People with a learning disability face significant health and mortality inequalities as well as wider systemic inequities. Challenges in palliative and end of life care (PEOLC) include communication difficulties, lack of involvement in decision-making and multimorbidity. Early identification of PEOLC needs is challenging, impacting timely care planning. The study aims to (1) understand barriers and enablers to providing high-quality, accessible PEOLC for people with a learning disability, and identify effective service delivery models and interventions and (2) improve PEOLC quality and accessibility by developing robust guidance for health and social care services.

This is a mixed-methods study guided by the NHS England 2021 Ambitions Framework and adopting the Social Model of Disability. There are four workstreams: (1) a retrospective cohort analysis of the Clinical Practice Research Datalink; (2) a rapid scoping review; (3) field work in four study sites across England, involving (a) interviews with senior leaders and commissioners (n=up to 16) and informal stakeholder engagement conversations; (b) ethnographic case studies with people with a learning disability at the end of life (n=up to 20) and retrospective case reviews of people with a learning disability who have died (n=up to 40), using family and staff interviews and (c) development and piloting of methods for enabling systematic identification of PEOLC need, using experience-based co-design and (4) patient and public involvement (PPI) activities and a co-production group of 10 people with a learning disability to support data analysis and outputs. Data will be analysed using adapted framework analysis methodology. This is an inclusive, co-produced study with significant involvement of advisors and researchers with a learning disability as part of the study team.

Ethical approval has been obtained for workstreams 1, 3a and 3b. Significant attention has been paid to ensuring informed consent, making adjustments for capacity. Accessible information and consent forms will be used, involving consultees and adhering to the Mental Capacity Act for participants who lack capacity. Data security will follow General Data Protection Regulation rules. Dissemination will include patient exemplars, guidance and various resources, engaging stakeholders through multiple formats.

researchregistry10500.

Randomised controlled trials have aimed to assess the effectiveness of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) with curative intent versus surgical resection for individuals diagnosed with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) but have failed to recruit sufficient numbers of patients. Non-randomised studies for early-stage NSCLC have reported mixed outcomes following curative SABR versus surgical resection, but did not fully address confounding by indication. The Surgery Or RadioTherapy for early-stage cancer study (SORT) will assess the comparative effectiveness of SABR with curative intent versus surgical resection for NSCLC with a target trial emulation approach, as this can reduce biases in observational studies that aim to estimate the causal effect of interventions.

The SORT study will use the National Cancer Registry for individuals diagnosed with early-stage NSCLC in England during 2015–2020 (inclusive) who received SABR with curative intent or surgical resection. These data will be linked to Hospital Episode Statistics, National Radiotherapy Data Set and the Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapy dataset to obtain information on clinical and sociodemographic characteristics and the treatment received. This target trial emulation will define study population eligibility criteria and regimens for SABR with curative intent and surgical resection. We will reduce the risk of residual confounding with instrumental variable analyses that will exploit geographical variation across the National Health Service in England in the use of SABR with curative intent versus surgical resection for early-stage NSCLC. The primary outcome will be 3-year all-cause mortality after treatment initiation. Secondary outcomes will include 3-month, 6-month, 12-month and 24-month all-cause and lung-cancer mortality, time to death, numbers of hospitalisations, incremental costs and incremental cost-effectiveness.

Ethical approval was obtained from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Research Ethics Committee (reference number 29 717–1). Results will be disseminated to clinicians, patients, policy-makers and researchers.