Conectar
Gynaecological cancer nurses are crucial to the delivery of quality, specialised care to meet the needs of people with these cancers. The extent of evidence-based guidance to support nursing care is unknown.
To identify and describe existing international guidance for specialised gynaecological cancer nursing care.
Scoping review.
This scoping review utilised the participants, concept, context framework with narrative synthesis.
Databases including MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL Ultimate (EBSCO), Proquest Central (Alumni) and Google Scholar were searched on 4 April 2025 along with relevant websites and reference lists of included sources. Included sources referred to the nurse's role and provided clinical guidelines, practice recommendations or equivalent guidance on how nurses provide specialised care. Sources were limited to those published in English from 2009 to present.
Of 1905 sources identified, 12 met the inclusion criteria. Sources were published by authors in seven countries between 2014 and 2024. Most sources related to one specific gynaecological cancer type and/or one aspect or time point of care. Sources varied in the volume of nurse relevant content. No individual source provided comprehensive nursing guidance across all gynaecological cancer types.
Internationally published guidance for specialised gynaecological cancer nursing presents gaps in available evidence for care. We recommend comprehensive guidance resource development to meet clinical nurses' needs and improve translation of evidence-based nursing practice.
The current lack of comprehensive published guidance for specialised gynaecological cancer nursing does not meet reported needs of nurses working in clinical practice and may be contributing to variation in nursing care delivery.
Trial Registration: https://osf.io/ntdzj; registered 24 March 2025; Open Science Framework
Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is a significant procedural adverse event (AE), occurring in 5–15% of cases and leading to substantial morbidity and mortality. Aggressive prolonged intravenous (IV) fluid regimens have demonstrated efficacy in reducing PEP in clinical trials. However, these regimens typically involve continuous infusion of IV fluids over 8–24 hours following ERCP, making them impractical for outpatient settings. Data on shorter hydration protocols are lacking. The STRIPE study aims to address this gap by evaluating short-term peri-procedural IV fluid regimens as a practical alternative for mitigating PEP.
This proof-of-concept, parallel-arm, randomised controlled trial will evaluate the impact of various short-term IV fluid regimens on post-ERCP serum amylase levels, a surrogate marker for PEP. Participants undergoing ERCP will be randomised into five groups, receiving 500 mL, 1000 mL, 1500 mL, 2000 mL or 2500 mL of IV Ringer’s lactate during the peri-procedural period. Patients, endoscopists and outcome assessors will be blinded to treatment allocation during the peri-procedural period. The primary outcome is the serum amylase level 24 hours post-ERCP. Secondary outcomes include PEP, 30-day AEs and unplanned healthcare encounters including those related to volume overload or cardiovascular AEs, duration of hospitalisation (for inpatients), death within 30 days and other relevant laboratory markers at 24 hours. A total of 505 participants (101 in each arm) will be enrolled to ensure adequate power after accounting for attrition and/or sample loss.
This trial was registered on clinicaltrials.gov on 7 February 2024. The study was approved by the University of Calgary Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board (REB23-0625). On study completion, data will be made available on reasonable request to the corresponding author after completion of the study. Study dissemination and knowledge translation is planned via presentations at scholarly meetings, publications in peer-reviewed journals and, ideally, via adoption of results into clinical practice guidelines.
Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) are gold standard in evidence-based medicine, but follow-up typically relies on clinic visits and trial-specific data collection. Much of this information overlaps with routinely collected healthcare systems data (HSD), such as electronic health records and national registries. Leveraging HSD for trial follow-up has the potential to reduce cost, time and resource burden. However, concerns remain about data quality and evidence is needed to show that HSD-based outcomes are reported to an equivalent standard to trial-specific data.
The Blood Cancer Clinical Trials Long-term Follow-up Using Integrated Healthcare Systems platform will link data collected from multiple myeloma clinical trials with HSD to create a research database supporting extended follow-up and further methodological and clinical research.
This data-linkage study includes participants from multiple myeloma RCTs conducted by the University of Leeds between 2008 and 2021. NHS (National Health Service) England will link these participants to HSD, including deaths and cancer registrations, systemic anticancer therapy, radiotherapy and Hospital Episode Statistics.
We will compare trial-collected outcomes with those derived from HSD, including mortality, treatment, second cancer incidence and major adverse events. Long-term overall survival will be estimated using national mortality data. HSD-derived demographic and clinical variables will be used to assess population representativeness relative to the wider myeloma population. Time to next treatment will be derived and evaluated as a surrogate for progression-free survival. HSD-derived frailty measures will be examined for prognostic utility, and radiotherapy and hospital records will be analysed to characterise bone-related treatments and skeletal complications.
Ethical approval has been obtained from the East of England–Cambridge Central Research Ethics Committee, with Section251 support from the Health Research Authority on advice from the Confidentiality Advisory Group. Findings will be disseminated through publications, conference presentations and engagement with stakeholders and patient groups.
Treatment for high-risk locally advanced prostate cancer typically includes radiation or radical prostatectomy plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), but the optimal use of neoadjuvant and adjuvant ADT in practice remains unclear. Relugolix and enzalutamide have demonstrated strong efficacy independently in the setting of advanced disease, but their combined use in neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapy has not been studied. This trial investigates their safety and efficacy as neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapy in patients undergoing definitive local treatment.
Relugolix and Enzalutamide as Neoadjuvant/Adjuvant to Local-regional treatment in Patients with High-risk, Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer (RENAPCA) is a prospective, single-arm, open-label phase Ib trial with blinded outcome assessment. The study is conducted across four tertiary oncology centres within the United States. Eligible participants are adult men with pathologically confirmed locally advanced high-risk prostate cancer who are candidates for definitive local therapy. Patients with significant comorbidities or a life expectancy of less than 6 months are excluded. The trial includes a 3+3 dose-escalation safety lead-in cohort (up to 12 patients) to determine dose-limiting toxicities and recommended phase 2 dose, followed by a dose expansion cohort (up to 46 patients). Interventions consist of 6 months of neoadjuvant therapy with relugolix plus enzalutamide, definitive local therapy (radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy), and 18 months of adjuvant therapy with relugolix plus enzalutamide. Primary outcomes include pathologic CR rate and minimal residual disease rate. Secondary outcomes include prostate-specific antigen response, progression-free survival, objective response rate, frequency and severity of adverse events, and positive margin/pathologic downgrade rate. Exploratory objectives include patient-reported outcomes and quality of life measures. RENAPCA will assess the safety and efficacy of neoadjuvant/adjuvant relugolix+enzalutamide in high-risk, locally advanced prostate cancer to support future larger-scale studies and potentially improve treatment outcomes.
This research protocol has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center (7 March 2024). The study is based on voluntary participation with informed written consent.
Research on psychosocial interventions for dementia demonstrates increased rigour and robustness. However, if we are to influence practice, beyond results from randomised controlled trials, a variety of types and sources of evidence is needed. The Medical Research Council (MRC) framework offers a valuable guide for developing, evaluating and implementing complex interventions, to facilitate integration of research into practice. There is limited knowledge of how researchers design, evaluate and implement psychosocial intervention studies in dementia, using the MRC framework. This scoping review aims to: (1) identify the methodological and methods trends, use and gaps in the development, evaluation and implementation of psychosocial interventions for dementia, and (2) determine if and how the MRC six core elements were considered and applied in studies.
Six databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library) will be searched for studies published from 2015 (when MRC process guidance was published) to 2025. Identified deduplicated citations will be imported into Covidence software, where up to 40% of title/abstracts will be double screened by independent reviewers. ASReview will be used to rank articles by relevance, with a stopping criterion of 250 consecutive irrelevant articles. Full texts will be reviewed by a single reviewer and those excluded will be checked by a second reviewer. Data extraction will include study aim/objective (ie, to develop/adapt; test feasibility/pilot; evaluate; implement); methodology and methods applied; information on which MRC six core elements were considered (yes/no), and if so, how they were addressed (ie, qualitative details). A narrative synthesis, alongside graphical representations (eg, table/bar charts/histograms), will be used to synthesise findings on methodologies and methods mapped onto the MRC framework.
This secondary analysis scoping review does not require ethics approval. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication(s), seminars, webinars, conferences, postgraduate dementia programmes, blogs, commissioner briefings and social media. The findings will provide a state-of-the-art overview of current practices; advance methods/methodology such as informing a Delphi consensus study on appropriate research approaches; and guide researchers in application of the MRC framework to widen the scope of dementia care evidence for practice improvements.
Submitted to Open Science Framework https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/S56NQ.
Commentary on: Bradford, H.M., Puhl, R.M., Phillippi, J.C., et al. Implicit and Explicit Weight Bias among Midwives: Variations Across Demographic Characteristics. J Midwifery Womens Health 2024;0:1: doi:10.1111/jmwh.13616.
Implications for practice and research This study has implications for raising awareness on weight bias in practice highlighting a need for further inquiry exploring undergraduate education and continuing professional development. This study has the potential to prompt further qualitative research focusing on the experiences and perspectives of health care professionals and weight bias.
An online survey was used to measure weight bias of midwives. The survey included demographic questions about age, years since certification, body mass index (BMI), race and ethnicity and state of residence. Participants completed measures of implicit and explicit weight bias including the Implicit Association Test, the Anti-Fat Attitudes questionnaire, the Fat Phobia Scale-Short Form and the Preference for Thin People. Data...
Exercise therapy is the most recommended treatment for chronic low back pain (LBP), with evidence supporting modest effects, likely due to the heterogeneity of patient presentations. Evidence suggests that matching individuals to the most appropriate exercise type could improve outcomes. Systematic reviews also emphasise that effective exercise interventions should be patient centred, target paraspinal muscle health and be of sufficient duration. This study addresses these gaps using a targeted care approach to identify a homogenous sample that is more likely to respond to our interventions. The inclusion of a sample with predominant nociceptive pain profile will be performed with the integration of the Pain and Disability Drivers Management Model (PDDM) and the Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire (LSIQ). The primary aim of this two-arm randomised controlled trial is to compare the effectiveness of motor control plus isolated lumbar extension exercises (MC+ILEX, arm 1) to free-weight resistance training (arm 2) in reducing LBP-related disability. Secondary aims include examining whether changes in multifidus composition mediate disability improvements comparing intervention effects on muscle size and quality, strength, mobility, pain, quality of life, sleep, physical activity and satisfaction; exploring baseline LSIQ scores and sex/gender as moderators of treatment response; and investigating participants’ perceptions and experiences of exercise therapy.
A total of 106 participants will be recruited through primary and secondary care and randomised (1:1) to receive either MC+ILEX or free-weight resistance training. Both groups will complete 48 exercise sessions over 16 weeks. The primary outcome will be disability at 16 weeks, measured by the Oswestry Disability Index. Secondary outcomes include multifidus muscle composition and size, lumbar and gluteal muscle strength, hip range of motion, pain, physical and mental function, satisfaction and recovery, health-related quality of life, sleep quality and physical activity levels. Linear mixed-effects models will be used to assess primary and secondary outcomes. Regression analyses will explore whether baseline LSIQ scores moderate treatment effects on multifidus composition and other outcomes. A subsample of participants will undergo semistructured interviews before and after the intervention to explore their illness perceptions, illness mindsets, perceptions of exercise therapy, as well as their experiences and satisfaction with the two exercise interventions. Reflexive thematic analysis will be used to analyse qualitative data.
This study received ethics approval from the Central Ethics Research Committee of the Quebec Minister of Health and Social Services (CCER-25-26-14). Results will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals and scientific meetings.
To identify implementation strategies that effectively facilitate the adoption of social needs care coordination activities using enabling technologies among care management teams serving patients in community-based health centres.
Modified Delphi process.
Discrete, feasible implementation strategies were identified through literature review and semi-structured interviews with care management staff and subject matter experts in clinical informatics, workflow redesign, and product engineering. A modified Delphi was conducted with eight subject matter experts and nine health centre care management staff. Iterative rounds of online surveys were used to achieve consensus on the most relevant implementation strategies and their delivery methods.
The modified Delphi process achieved consensus on nine discrete implementation strategies needed to advance care management teams' ability to screen, refer and track social needs. Prioritised strategies included developing champions, enhancing quality improvement capacity, training staff on using enabling technologies and providing tailored technical assistance for workflow refinement. Consensus was also reached on a monthly cadence for most of the implementation strategies.
Consensus was reached on strategies to enhance care management teams' implementation of social needs screening, referrals and tracking using enabling technologies. These strategies will comprise an intervention to be pilot tested, refined and assessed in a cluster randomised clinical trial.
Findings from this study will inform the development of strategies to further the adoption of enabling technologies to support social needs care coordination.
This work is key to the design of a type 2 hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial that will assess whether user-informed, evidence-based implementation strategies can improve care management teams' adoption of enabling technologies to facilitate social needs care coordination for patients.
The research team includes a patient advisor with community-based nursing expertise and a nurse practitioner-clinical informaticist leader who was involved in data collection and interpretation of findings.
Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov registration # NCT06489002. Registered July 5, 2024, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06489002?term=NCT06489002&rank=1.
Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a potentially fatal condition requiring timely diagnosis and treatment. CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) is the gold standard for diagnosis and indicates PE severity through radiological markers of right heart strain. However, accurate interpretation and communication of these findings is often suboptimal in real-world practice. Artificial intelligence (AI) could alleviate pressure on radiology services by supporting PE identification, risk stratification and worklist prioritisation. Before widespread adoption, AI tools must be rigorously validated for diagnostic accuracy, safety and clinical impact.
This pragmatic single-centre, non-randomised quasi-experimental study will evaluate the diagnostic accuracy, feasibility, and clinical-cost impact of AI-assisted PE detection and risk stratification using AIDOC and IMBIO software. We will recruit two consecutive cohorts of adult patients undergoing CTPAs for suspected PE: a comparator cohort (12 months pre-AI implementation) and an intervention cohort (12 months post-AI implementation). AI will be applied retrospectively to the comparator cohort, while in the intervention cohort, radiologists will have contemporaneous access to the AI’s interpretation of CTPA images.
A subset of retrospective scans, both PE-positive and PE-negative, will undergo expert thoracic radiologist review to establish a reference standard. Data on patient demographics, clinical management and outcomes will be collected. Clinical management pathways and patient outcomes will be compared between cohorts to assess AI’s influence on acute PE management. Health economic modelling will assess the cost-effectiveness of integrating AI technology within the diagnostic workflow of acute PE.
This study was approved by the UK Healthcare Research authority (IRAS 311735, 10 May 2023). Ethical approval was granted by West of Scotland Research Ethics Service (23/WS/0067, 3 May 2023). Results will be shared with stakeholders, presented at national and international conferences, and published in open-access peer-reviewed journals.
To determine the safety and efficacy of ruxolitinib (RUX) and fostamatinib (FOS) compared with standard of care (SOC) in patients requiring hospital admission for the treatment of COVID-19 pneumonia.
Adaptive multiarm, multistage, randomised, open-label trial (three arm, two stage).
Five hospitals in England between October 2020 and September 2022.
Hospitalised patients (≥18 years) with COVID-19 pneumonia defined by a modified WHO COVID-19 severity grade of 3 or 4.
Participants were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive RUX (10 mg two times per day for 7 days then 5 mg two times per day for 7 days), FOS (150 mg two times per day for 7 days then 100 mg two times per day for 7 days) or SOC.
Primary outcome was development of severe COVID-19 pneumonia (modified WHO severity grade≥5) within 14 days of randomisation. Secondary outcomes included mortality, invasive and non-invasive ventilation, venous thromboembolism, duration of hospital stay, readmissions, inflammatory markers and serious adverse events (SAEs).
At stage 1, 181 patients were randomised, with 4 assessed as ineligible post randomisation. FOS was stopped early for futility with 16 participants (27.6%, n=58) developing severe COVID-19 pneumonia compared with 15 (25.0%, n=60) in the SOC arm (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) compared with SOC: 1.12; 95% CI 0.49 to 2.58; p=0.608). RUX progressed to stage 2 but the trial was stopped early due to slow recruitment. At the final analysis, 10 participants (16.1%, n=62) developed severe COVID-19 pneumonia in the RUX arm compared with 15 (24.6%, n=61) in the SOC arm (aOR: 0.63; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.57; p=0.161). Four (7.4%) participants in the FOS arm, none in the RUX arm and three (5.5%) in the SOC arm died within 14 days of randomisation. Infections were the most frequently reported SAE and were numerically higher in the FOS (10, 17.2%) and RUX (10, 16.1%) arms compared with SOC (7, 11.5%). Two unexpected serious adverse reactions occurred in the RUX arm only.
We found no evidence that FOS was superior to SOC for the treatment of COVID-19 pneumonia in patients requiring hospital admission. Due to early stopping, the trial was underpowered to establish RUX’s effect in this population. Further study is needed.
NCT04581954; EUDRA-CT:
To develop and psychometrically test a comprehensive Cancer Nurse Self-Assessment Tool (CaN-SAT).
Modified Delphi to assess content validity and cross-sectional survey to assess reliability and validity.
Phase 1: An expert group developed the tool structure and item content. Phase 2: Through a modified Delphi, cancer nursing experts rated the importance of each element of practice and assessed the relevance and clarity of each item. Content Validation Indexes (CVI) were calculated, and a CVI of ≥ 0.78 was required for items to be included. Phase 3: Cancer nurses participated in a survey to test internal consistency (using Cronbach's alpha coefficients) and known-group validity (through Mann–Whitney U tests). This study was reported using the Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) checklist.
The CaN-SAT underwent two rounds of Delphi with 24 then 15 cancer nursing experts. All elements of practice were rated as important. Only three items achieved a CVI < 0.78 after round one; however, based on open-ended comments, 26 items were revised and one new item added. After round two, all items received a CVI above 0.78. The final tool consisted of 93 items across 15 elements of practice. Cronbach's alpha coefficients were between 0.92 and 0.98 indicating good reliability. Mann–Whitney U tests demonstrated significant differences between clinical nurses and advanced practice nurses across 13 out of 15 elements of practice.
The CaN-SAT is a comprehensive, valid and reliable tool that can be used for cancer nurses to self-assess current skill levels, identify their learning needs and inform decisions about educational opportunities to optimise cancer care provision.
The research team included three patient advocates from Cancer Voices NSW, who were actively involved in all aspects of the study and are listed as authors.
Functional seizures (FS) are events that resemble epileptic seizures, but are not attributed to brain pathology and are instead thought to be due to psychological factors. A small, multisite, open-label, single-arm, pilot trial of a breathing intervention known as breathing control training (BCT) found it to be safe and effective in reducing seizure frequency in FS. We propose a protocol for a study to confirm these results.
A 24-week, multicentre, individually-randomised, assessor-blinded, two-arm, parallel-group efficacy and acceptability trial of BCT versus control (Befriending) in 220 participants ≥16 years of age with FS. Eligible participants will be randomly allocated to receive two sessions of either BCT or Befriending over a 4-week period. Sessions will be delivered by a respiratory physiotherapist at a clinical care site or via telehealth. They will complete assessments prior to commencing treatment and at 4, 12 and 24 weeks after their initial session of BCT/Befriending. The trial will be conducted alongside treatment as usual. An economic evaluation including cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses will be carried out from health sector and societal perspectives.
The study has been approved by The Austin Health Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/84335/Austin-2022) and the New Zealand Central Health and Disability Ethics Committee (2022 FULL 12324). Findings will be reported to trial participants and consumers; presented at local, national and international conferences; and disseminated by a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
Medication non-adherence in older adults with long-term conditions contributes to significant morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. While adherence support tools exist, many interventions fail to reach those most at risk. Automated medication dispensers (AMDs) show promise in improving adherence and health outcomes, but their integration into routine community pharmacy practice remains underexplored. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of an AMD intervention with SMS reminders in enhancing medication adherence among older adults and to evaluate how this technology can be integrated into community pharmacy workflows.
This randomised controlled trial involves 144 participants recruited from eight community pharmacies who will be randomised to receive either the AMD intervention or usual care. Primary outcomes include medication adherence, measured through pharmacy records and self-report at baseline, 3 and 6 months. Secondary outcomes include Morisky Medication Adherence Scale, health-related quality of life (SF-12), and healthcare resource use. A nested mixed methods process evaluation will explore uptake, acceptability and implementation.
The study protocol has been approved by the University of Bedfordshire Institute for Health Research Ethics Committee (IHREC1039), the NHS and the local authority Research Governance and Research Ethics Committee (NHS REC reference: 25/EE/0026). The findings will be disseminated via a final report, peer-reviewed journal publications and presentations at relevant conferences.
Patient participation improves patient outcomes, but factors that predict participation in pressure injury prevention (PIP) are relatively unknown. This study aimed to identify patient-related factors predictive of patient participation in pressure injury prevention (PPPIP) in hospitalised medical and surgical patients and to assess the psychometric properties of the PPPIP scale. This observational substudy recruited consenting adults at risk of pressure who participated in a parent trial. The seven-item PPPIP scale was administered within 48 h of recruitment, with higher scores reflecting more participation. Multiple regression was used to identify patient-related factors predictive of patient participation. The scale's psychometric properties were assessed using confirmatory factor analysis and Cronbach's alpha. In total, usable data were obtained from 856 patients. Mean PPPIP scale scores were relatively high, with 571 (66.7%) scores reflecting agreement or strong agreement. The Cronbach's alpha was 0.81, and most confirmatory factor analysis criteria for construct validity were met. Only the use of mobility aids was statistically significant in the model, but it predicted a small amount of variability in PPPIP score (adjusted R 2 = 0.017; p < 0.001). Targeting patients with limited mobility may be a useful strategy when trying to engage patients in PIP if resources are limited.
Most patients with health conditions necessitating time off work consult in primary care. Offering vocational advice (VA) early within this setting may help them to return to work and reduce sickness absence. Previous research shows the benefits of VA interventions for musculoskeletal pain in primary care, but an intervention for a much broader primary care patient population has yet to be tested. The Work And Vocational advicE feasibility study tested patient identification and recruitment methods, explored participants’ experiences of being invited to the study and their experiences of receiving VA.
A mixed method, single arm feasibility study comprising both quantitative and qualitative analysis of recruitment and participation in the study.
Primary care.
The study included participant follow-up by fortnightly Short Message Service text and 6-week questionnaire. Stop/go criteria focus on recruitment and intervention engagement. The semistructured interviews explored participants’ experiences of recruitment and receipt and engagement with the intervention.
19 participants were recruited (4.3% response rate). Identification of participants via retrospective fit-note searches was reasonably successful (13/19 (68%) identified), recruitment stop/go criteria were met with ≥50% of those eligible and expressing an interest recruited. The stop/go criterion for intervention engagement was met with 16/19 (86%) participants having at least one contact with a vocational support worker. Five participants were interviewed; they reported positive experiences of recruitment and felt the VA intervention was acceptable.
This study demonstrates that delivering VA in primary care is feasible and acceptable. To ensure a future trial is feasible, recruitment strategies and data collection methods require additional refinement.
We surveyed authors of publications in high-impact psychiatry journals to assess the (1) proportion that disseminated results to study participants or others with lived experience, and, among those who disseminated, (2) methods (eg, email) and (3) tools (eg, plain-language summary) used.
Meta-research review.
PubMed search on 14 December 2022 and emails to study authors for information on dissemination.
Eligible studies collected primary human data and were published in psychiatry journals with 2021 impact factor ≥10.
Study information was extracted by one investigator and validated by a second investigator, with conflicts resolved by consensus, with a third investigator consulted as necessary. We emailed authors approximately 2 years post-publication to ensure sufficient time had passed to share results. We estimated the proportion of authors that may have disseminated results to participants or others with lived experience, assuming that non-respondents (1) did not disseminate, (2) were half as likely to disseminate as respondents or (3) disseminated in the same proportion as respondents.
Of 141 studies, 94 (67%) authors responded. Among respondents, 21 (22%) reported disseminating to study participants, and an additional 9 (10%) reported disseminating lay materials to people with lived experience (total of 30 studies, 32%). Overall, we estimated that 15% (95% CI 10% to 22%) to 23% (95% CI 17% to 30%) of authors may have disseminated results directly to study participants and 21% (95% CI 15% to 29%) to 32% (95% CI 25% to 40%) to participants or others with lived experience. Among the 30 that reported disseminating, the most common methods were sending mail or emails to study participants (17 studies, 57%) and posting on social media (15 studies, 50%). The most common tools were plain-language summaries (22 studies, 73%) and webinars or other meetings (15 studies, 50%).
Dissemination of results to participants in mental health research is uncommon. Funding agencies, ethics committees, journals and academic institutions should support dissemination.
This study aims to synthesise evidence on users' experiences of telephone cancer information and support services (CISS) to identify important service features and inform service development.
A qualitative evidence synthesis.
OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and SocINDEX databases were searched for peer-reviewed qualitative literature fitting the inclusion criteria from database inception to 30 March 2023. The included articles were double-screened, and quality appraised using the CASP checklist. GRADE-CERQual was used as a tool to assess the confidence of review findings. Content synthesis combined the qualitative data with the Loiselle cancer experience measurement framework guiding analysis. This paper is reported as per the equator network recommended SRQR checklist.
Of the 607 articles screened, seven studies were included. Four main themes and 14 sub-themes about CISS aspects were identified: psychological well-being (managing emotions/coping, hope/reassurance, supporting close others and a reluctance to call the CISS); knowledge is power (information seeking, the burden of knowledge and empowerment); truth and clarity (adjunct support, credible source and improved understanding and confidence); and service adequacy (operators' ability to connect with users, convenience, service provision and awareness, and the cancer journey).
Findings suggest people with cancer and their carers accessing a CISS value emotional support combined with trusted information, topic expertise and a connection with the service operator. future service provision should address the lack of awareness regarding the range of services and the convenience extended operating hours may offer.
The results add to our understanding of CISS service provision. However, knowledge gaps remain regarding preferences among service features and the hierarchy of CISS characteristics to be prioritised to enhance services.
Focused CISS awareness campaigns will inform communities and healthcare professionals of the available resources to improve the lives of those affected by cancer. Ongoing service review will enable resources to be tailored to callers' needs, potentially easing the burden on existing services that are overwhelmed and under-resourced.
This qualitative evidence synthesis did not directly involve patient or public contribution to the manuscript.
Systematic Review Registration Number (PROSPERO): CRD42023413897
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.
Limited literature has focused on people with cancers' preference for care providers in scenarios where trade-offs may have to be made.
To report the results of a comprehensive search and synthesis of discrete choice experiments or best-worst scaling studies (± willingness to pay estimates) in scenarios involving cancer nurses, with a focus on: (1) preferred care provider; and (2) relative importance of attributes of care provision for people with cancer.
A search was conducted across: CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EconLit, Medline, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, and Google Scholar for discrete choice experiments published between January and July 2025. Data were extracted and appraised by two authors. Results were narratively synthesised.
Of 461 studies screened, 11 were included, published in Australia (n = 3), UK (n = 3), and China (n = 5) including people with breast (n = 4), gastric (n = 4), prostate (n = 1), or mixed cancers (n = 2). In six studies exploring scenarios of follow-up care (i.e., survivorship/surveillance), cancer medical specialists were the preferred care provider, followed by cancer nurses, and then general practitioners. In four of the five studies of supportive care scenarios (i.e., diet and exercise advice, anxiety and depression screening), cancer nurses were the preferred care provider, followed by allied health professionals, then cancer medical specialists. The highest WTP estimate was $US226.15 for a medical specialist to provide follow-up care. For supportive care, the highest WTP was $US137.52 for a cancer nurse to provide diet-based lifestyle advice post-treatment for breast cancer.
Cancer nurses are highly valued by people with cancer, particularly for supportive care provision. Opportunities exist for an increase in cancer nurse specialists with expanded scope of practice, to support the preference of people with cancer to have cancer medical specialists, or cancer nurse specialists provide expert cancer follow-up care.
Employees of a cancer patient advocacy group were involved in the design of the study, interpretation of the data, and the preparation of the manuscript. No patients were involved in this work. However, this systematic review prioritized patient voices by including studies that reported on the preferences of people with cancer.
Dysregulated immunity may account for an increased risk of infection and other adverse outcomes among frail hospitalised persons. The primary objective of this study is to examine whether baseline frailty is associated with the risk of developing ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) or other intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired infections among invasively ventilated adults. Additional objectives are to examine the relationship between frailty and hospital length of stay, discharge to a long-term care facility and vital status. We hypothesise that persons with frailty compared with others would have an increased risk of VAP and other infections, a longer hospital stay, higher probability of discharge to a long-term care facility and higher mortality.
This is a preplanned secondary analysis of the PROSPECT trial (
Participating hospital research ethics board approved the PROSPECT trial and data collection. The protocol for this study was approved by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board on 20 August 2015 (Project ID:19128). This study will identify whether frailty is associated with risk of VAP and other healthcare-associated infections in invasively ventilated patients, adjusted for other baseline factors. Results may be useful to patients, their caregivers, clinicians and the design of future research. Findings will be disseminated to investigators at a meeting of the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. We will present study results at an international conference in the fields of critical care and infectious diseases, to coincide with or precede open-access peer-review publication. To aid knowledge dissemination, we will use a variety of formats. For example, for traditional and social media, we will create two different visual abstracts and infographics of our results suitable to share on clinician-facing and public-facing platforms.
FreshRSS 