National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) are multidisciplinary groups of national experts who provide independent advice to policy makers on issues related to immunisation and vaccines, based on evidence and the national context. On the other hand, academic institutions can be described as organisations dedicated to education and research. These include schools, colleges, universities and research centres that offer formal education, conduct scholarly research and contribute to knowledge in various fields. NITAGs can enhance their capacity by linking with academic institutions and leveraging scientific expertise in research, data analysis, modelling, resource procurement and management, and policy formulation. The proposed landscape analysis will explore the links between NITAGs and academic institutions, especially in the sub-Saharan African context, and, where such exist, document their characteristics and identify benefits, challenges and best practices for fostering such linkages.

This landscape analysis will use an adaptation of the WHO’s quick guide manual on ‘Performing a landscape analysis: Understanding health product research and development’. The planned landscape analysis will be conducted in two parts. The first part will entail a review of published literature to identify relevant documents on linkages between NITAGs and academic institutions. The second part will entail conducting key informant interviews with NITAG members, partners and other identified key stakeholders in two study countries: Ethiopia and Zambia. The transcribed scripts will be thematically analysed. The findings from both parts will be synthesised and presented as a descriptive landscape analysis report.

The protocol of the parent study has been reviewed and approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of Cape Town (Reference 417/2025). It has also been approved by the Biomedical Research Ethics Committee of the University of Zambia (REF. NO. 6760-2025) and the Ethiopian Public Health Association (EPHA/06/392/25). The landscape analysis report will be submitted to the commissioning funder (Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance) and will also be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

https://osf.io/vprka

Intervention adaptation is likely to occur to some extent when implementing interventions in new implementation contexts. Using systematic frameworks can guide intentional and effective adaptation processes. Intervention Mapping for Adaptation (IM-ADAPT) is a framework that offers step-by-step guidance for systematic, theory-based intervention adaptation. Despite the increasing use of IM-ADAPT, there is limited understanding of the contexts in which it has been applied and how effectively it is used and reported. Addressing this knowledge gap can improve current adaptation practices and inform future enhancements of the IM-ADAPT framework and the broader science of intervention adaptation. This review aims to (1) determine the context in which IM-ADAPT is used, (2) assess how studies apply IM-ADAPT tasks and (3) evaluate how these studies report their IM-ADAPT findings.

This protocol followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines. The eligibility criteria include original peer-reviewed English articles that used Intervention Mapping or IM-ADAPT to adapt interventions. We searched PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Embase and the Intervention Mapping literature library, and conducted forward citation searches using two landmark articles from inception to 19 July 2024. At least two independent coders will screen the records to determine eligibility and extract data from the included articles. Any discrepancies will be resolved through regular co-author meetings or in consultation with a senior author. The study protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/D5TCP).

As this systematic review only used published data, no ethics approval was required. We will disseminate the findings of this review through open-access channels and journals.

To assess the knowledge and practices of community pharmacists regarding managing diabetes in fasting patients during Ramadan and the barriers the community pharmacists face when managing diabetic patients who fast in Ramadan.

A survey-based cross-sectional study.

A structured questionnaire was distributed online during April and May 2024.

Community pharmacists who are registered with the Jordan Pharmacists Association and working in Jordan.

The questionnaire consisted of four sections: sociodemographic characteristics, pharmacists’ knowledge of diabetes management during Ramadan, practices in managing diabetic patients during fasting, and barriers encountered in providing care. The knowledge level was classified according to the total score of 13 as poor (0–4), intermediate (5–8) or excellent (9–13). Practice was classified into three categories based on scores: low (0–12), moderate (13–24) and high (25–36). Continuous variables were expressed as mean±SD, while categorical variables were reported as frequencies and percentages. Logistic regression was employed to determine the significant factors influencing the knowledge and practice of pharmacists.

A total of 473 pharmacists participated in the survey. While 9.5% demonstrated excellent knowledge, the majority (72.3%) had intermediate knowledge, and 18.2% showed poor understanding of diabetes management during Ramadan. Key gaps in knowledge were in risk stratification, dose adjustment and patient counselling. Assessment of diabetes management practices revealed that most pharmacists demonstrated high practice levels (58.1%), while 35.1% showed moderate, and only 6.8% had poor practice. Assessment of diabetes management practices revealed that most pharmacists demonstrated high practice levels (58.1%), while 35.1% showed intermediate, and only 6.8% had poor practice. The least frequently performed practices were stratifying patients by their fasting risk level and adjusting medication doses for fasting patients. Pharmacists reported barriers to providing effective care, such as time constraints, high workload, lack of educational resources and insufficient clinical knowledge.

The study reveals moderate knowledge and high practice levels among community pharmacists in Jordan regarding diabetes management during Ramadan. However, gaps in medication adjustments and patient risk stratification remain. Continuous professional development programmes are needed to enhance pharmacists’ knowledge and skills in these areas. Strengthening pharmacy resources, such as access to updated guidelines and patient education tools, can support better care practices. Future research should explore interprofessional collaboration, compare practice settings and regions, and employ qualitative and interventional study designs to deepen understanding and improve management of diabetes during Ramadan.