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.

Inherited retinal diseases (IRDs) are a broad range of diseases associated with abnormalities/degeneration of retinal cells. We aimed to identify the top 10 Australian research priorities for IRDs to ultimately facilitate more meaningful and potentially cost-effective research.

We conducted a James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership that involved two Australian-wide surveys and online workshops.

Australia-wide.

Individuals aged 16 years or older were eligible to participate if they had an IRD, were caregivers of an individual with an IRD or were health professionals providing care to this community.

In Survey 1, we gathered participants’ unanswered questions about IRDs. We grouped these into summary questions and undertook a literature review to verify if they were truly unanswered (ie, evidence uncertainties). In Survey 2, participants voted for the uncertainties that they considered a priority. Top-ranked uncertainties progressed for discussion and final prioritisation in two workshops.

In Survey 1, we collected 223 questions from 69 participants. We grouped these into 42 summary questions and confirmed 41 as evidence uncertainties. In Survey 2, 151 participants voted, with the 16 uncertainties progressing to final prioritisation. The top 10 priorities, set by the 24 workshop participants, represented (1) treatment/cure; (2) symptoms and disease progression; (3) psychosocial well-being and (4) health service delivery. The #1 priority was for treatment to prevent, slow down or stop vision loss, followed by the #2 priority to address the psychological impact of having an IRD.

The top 10 research priorities highlight the need for IRD research that takes a whole-person, systems approach. Collaborations to progress priorities will accelerate the translation of research into real-world benefits.

There is an absence of real-world evidence, especially from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), on the implementation successes and challenges of COVID-19 Test and Treat (T&T) programmes. In 2022, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was provided as standard of care for mild to moderate COVID-19 treatment in eight LMICs (Ghana, Kenya, Laos, Malawi, Nigeria, Rwanda, Uganda and Zambia). This manuscript describes a research protocol to study novel drug introduction during the COVID-19 health emergency, with implications and learnings for future pandemic preparedness. The goal of the study is to provide simultaneous programme learnings and improvements with programme rollout, to fill a gap in real-world implementation data on T&T programmes of oral antiviral treatment for COVID-19 and inform programme implementation and scale-up in other LMICs.

This multiple methods implementation research study is divided into three components to address key operational research objectives: (1) programme learnings, monitoring and evaluation; (2) patient-level programme impact; and (3) key stakeholder perspectives. Data collection will occur for a minimum of 6 months in each country up to the end of grant. Quantitative data will be analysed using descriptive statistics for each country and then aggregated across the programme countries. Stakeholder perspectives will be examined using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research implementation science framework and semistructured interviews.

This study was approved by the Duke University Institutional Review Board (Pro00111388). The study was also approved by the local institutional review boards in each country participating in individual-level data collection (objectives 2 and 3): Ghana, Malawi, Rwanda, Nigeria and Zambia. The study’s findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated through dialogue events, national and international conferences and through social media.

NCT06360783.

To compare the quality and time efficiency of physician-written summaries with customised large language model (LLM)-generated medical summaries integrated into the electronic health record (EHR) in a non-English clinical environment.

Cross-sectional non-inferiority validation study.

Tertiary academic hospital.

52 physicians from 8 specialties at a large Dutch academic hospital participated, either in writing summaries (n=42) or evaluating them (n=10).

Physician writers wrote summaries of 50 patient records. LLM-generated summaries were created for the same records using an EHR-integrated LLM. An independent, blinded panel of physician evaluators compared physician-written summaries to LLM-generated summaries.

Primary outcome measures were completeness, correctness and conciseness (on a 5-point Likert scale). Secondary outcomes were preference and trust, and time to generate either the physician-written or LLM-generated summary.

The completeness and correctness of LLM-generated summaries did not differ significantly from physician-written summaries. However, LLM summaries were less concise (3.0 vs 3.5, p=0.001). Overall evaluation scores were similar (3.4 vs 3.3, p=0.373), with 57% of evaluators preferring LLM-generated summaries. Trust in both summary types was comparable, and interobserver variability showed excellent reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.975). Physicians took an average of 7 min per summary, while LLMs completed the same task in just 15.7 s.

LLM-generated summaries are comparable to physician-written summaries in completeness and correctness, although slightly less concise. With a clear time-saving benefit, LLMs could help reduce clinicians’ administrative burden without compromising summary quality.

Paediatric major trauma patients with more severe injuries and physiological or biochemical abnormalities as a result of the injury are more likely to require invasive management in the form of an operation/interventional radiology (IR). Adverse psychological outcomes, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression and adjustment disorder, are frequently observed in paediatric patients with major trauma. Similarly, it is recognised that children and adolescents who have invasive management are also at an increased risk of adverse psychological outcomes. However, it is not known to what extent major trauma patients requiring invasive management are at risk of adverse psychological outcomes compared with those managed conservatively. This study aims to determine whether paediatric major trauma patients who require an operation/IR have increased odds of having an adverse psychological outcome compared with those who are managed conservatively.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines will be used to construct this review. The databases Medline (via Ovid), Embase (via Ovid), PsycInfo (via Ebscohost) and Cinahl (via Ebscohost) will be searched from inception to February 2025. Both title and abstract screening and full-text screening will be done by two reviewers, with an adjudicating third reviewer. For randomised controlled trials, the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool will be employed, while for non-randomised studies, the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale will be used. We will assess bias using contoured funnel plots (with p set at 0.01, 0.05 and 0.10), non-parametric trim-fill analysis, leave-one-out analysis and Galbraith plotting. We will execute formal (Egger) testing for funnel plot asymmetry and also calculate prediction intervals if sufficient study N of 10 is accrued. Certainty and confidence in cumulative evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

Ethical review is not required as no original data will be collected. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and at academic conferences.

CRD42025643459.

Pharmacist prescribing has evolved to meet healthcare system needs, but the effectiveness, mechanisms and contextual factors influencing education programmes remain poorly understood. Realist approaches are fairly novel in pharmacy practice research. This realist synthesis aims to answer the question: to what extent do pharmacy prescribing education programs work (or not), for whom and under what circumstances, and why?

A realist methodology (realist synthesis) will be used to review the outcomes of programmes. Pawson’s key stages will be followed: (1) clarifying the scope; (2) determining the search strategy; (3) study selection; (4) extracting and analysing data; and (5) synthesising findings and drawing conclusions. The synthesis will follow Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses–Evolving Standards publication guidelines. Data extracted will include the study characteristics, alongside the contexts, mechanisms and outcomes of varied pharmacy prescribing education programmes. The search strategy will include searching PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and CINAHL Complete. An initial programme theory will use selected grey literature. Context-mechanism-outcome configurations will be identified, and recurring patterns will be synthesised to refine the initial programme theory.

Ethics approval is not required. Dissemination will be sought via peer-reviewed academic conferences and journals.

CRD420251056576.

Prescribing patterns for hyperopia in children vary widely among eye care providers worldwide. This scoping review aims to identify and map the current literature on optical correction and catalogue outcomes reported, particularly in the domains of vision, vision-related functional outcomes and quality of life (QoL) in school-aged children with hyperopia.

This protocol was developed in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute’s Manual for Evidence Synthesis. We will include studies involving school-aged children with hyperopia without restrictions on sex, gender, race, ethnicity, type of optical correction, length of intervention, publication date or country of origin. We will include studies with internal or external comparison groups. We will exclude studies associated with myopia control treatments, ocular and visual pathway pathologies affecting vision or visual function. We will search Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase.com and PubMed. Examples of data to be extracted include population demographics, visual acuity, study-specific definitions for refractive error, treatment regimens for optical correction, vision and vision-related functional outcomes and QoL (general or vision-related) as quantified by validated instruments.

Informed consent and Institutional Review Board approval will not be required, as this scoping review will only use published data. The results from the scoping review will be disseminated by publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and at professional conferences.

This scoping review aims to assess low-cost simulation methods used in nursing education, evaluating how they balance educational effectiveness with budget constraints.

Scoping review conducted in accordance with Arksey and O’Malley’s methodological framework and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews reporting guidelines.

PubMed, Embase and CINAHL were systematically searched for relevant studies published between January 2000 and October 2023.

We included peer-reviewed primary studies involving nurses or nursing students, focused on the use of low-cost simulation in any healthcare setting. Studies had to describe the simulation strategy and its educational application.

Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts and extracted data using a standardised form. Findings were synthesised narratively and categorised by type of simulation, educational context and competencies addressed.

Out of 3332 records, 39 studies met the inclusion criteria. The reviewed studies covered various clinical areas, including critical care, emergency, neonatal, paediatric and obstetric nursing, as well as transversal competencies such as communication and clinical reasoning. Low-cost methods included task trainers, mannequins, computer-based tools, hybrid models and serious games. Only 38% of studies reported detailed cost information.

Low-cost simulation offers promising opportunities in nursing education but suffers from inconsistent cost reporting and a lack of standardisation. Further research is needed to evaluate its long-term effectiveness and support broader implementation.

Amoxicillin is recommended for children with uncomplicated severe acute malnutrition (SAM). However, some trials have shown no difference in amoxicillin for nutritional recovery in children with SAM compared with placebo. In addition, amoxicillin treatment requires two times per day dosing for 7 days, which may influence adherence. Azithromycin is a broad-spectrum antibiotic that can be provided as a single dose and has reduced mortality in children aged 1–59 months when provided by mass drug administration. The AMOUR trial is designed to assess amoxicillin, azithromycin and placebo as part of outpatient treatment of uncomplicated SAM.

This double-masked randomised controlled trial will enrol 3000 children over 3 years in an individually randomised 1:1:1 allocation to azithromycin, amoxicillin or placebo arms and follow them for 12 months. Children eligible to enrol in the study will be aged 6–59 months and have uncomplicated non-oedematous SAM as defined by weight-for-height Z-score

Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board at the University of California, San Francisco (Protocol 23–39411) and the Comité d’Ethique pour la Recherche en Santé in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso (Protocol 2024-01-08). The results of this study will be disseminated to the Ministry of Health, community stakeholders and via peer-reviewed publications and academic conferences.

NCT06010719.

To determine associations between arm and ankle systolic blood pressures (SBPs), develop and validate a multivariable model predicting arm SBP from ankle SBP, and investigate associations between ankle SBP, cardiovascular disease and mortality.

Ankle-arm SBP differences were examined in two-stage individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses using multivariable hierarchical linear regression models. Models were used to derive and validate a prediction model for arm SBP based on ankle SBP. Model performance was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve analyses. Prognostic associations of ankle SBP with outcomes were examined using Cox proportional hazards models.

Searches identified cohorts for the Inter-arm Blood Pressure Difference IPD (INTERPRESS-IPD) Collaboration from Medline, Old Medline, Medline in process, Embase and CINAHL databases from inception until January 2017; unpublished data were also sought. Required primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and/or fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events.

Prospective studies from community, primary care or general clinic settings, without language restriction, that recorded SBP in both arms were eligible. Adults aged ≥18 years with SBP measured in all four limbs, in a supine position, were included in the current analyses. People with peripheral artery disease were excluded.

Anonymised datasets were individually cleaned and then combined into a single dataset for the INTERPRESS-IPD Collaboration.

The current dataset included 33 710 participants from 14 studies; mean age 58 years, 45% female, mean baseline arm blood pressure 138/80 (SD: 20/12) mm Hg. Mean ankle SBP was 12.0 mm Hg (95% CI 8.8 to 15.2) higher than arm SBP. The multivariable model predicting arm SBP from ankle SBP demonstrated excellent performance (AUROC curves, sensitivities and specificities were >0.82, 0.80 and 0.82, respectively, at all BP thresholds from 130 to 160 mm Hg). Model performance was superior to existing arithmetic formulae.

Ankle SBP was neither associated with all-cause nor cardiovascular mortality (HR 1.000 (0.997 to 1.002; p=0.682) and 1.001 (0.996 to 1.005; p=0.840), respectively). However, lower-reading ankle SBP was associated with fatal or non-fatal cardiovascular events (HR 1.005 (1.002 to 1.007; p

On average, ankle SBP is 12 mm Hg higher than arm SBP. Estimating individual arm SBP from ankle SBP measurements with a multivariable model is more accurate than existing fixed arithmetic formulae. This model, operationalised in an online calculator (https://ablebp.research.exeter.ac.uk/), could facilitate hypertension management and cardiovascular care for people unable to have arm SBP measured.

CRD42015031227.

This scoping review aimed to explore the relationship between health locus of control (HLOC) and vaccine hesitancy among parents of children aged 0–18 years, focusing on the tools and methods used to assess these constructs.

The review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines and adhered to established methodologies for scoping reviews, including systematic searches across four electronic databases.

PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science and CINAHL were searched using a comprehensive search strategy to identify relevant studies on 24 September 2024.

Studies were included if they examined HLOC and vaccine hesitancy in parents, measured these constructs with validated tools and focused on childhood vaccination.

Data were extracted into a structured table capturing study characteristics, HLOC and vaccine hesitancy measurements, and key findings. Results were synthesised narratively to highlight associations and patterns.

Five studies involving a total of 11 758 parents and caregivers of children aged 0–18 years met inclusion criteria. Higher internal HLOC was consistently associated with lower vaccine hesitancy and higher compliance, while lower chance HLOC correlated with greater hesitancy. Powerful others HLOC (ie, trust in healthcare professionals) emerged as a key predictor of better vaccine adherence.

The findings suggest that internal HLOC and trust in healthcare providers are predictors of vaccine acceptance among parents. However, standardised tools and longitudinal studies are needed to further elucidate these relationships and inform targeted interventions to reduce vaccine hesitancy.

This study aimed to systematically map the evidence and identify patterns of barriers and facilitators to clinician artificial intelligence (AI) acceptance and use across the types of AI healthcare application and levels of income of geographic distribution of clinician practice.

This scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guideline.

PubMed and Embase were searched from 2010 to 21 August 2023.

This scoping review included both empirical and conceptual studies published in peer-reviewed journals that focused on barriers to and facilitators of clinician acceptance and use of AI in healthcare facilities. Studies that involved either hypothetical or real-life applications of AI in healthcare settings were included. Studies not written in English and focused on digital devices or robots not supported by an AI system were excluded.

Three independent investigators conducted data extraction using a pre-tested tool meticulously designed based on eligibility criteria and constructs of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) framework to systematically summarise data. Subsequently, two independent investigators applied the framework analysis method to identify additional barriers to and facilitators of clinician acceptance and use in healthcare settings, extending beyond those captured by UTAUT.

The search identified 328 unique articles, of which 46 met the eligibility criteria, including 44 empirical studies and 2 conceptual studies. Among these, 32 studies (69.6%) were conducted in high-income countries and 9 studies (19.6%) in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). In terms of the types of healthcare settings, 21 studies examined primary care, 26 focused on secondary care and 21 reported on tertiary care. Overall, drivers of clinician AI acceptance and use were ambivalent, functioning as either barriers or facilitators depending on context. Performance expectancy and facilitating conditions emerged as the most frequent and consistent drivers across healthcare contexts. Notably, there were significant gaps in evidence examining the moderator effect of clinician demographics on the relationship between drivers and AI acceptance and use. Key themes not encompassed by the UTAUT framework included physician involvement as a facilitator and clinician hesitancy and legal and ethical considerations as barriers. Other factors, such as conclusiveness, relational dynamics, and technical features, were identified as ambivalent drivers. While clinicians’ perceptions and experiences of these drivers varied across primary, secondary and tertiary care, there was a notable lack of evidence exclusively examining drivers of clinician AI acceptance in LMIC clinical practice.

This scoping review highlights key gaps in understanding clinician acceptance and use of AI in healthcare, including the limited examination of individual moderators and context-specific factors in LMICs. While universal determinants such as performance expectancy and facilitating conditions were consistently identified across settings, factors not covered by the UTAUT framework such as clinician hesitancy, relational dynamics, legal and ethical considerations, technical features and clinician involvement emerged with varying impact depending on the level of healthcare context. These findings underscore the need to refine frameworks like UTAUT to incorporate context-specific drivers of AI acceptance and use. Future research should address these gaps by investigating both universal and context-specific barriers and expanding existing frameworks to better reflect the complexities of AI adoption in diverse healthcare settings.

Mental health at the workplace has been identified as a major priority by the World Health Organization (WHO). Despite its significance, international studies examining the influence of digital mental health interventions on workplace implementation and outcomes are lacking. The European Platform to Promote Well-being and Health in the Workplace (EMPOWER) platform is an eHealth intervention consisting of a website and web-based app designed to guide employers and employees on the prevention of common health problems, reduce presenteeism and absenteeism in the workplace. The aim of this paper is to describe the rationale and methods that will be used to conduct a maxi impact analysis of the processes undertaken to develop and implement the EMPOWER platform in European workplaces using the Global Impact Analytics Framework (GIAF) methodology.

We will undertake a mixed-methods analysis of the impact of the process of implementation in the two phases of implementation (initiation and maturity—the early implementation phase). The primary methodology that will be used for the analysis is the GIAF and toolkit. The GIAF toolkit includes a taxonomy (knowledge map), glossary and checklists to examine and rate the EMPOWER project across various domains of impact: planning, pre-engagement, readiness, usability, dissemination, adoption and uptake. Information will be collected from a range of sources through different methods and used to rate the EMPOWER platform (website and app) on each domain. For reliability and validity, four raters will independently rate the EMPOWER platform using the same information. The analysis will include qualitative and quantitative methods to rate on standardised ladders and scales in the GIAF toolkit. Analysis will include descriptive statistics and non-parametric tests where relevant. The information gained will be reviewed in a subgroup (per country) and group (three country) analysis for formative and key summative learnings. These key learnings will be synthesised to generate organisational learnings and insights for the EMPOWER consortium to improve future intervention implementation processes.

The impact analysis study protocol has been approved by the Research Ethics Committees of the University of Canberra (ID:202311841) and also the Fundació Sant Joan de Déu (PIC-39-20). The participating countries for the RCT (EMPOWER study) also obtained ethical approval through their respective ethical organisations in the participating countries. The impact analysis is registered with the Open Science Framework ID osf.io/eysc9. The EMPOWER project trial is registered at ClinicalTrial.gov with trial ID NCT04907604. The outcomes of the impact analysis study will be disseminated via conference presentations, peer-reviewed journals and key organisational learnings presented in relevant forums.

NCT04907604.