Prescribing high-dose antipsychotics is typically reserved for individuals with treatment-resistant severe mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and psychotic depression. It carries an increased risk of adverse drug effects, necessitating regular monitoring. Non-mental health specialist clinicians may not always be aware when the maximum recommended dose of antipsychotics is exceeded, leading to unintentional high-dose prescribing without recognising the need for additional monitoring or understanding the associated risks. Therefore, providing clinical decision support (CDS) tools to support clinicians and improve the appropriate prescribing of antipsychotics is important. The aim of this study is to understand current prescribing practices and assess the impact of high-dose antipsychotic prescribing on clinical outcomes among hospitalised patients. The findings from this study will shape a future project focused on developing an integrated computerised CDS tool.

This retrospective cohort study will examine antipsychotic prescribing among hospitalised patients using Hospital Electronic Prescribing and Medicines Administration data in Scotland from 2019 to 2023, in linkage with hospital records, Scottish Morbidity Records and primary care prescribing (Prescribing Information System). Patients will be grouped into those prescribed high-dose (exposed), defined as exceeding the 100% maximum recommended British National Formulary dose and normal-dose (unexposed) antipsychotics, followed from their first ever antipsychotic prescription date (index date) until the end of the study, study outcomes or death, whichever happens first. We will quantify high-dose antipsychotic prescribing, profile patient characteristics and use machine learning techniques to assess associations of high-dose antipsychotic prescribing with clinical outcomes, including harms and benefits, but will not attempt to establish causality.

The Health and Social Care Public Benefit and Privacy Policy Panel (HSC-PBPP) has granted ethical approval (ref. 2024-0239) following a Data Protection Impact Assessment, with data securely held and accessed in the National Safe Haven. The results will be published in international peer-reviewed journals and will be shared with clinicians.

Exercise-based interventions are well-established in reducing falls and fall-related injuries, but adherence and accessibility remain key challenges, particularly in rural areas. While conventional in-person training is widely used, digital interventions may offer scalable solutions to enhance engagement and reach. However, pragmatic trials evaluating the real-world effectiveness of conventional and digitally supported fall prevention interventions are lacking, limiting the evidence base for their implementation in routine healthcare settings. The SURE-Footed into the Future Fall Intervention Trial (SURE-FIT) aims to compare the effectiveness of two structured fall prevention interventions—a conventional centre-based exercise programme and a hybrid telemedical programme combining in-person and tablet-supported training—against a wait-list control group in reducing falls and fall-related injuries among community-dwelling older adults.

This study is a pragmatic three-arm, parallel-group, randomised controlled superiority trial with a 1:1:1 allocation ratio. Participants (≥65 years, community-dwelling, planned n=2778) will be randomly assigned to (1) conventional centre-based training supplemented with printed materials for home-based continuation (conventional group), (2) a hybrid model integrating centre-based and tablet-supported training for continuation (tablet group) or (3) a wait-list control group. The intervention includes a 9-week supervised phase followed by 43 weeks of independent home-based training. The primary outcomes are the incidence rate of falls and fall-related injuries over 12 months. Secondary outcomes include physical functioning, physical activity, concerns about falling, loneliness and the risk of low protein intake. A process evaluation will assess intervention feasibility and implementation. Additionally, qualitative interviews will be conducted with participants, course instructors and municipal stakeholders to explore experiences, facilitators and challenges related to programme participation and implementation. A health-economic evaluation will be conducted to assess the cost-effectiveness of the structured fall prevention interventions. Data collection will take place at baseline and every 3 months via standardised questionnaires, with a subgroup undergoing physical performance testing and sensor-based activity monitoring. Analyses will follow an intention-to-treat approach.

Ethical approval has been granted by the Ethics Committee of Ulm University (271/23). Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants before enrolment. Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, scientific conferences and national fall prevention initiatives. Additionally, results will be shared with key municipal representatives, and the German National Association of Senior Citizens’ Organisations (BAGSO). A publicly accessible website will provide ongoing access to study information and findings in plain language.

DRKS00032878, German Clinical Trials Register

We compared associations between self-reported and HearCheck screening device measures of hearing difficulty with subsequent general and domain-specific cognitive function in a population-based sample of older English adults.

Observational cohort study.

Population-based sample of older adults in wave 7 of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) in 2014/15 and its Healthy Cognitive Ageing Project (HCAP) in 2018.

N=1119 adults aged ≥62 years.

Factor scores for general cognitive function and domains of memory, language, orientation and executive function were derived from the HCAP neuropsychological test battery (mean of 0 and SD of 1 for each). Hearing difficulty was assessed using a self-reported 5-point Likert-type scale and the HearCheck screening device, which administered a series of six tones in each ear.

According to the HearCheck device, 48% of participants had a mild or moderate-to-severe hearing difficulty, while 25% self-reported fair or poor hearing. In multivariable-adjusted, population-weighted linear regression models, hearing difficulty identified via HearCheck was associated with worse general cognitive function (β=–0.34 SD units; 95% CI –0.60 to –0.07 for moderate-to-severe hearing difficulty vs good hearing) as well as worse function in domains of memory, language and executive function, each with a dose-response relationship. Self-reported hearing difficulty was not associated with general or domain-specific cognitive function.

Peripheral hearing ability, as captured by the HearCheck screening device, may have stronger relevance for later-life cognitive outcomes than the broader construct of perceived hearing difficulty in one’s daily environment that is captured by a self-reported measure.

Our aim is to develop a Framework of Measurement for people living with Long COVID and their caregivers for use in Long COVID research and clinical practice. Specifically, we will characterise evidence pertaining to outcome measurement and identify implementation considerations for use of outcome measures among adults and children living with Long COVID and their caregivers.

We will conduct a scoping study involving: (1) an evidence review and (2) a two-phased consultation, using methodological steps outlined by the Arksey and O’Malley Framework and Joanna Briggs Institute. We will answer the following question: What is known about outcome measures used to describe, evaluate or predict health outcomes among adults and children living with Long COVID and their caregivers? Evidence review: we will review peer review published and grey literature to identify existing outcome measures and their reported measurement properties with people living with Long COVID and their caregivers. We will search databases including MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Scopus for articles published since 2020. Two authors will independently review titles and abstracts, followed by full text to select articles that discuss or use outcome measures for Long COVID health outcomes, pertain to adults or children living with Long COVID and/or their caregivers and are based in research or clinical settings. We will extract data including article characteristics, terminology and definition of Long COVID, health outcomes assessed, characteristics of outcome measures, measurement properties and implementation considerations. We will collate and summarise data to establish a preliminary Framework of Measurement. Consultation phase 1: we will conduct an environmental scan involving a cross-sectional web-based questionnaire among individuals with experience using or completing outcome measures for Long COVID, to identify outcome measures not found in the evidence review and explore implementation considerations for outcome measurement in the context of Long COVID. Consultation phase 2: we will conduct focus groups to review the preliminary Framework of Measurement and to highlight implementation considerations for outcome measurement in Long COVID. We will analyse questionnaire and focus group data using descriptive and content analytical approaches. We will refine the Framework of Measurement based on the focus group consultation using community-engaged approaches with the research team.

Protocol approved by the University of Toronto Health Sciences Research Ethics Board (protocol #46503) for the consultation phases of the study. Outcomes will include a Framework of Measurement, to enhance measurement of health outcomes in Long COVID research and clinical practice. Knowledge translation will also occur in the form of publications and presentations.

Cohort studies of ageing and cognitive decline typically do not begin fielding comprehensive cognitive assessments until older adulthood. However, for identifying preventable dementia risk factors, there is strong value in beginning at earlier ages. The case is especially compelling in sub-Saharan Africa, where the number of older individuals is expected to triple in the next three decades, and where risk factors may operate more intensively at earlier ages. This study reports on the adaptation and validity of the Harmonised Cognitive Assessment Protocol (HCAP) approach in the Kenya Life Panel Survey (KLPS), collected among middle-aged respondents.

To evaluate the validity of the HCAP approach in Kenya, this study assesses model fit statistics from confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) and tests measurement invariance by respondent characteristics.

Both rural and urban areas in Kenya.

A sample of n=5878 individuals from the KLPS, who have been surveyed regularly since they were schoolchildren in the 1990s. The HCAP assessment was administered in 2023 at an average age of 37 years (10–90 range 34 to 41).

For each individual, the CFA generates a general cognitive performance score, and cognitive performance scores for five distinct domains, including memory, executive functioning, language, orientation to time and place, and visuospatial functioning.

Fit of the models to the data was adequate for general cognitive performance (root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA)=0.03; comparative fit index (CFI)=0.94; standardised root mean residual (SRMR)=0.05), language (RMSEA=0.02; CFI=0.95; SRMR=0.05) and good for memory (RMSEA=0.05; CFI=0.99; SRMR=0.02) and executive functioning (RMSEA=0.03; CFI=0.98; SRMR=0.03). The CFA indicate that the factor structure is consistent with findings from other countries and that reliability for the general cognitive performance score was high. Statistical models also suggest invariance at the scalar level for leading demographic (gender, age) and socioeconomic (education, occupational complexity) characteristics.

This study demonstrates that the cognitive functioning of mid-age Kenyans appears to be well captured by the adapted protocol. While there is a moderate decline in cognitive performance among older individuals, this relationship appears to be mediated by education, indicating that this KLPS HCAP provides a valuable baseline for studying future cognitive decline.

Most research on the relationship between diabetes and cognitive health has used data from high-income countries. This study described this relationship in India, the world’s most populous country.

Cross-sectional analysis of the baseline wave of the nationally representative Longitudinal Ageing Study in India, conducted from 2017 to 2019.

All 36 Indian states and union territories.

57 905 adults aged 45 years or older.

Scaled cognitive scores (mean of 0 and SD of 1) and cognitive impairment defined as a cognitive score 1.5 SD or below the age-matched and education-matched mean. Diabetes was defined as a self-report of a prior diabetes diagnosis made by a health professional or having a measured haemoglobin A1c ≥6.5%.

In age-adjusted and sex-adjusted models, people with diabetes had cognitive scores that were 0.24 SD higher (95% CI 0.22 to 0.26) and had a 1.2% (95% CI 0.6% to 1.7%) lower prevalence of cognitive impairment than people without diabetes. Differences persisted even when adjusting for demographic, socioeconomic and geographical characteristics. Rural versus urban residence modified the relationships of diabetes with cognitive score (p=0.001) and cognitive impairment (p=0.003). In fully adjusted models, rural respondents with diabetes had 0.05 SD (95% CI 0.03 to 0.07) greater cognitive scores and 1.6% (95% CI 0.9% to 2.4%) lower prevalence of cognitive impairment than those without diabetes. In urban areas, respondents with and without diabetes had similar cognitive scores and prevalence of cognitive impairment.

Middle-aged and older adults with diabetes living in India had better cognitive health than those without diabetes. Rural versus urban area of residence modified this relationship. Urban–rural differences, the nutrition transition and social conditions likely influenced the cross-sectional relationship between diabetes and cognitive health in India, leading to different associations than reported in other countries.