Conectar
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.
To evaluate the ‘Countdown to Theatre’ intervention, a co-designed nurse-led approach developed using the COM-B framework to address context-specific barriers and facilitators to preoperative fasting practices.
A prospective mixed-method, pre–post study assessed the intervention's impact on fasting adherence and patient experience.
Participants included children booked for a procedure under general anaesthesia. Adherence was assessed through audited fasting duration, and patient experience was evaluated using caregiver/patient surveys. The intervention was implemented and monitored by nursing staff as a part of a structured quality improvement process. Nurses played a central role in embedding the approach into daily workflows and reinforcing fasting timelines
Over 9 months, 901 observations were undertaken from 774 patients. Fasting duration decreased from 7.6 to 5.7 h (mean difference −1.94; 95% CI −3.04, −0.86). Parent-reported patient experience surveys showed improvement in many areas, including an increase in overall satisfaction (from 44.7% to 68.8%).
The intervention successfully reduced prolonged fasting and improved patient experiences, demonstrating the value of co-designed approaches in addressing evidence–practice gaps in perioperative care.
The principles of co-design, structured implementation and the application of the COM-B framework provide a replicable model for addressing similar challenges in healthcare. The study highlights the pivotal role of nurses in improving perioperative practices, supporting both patient safety and satisfaction. Future research should explore the intervention's applicability across diverse settings and patient populations.
Despite evidence-based guidelines, excessive preoperative fasting remains prevalent in practice. This study demonstrates that a structured, nurse-led intervention can successfully reduce fasting durations and enhance patient experience, reaffirming the nursing profession's capacity to lead meaningful change in perioperative care.
Standards for quality improvement reporting excellence (SQUIRE 2.0).
Patients and caregivers contributed to the co-design of the intervention, ensuring that it addressed practical challenges related to preoperative fasting.
Acute intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) is devastating with a 1 month mortality rate of ~40%. Cerebral oedema can complicate acute ICH and is associated with poor outcome. In patients with large ICH, the accompanying swelling increases mass effect and causes brain herniation. Mannitol, an osmotic diuretic, is used to treat cerebral oedema after traumatic brain injury, but its safety and efficacy in ICH is unclear. We aim to assess the feasibility of a phase II randomised, controlled trial of mannitol in patients with ICH with, or at risk of, cerebral oedema to inform a definitive trial.
The mannitol for cerebral oedema after acute intracerebral haemorrhage trial (MACE-ICH) aims to include 45 ICH participants from 10 UK sites with estimated largest diameter of haematoma volume >2 cm, presenting within 72 hours of onset with, or at risk of, cerebral oedema (limited Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS)8) with or without mass effect. Participants will be randomised (1:1:1) to 1 g/kg 10% single-dose intravenous mannitol, 1 g/kg 10% mannitol followed by a second dose at 24 hours, or standard care alone. Outcome assessors will be masked to treatment allocation. Feasibility outcomes include proportion of patients approached being randomised, participants receiving allocated treatment, recruitment rate, treatment adherence and follow-up. Secondary outcomes include serum electrolytes and osmolality at days 1–2; change in ICH and oedema volume at day 5; number of participants who developed urinary tract infection, GCS and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale at day 5±2; length of hospital stay, discharge destination and death up to day 28; death and death or dependency by day 180 and disability (Barthel Index), quality of life (EuroQol, 5-D) and cognition (telephone mini-mental state examination) at day 180.
MACE-ICH received ethics approval from the East Midlands-Leicester Central research ethics committee (22/EM/0242). The trial is funded by a National Institute for Health and Care Research RfPB grant (203080). The results will be published in an academic journal and disseminated through academic conferences and patient support groups. Reporting will be in line with Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials recommendations.
ISRCTN15383301; EUDRACT 2022-000283-22.
The experimental EuroQol Toddler and Infant Populations (EQ-TIPS) instrument is currently under development as a health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measure for toddlers and infants aged 0–36 months. Using this protocol, researchers can conduct surveys with discrete choice experiments (DCEs) that examine the key properties of HRQoL instruments, specifically whether severity aligns with preferences across each attribute and the extent to which attributes influence choices. To demonstrate this protocol, we will conduct two waves of DCE surveys using different choice tasks and a common scenario (a 1-month health episode for a 1-year-old child).
In the first wave (a general population sample of 400 Australian adults; 14 kaizen tasks each), respondents will view a single EQ-TIPS-five-level (v3.0) profile for each task and be asked to make a series of choices that sequentially alleviate the child’s health problems. Using this exploratory evidence, we will assess whether EQ-TIPS severity aligns with preferences and the extent to which each attribute level influences choices (ie, main effects). In the second wave (1000 Australian adults; 28 paired comparisons), respondents will see two EQ-TIPS profiles for each task and be asked to choose between them. Using this confirmatory evidence, we will compare the main effects and their uncertainty by wave. For each DCE, we will estimate a main-effects conditional logit model and test for differences in effects using cluster bootstrap techniques. As sensitivity analyses, we will evaluate the effects of task sequence, attribute order and sample size on uncertainty in each wave.
The independent review board at Includovate evaluated the application for ethical clearance and approved the study on 19 February 2025. To disseminate our findings, we will prepare multiple manuscripts for publication in peer-reviewed journals and present highlights at scientific meetings, such as the EuroQol Plenary Meeting and the International Academy of Health Preference Research.
Caesarean birth (CB) under neuraxial anaesthesia (NA) is the most performed inpatient operation in the UK. The incidence of intraoperative pain during caesarean delivery performed under neuraxial anaesthesia is unclear, with limited data that used patient-reported measures to investigate intraoperative pain. The short- and medium-term impacts on patients of this adverse event are unknown.
We will undertake a multicentre, prospective observational cohort study to evaluate the incidence and impact of pain experienced by patients during CB performed under neuraxial anaesthesia. Routine audit data will be collected for all patients undergoing caesarean delivery for any indication during a 1 week window at participating hospitals within the UK and Queensland, Australia. The dataset will include patient, anaesthetic, obstetric and neonatal risk factors for intraoperative pain. Local investigators will then seek informed consent from patients either before or within 24 hours of delivery to record patient experience and patient-reported outcomes at 24 hours and 6 weeks postdelivery. Local investigators at participating hospitals will also complete a survey evaluating compliance with evidence-based structural standards at their sites. The patient characteristics, structures, processes and outcomes will be described. Inferential techniques will be used to evaluate the relationship between risk factors and postoperative outcomes.
This study received ethical approval from the Leicester Health Research Authority and Care Research Wales, REC reference 24/EM/0084) on 24 May 24. The study received ethical approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee of Metro North Health in Australia on 25 March 2024 (REC Ref HREC/2024/MNHA/103767). The results of the study will be reported in accordance with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology statement. The results will be disseminated via conference presentations, peer-reviewed academic journals and reports prepared for patients, the public and policy makers.
To quantify the carbon footprint of a sample of clinical trials for neurological disorders.
Cross-sectional study.
Two clinical trial registries were searched on 29 December 2022 for phase 2–4 randomised controlled trials led from and recruiting in the UK, enrolling people with any of the 15 neurological disorders with the highest global burden, that had started recruitment or been registered in the preceding 5 years. Eligible trials were invited to share data to estimate emissions in each of the 10 modules of the Low Carbon Clinical Trials footprinting guidance. The primary outcome measure was kg of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e).
318 randomised controlled trials were found, nine were eligible and six shared data (three completed and three ongoing). The module with the highest estimated CO2e for each trial was the Clinical Trial Unit staff emissions (median 24 126 kg CO2e, IQR 10 395–78,867; range 45–79% of overall emissions of each trial); commuting accounted for >50% of CO2e in this module. The second and third highest modules were trial-specific participant assessments (median 11 497 kg CO2e, IQR 825–15,682) and trial supplies and equipment (median 1161 kg CO2e, IQR 226–6632). The total carbon footprint of these six trials involving 2248 participants at 239 sites was 2 63 215 kg CO2e.
Emissions by Clinical Trials Unit staff were the top modifiable carbon hotspot in six randomised controlled trials for people with neurological disorders, which had a total carbon footprint equivalent to 1364 passengers’ return aeroplane journeys between London and Edinburgh.
Clinicians face challenges in implementing evidence-based practices due to limited resources and tools that can support their efforts in translating evidence into practice. To address this, JBI developed PACES (Practical Application of Clinical Evidence System), an online tool designed to streamline and support evidence implementation and quality improvement projects.
This paper reports the development of JBI-PACES and presents an evaluation of its usability (usefulness, satisfaction, ease of use) and user recommendations for improvements.
PACES was developed based on the integration of the Donabedian perspective on quality improvement and JBI's process model for evidence implementation, which incorporates context evaluation, facilitation of change, and the evaluation of both process and outcomes. Initially launched in 2004, the system underwent multiple enhancements based on informal user feedback from 2007 to 2017. A significant update, version 0.0.23 Build 1, was re-launched in late 2018. To evaluate its usability, we conducted a cross-sectional study using the Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ), which also gathered qualitative feedback.
PACES supports evidence implementation by allowing users to conduct audits across multiple sites and over time, enabling data comparisons and insights into clinical practices. Findings from the usability evaluation showed high levels of satisfaction with the system's usefulness and ease of use. However, qualitative data indicated areas where further enhancements could optimize user experience and functionality.
The current study suggests clear benefits of PACES in terms of its utility and value for supporting evidence-based practices. Although the system performs well in usability, ongoing refinements are necessary to optimize user experience and ensure the tool continues to meet the evolving needs of healthcare professionals.
Paediatric cervical spine injury (CSI) is uncommon but can have devastating consequences. Many children, however, present to emergency departments (EDs) for the assessment of possible CSI. While imaging can be used to determine the presence of injuries, these tests are not without risks and costs, including exposure to radiation and associated life-time cancer risks. Clinical decision rules (CDRs) to guide imaging decisions exist, although two of the existing rules, the National Emergency X-Radiography Low Risk Criteria and the Canadian C-Spine Rule (CCR), focus on adults and a newly developed paediatric rule from the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) is yet to be externally validated. This study aims to externally validate these three CDRs in children.
This is a multicentre prospective observational study of children younger than 16 years presenting with possible CSI following blunt trauma to 1 of 14 EDs across Australia, New Zealand and Singapore. Data will be collected on presenting features (history, injury mechanism, physical examination findings) and management (diagnostic imaging, admission, interventions, outcomes). The performance accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values) of three existing CDRs in identifying children with study-defined CSIs and the specific CDR defined outcomes will be determined, along with multiple secondary outcomes including CSI epidemiology, investigations and management of possible CSI.
Ethics approval for the study was received from the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne Human Research Ethics Committee in Australia (HREC/69436/RCHM-2020) with additional approvals from the New Zealand Human and Disability Ethics Committee and the SingHealth Centralised Institutional Review Board. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and future management guidelines.
Registration with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry prior to the commencement of participant recruitment (ACTRN12621001050842). 50% of expected patients have been enrolled to date.
Around 70% of people with psychosis experience auditory verbal hallucinations (AVHs), which can cause distress and impair the social functioning of the individual. AVATAR therapy works by facilitating a ‘face-to-face’ dialogue between the person and a digital representation (avatar) of their persecutory voice. Although there is cumulative evidence of this way of working with voices, enhancing the therapeutic focus on improved confidence and sense of control of the voices in social situations represents a promising way to boost generalisation of therapy gains into social contexts. We aim to enhance AVATAR therapy by incorporating immersive Virtual Reality (VR) social environments aiming to help the person to deal better with their voices in daily situations.
A randomised controlled feasibility trial will be conducted. 40 patients aged 18 or above who are at early stages of psychosis (first episode of psychosis in the last five years) and report distressing and interfering voices will be recruited. Participants will be randomised to receive either a novel, enhanced version of AVATAR therapy (AVATAR_VRSocial) in addition to usual care or usual care alone. Assessor-blinded assessments will be conducted at baseline, 3 months (post-intervention) and 6 months (follow-up). Key therapeutic targets of AVATAR_VRSocial will be those established by the previous evidence of this approach (ie, power and control, self-esteem and future focus), while introducing exposure and management of distressing voices during social interactions. Analyses will focus on feasibility outcomes (recruitment, retention and completion rates) and preliminary estimates of intervention effects. Qualitative interviews will be carried out with participants allocated to AVATAR_VRSocial to gain a comprehensive understanding of participants’ views on the acceptability of the intervention and research procedures. Thematic analysis of the qualitative interviews will assess the acceptability of the intervention, trial procedures and the new VR technology and software involved.
The study has received ethical approval from the Ethics Commission at the Faculty of Psychology (Ruhr-Universität Bochum), and there is an independent Trial Steering Committee and Lived Experience Advisory Panel also supporting it. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and science dissemination events.
To explore the associations between depression, anxiety, decisional conflict and advance care planning engagement and the potential mediating role of decisional conflict in the associations between depression, anxiety and advance care planning among community-dwelling older adults.
A cross-sectional study was conducted with 262 community-dwelling older Australians across metropolitan, regional and rural communities between August and October 2022.
Validated self-reported questions were used to collect data on anxiety, depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), decisional conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale), advance care planning engagement (Advance Care Planning Engagement Survey) and covariates (demographic characteristics, health literacy [Health Literacy Screening Questions]), overall health status (Short form 36). Data analysis included descriptive statistics, bivariate association analysis, general linear modelling and path analysis.
Anxiety and decisional conflict were directly associated with advance care planning engagement even after controlling for potential effects of demographic characteristics, health literacy and overall health status. The model, including age, gender, country of birth, language spoken at home, education, overall health status, anxiety, depression, decisional conflict and interaction between anxiety and decisional conflict, explained 24.3% of the variance in their advance care planning engagement. Decisional conflict mediated the association between anxiety and advance care planning engagement.
Increased anxiety and decisional conflict were associated with reduced advance care planning engagement directly, even among community-dwelling older adults with higher levels of education and health literacy. Increased anxiety was associated with reduced advance care planning engagement indirectly via increased decisional conflict. Healthcare professionals should assess community-dwelling older adults' anxiety and implement interventions to manage their anxiety and decisional conflict, as these may facilitate their engagement in advance care planning.
Understanding factors associated with advance care planning engagement among community-dwelling older adults may inform strategies facilitating their future engagement in advance care planning. Findings from this study may be used as evidence for future implementation to facilitate the engagement of community-dwelling older adults in advance care planning.
The STROBE statement checklist was used as a guide to writing the manuscript.
The study was advertised publicly through social media (e.g. Twitter and Facebook) and newsletters (e.g. Advance Care Planning Australia, Centre for Volunteering, Palliative Care Australia and a large home care service provider with approximately 7000 older clients receiving support or services) to recruit participants. People aged 65 years and older living independently in the Australian community who could communicate in English were invited to participate and answer the questionnaire.
Healthcare consumers require diverse resources to assist their navigation of complex healthcare interactions, however, these resources need to be fit for purpose.
In this study, we evaluated the utility, usability and feasibility of children, families and adults requiring long-term intravenous therapy using a recently developed mobile health application (App), intravenous (IV) Passport.
Multi-site, parallel, multi-method, prospective cohort study.
A multi-site, multi-method study was carried out in 2020–2021, with 46 participants (20 adults, 26 children/family) reporting on their experiences surrounding the use of the IV Passport for up to 6 months.
Overall, utility rates were acceptable, with 78.3% (N = 36) using the IV Passport over the follow-up period, with high rates of planned future use for those still active in the project (N = 21; 73%), especially in the child/family cohort (N = 13; 100%). Acceptability rates were high (9/10; IQR 6.5–10), with the IV Passport primarily used for documenting new devices and complications. Thematic analysis revealed three main themes (and multiple subthemes) in the qualitative data: Advocacy for healthcare needs, Complexity of healthcare and App design and functionality.
Several recommendations were made to improve the end-user experience including ‘how to’ instructions; and scheduling functionality for routine care.
The IV Passport can be safely and appropriately integrated into healthcare, to support consumers.
Patient-/parent-reported feedback suggests the Intravenous Passport is a useful tool for record-keeping, and positive communication between patients/parents, and clinicians.
Not applicable.
Consumers reported their experiences surrounding the use of the IV Passport for up to 6 months.
FreshRSS 