To determine the use, frequency and factors linked to the use of any electronic point of care resources (ePOC resources) used by early-career general practitioners (GPs in training, otherwise known as GP residents or registrars) during consultations; and the frequency, and factors linked to the use of evidence-based clinical summaries.

Cross-sectional analysis of data collected as part of the Registrar Clinical Encounters in Training (ReCEnT) project from 2018 to 2022. Every 6 months, GP trainees record 60 consecutive consultations, including information about their use of resources.

Australian training general practices.

3024 GP trainees in community-based vocational training.

The primary outcome was the use of ePOC resources, and the secondary outcome was the use of evidence-based ePOC summaries.

A total of 3024 GP trainees accessed electronic resources during patient encounters for 67 651/628 855 (10.8%) of diagnoses/problems. Use of ePOC resources increased 4% per year over the study period. Therapeutic Guidelines was accessed most often (27 435/79 536, 34.7% of all ePOC use) followed by Australian Medicines Handbook (7507, 9.4%) and HealthPathways (6965, 8.7%). Various factors were associated with increased use of ePOC resources, including increasing patient age, diagnosis/problem type, increasing years of experience prior to GP training and stage of training. GP trainees rarely accessed dedicated evidence-based clinical summaries.

Australian GP trainees use a range of resources to answer their clinical questions, mostly from Therapeutic Guidelines and prescribing compendiums, but also system specific resources that are free to access.

Diets high in ultraprocessed food (UPF) are associated with poor health outcomes and weight gain. Healthcare workers are particularly at risk of consuming diets high in UPF due to erratic work patterns, high stress and limited access to fresh food at work. Despite this, no interventions to date have specifically targeted a reduction in UPF intake in healthcare workers.

This article describes the development and content of a 6-month behavioural support intervention targeting a reduction in UPF intake in UK healthcare workers. The intervention was offered to all participants who took part in the UltraProcessed versus minimally processed Diets following UK dietAry guidance on healTh outcomEs trial—a two-stage study in which Stage 1 was a controlled-feeding crossover randomised controlled trial of provided UPF versus minimally processed food (MPF) diets (published previously) and was completed before the start of Stage 2. Stage 2, reported here, aimed to support participants to reduce their UPF consumption, increase MPF and increase physical activity in real-world settings. The intervention was developed using the behaviour change wheel framework, which systematically links behavioural diagnoses to intervention functions, incorporating the capability, opportunity and motivation model for behaviour change. It included tailored one-to-one and group support sessions, bespoke digital and print resources and a mobile-optimised website. The detailed description is intended to support future replication and adaptation. The acceptability and feasibility of the intervention will be assessed using quantitative and qualitative data in a future paper.

Sheffield Research Ethics Committee approved the trial (22/YH/0281). Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and summaries shared with participants and stakeholders.

NCT05627570.

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.

Gambling is now widely acknowledged to be a major public health (PH) issue. The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities conservatively estimated that gambling harm is associated with an annual cost of £1.05–£1.77 billion in England alone. Marionneau et al have categorised gambling harms into seven themes: (1) financial, (2) relationship/conflict, (3) emotional and psychological (mental health), (4) health decrements (physical health), (5) employment/education, (6) cultural and (7) criminal activity. In this understanding, gambling harms are not restricted to individual experiences: they also impact families, the wider community and society, and hence they require a whole systems, PH approach, anchored in population-level interventions to reduce harms. We aim to identify the effects of interventional PH laws and regulations on the harms associated with gambling.

We limit our focus to interventional PH laws and regulations within a comprehensive search of scientific and legal databases, grey literature and books. Following Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Study, Timing inclusion criteria, evidence will be screened and appraised in Covidence by two reviewers (MF and TP). Included evidence will be analysed and synthesised using a narrative synthesis approach. Methodological quality will be appraised using the relevant risk of bias tool. Randomised controlled trials will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB2), Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) will be used for other non-randomised studies. Qualitative studies will be appraised using the EPPI reviewer software for systematic reviewing.

The review protocol is registered with PROSPERO (International prospective register of systematic reviews) at the National Institute for Health Research and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) at the University of York (CRD42024574502). We aim to define a theory of change and produce a context-mechanism-outcome framework with relevant experts using the findings. We plan to disseminate the findings through peer-reviewed publications, meetings with relevant experts and international conference presentations.