in each participating jurisdiction and/or site. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific meetings. De-identified, aggregated data will be shared on an approved online platform.

NCT04310930, ANZCTR12618001831279, 2020-000050-10, ISRCTN67303903.