Asthma is one of the most prevalent long-term health conditions affecting pregnant women. Poorly controlled asthma during pregnancy is associated with adverse maternal and fetal outcomes and may predispose offspring to long-term respiratory morbidity. The current ‘one size fits all’ approach to asthma management during pregnancy is not optimally effective for approximately half of the pregnant women with asthma. A personalised medicine approach to managing airways disease is required. The treatable traits approach focuses on the identification and treatment of traits in the pulmonary, extra-pulmonary and behavioural domains, which are identifiable, measurable, clinically relevant (linked to exacerbation risk or poor asthma control) and treatable. This manuscript outlines the protocol for the Treatable Traits for Asthma Management in Pregnancy (TTAP) study. The purpose of the TTAP study is to prospectively determine the prevalence of a range of treatable traits from these three domains in pregnant women with asthma and determine which traits are associated with exacerbation risk, poor asthma control and poor asthma-related quality of life. Additionally, this study will assess differences in trait prevalence and clinical relevance in pregnant women from regional versus metropolitan hospitals in Australia and in different antenatal models of care.

The TTAP study is a multicentre, prospective observational cohort study. Study participants are pregnant women with asthma attending antenatal clinics at 10 metropolitan and regional hospitals (public and private) in NSW and Victoria, Australia. Assessment of traits from the pulmonary, extrapulmonary and behavioural domains as well as asthma outcomes is conducted at three gestational timepoints: 12–16 weeks, 22–26 weeks and 32–36 weeks of pregnancy. A follow-up assessment of asthma outcomes is conducted at 2–4 weeks postpartum. The outcomes assessed are asthma exacerbations requiring medical intervention (primary outcome), asthma symptom control and asthma-related quality of life. Traits and outcomes will be assessed using questionnaires, direct questioning, measurement of biomarkers, physical measurements and assessment of routinely collected data from medical records.

The Hunter New England Human Ethics Committee (2024/ETH01289) has approved the TTAP study protocol. Outcomes will be published in peer-reviewed journals, presented at scientific conferences and disseminated online to participants, clinicians and other pregnant women with asthma and their families via the Asthma in Pregnancy Toolkit website https://asthmapregnancytoolkit.org.au/.

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a significant cause of respiratory infections in young children. Since 2021, RSV has been a notifiable disease in Australia. However, current surveillance systems focus on hospitalised RSV, with limited surveillance at a community level through primary care clinics. This approach only captures RSV requiring hospitalisation. Less severe illnesses, while not captured, may have significant social and economic impacts including the associated cost of care and absenteeism. The aim of this study is to establish an understanding of the broader burden of RSV in young children in a community setting.

The PATROL (Parents Actively Tracking RSV in Little Ones) project is a prospective longitudinal observational study of RSV and other respiratory viruses in children

Incidence rates of RSV illness and asymptomatic carriage will be calculated and compared with the incidence rate ratios of other respiratory viruses.

The Government of Western Australia Child and Adolescent Health Service Human Research Ethics Committee approved all study materials. Results and findings will be disseminated through manuscripts, conference abstracts and presentations, participant newsletters and appropriate general news media items.

To determine whether a novel urine collection device (the ‘Pee-in-Pot (PiP)’) produces the same rates of reportable urine culture results as standard of care (SOC) urine collection. To determine whether the PiP produces comparable microscopy results to SOC urine collection. To estimate the carbon footprint of the PiP compared to SOC urine collection.

A prospectively designed, single-centre, paired comparison study.

A district general hospital in Southwest England, including antenatal clinical, accident and emergency, medical and surgical ward environments.

Adults aged 18 or over.

Urine passed through the PiP device before being decanted into a 10 mL boric acid tube for microscopy and culture, compared with the same urine contained only in a sterile plastic vessel before being decanted into a boric acid tube for microscopy and culture.

The proportion of positive urine culture results.

The proportion of heavy mixed growth culture results. Comparison of particle counts: all small particles, bacteria, red blood cells and white blood cells.

Microscopy was performed for 1353 paired samples, of which 808 paired samples both underwent culture. Overall, urine cultures were positive in 9.3% (75/808) and 10.0% (81/808) of PiP and control cases, respectively. Overall matching between PiP and control arms for reportable positive culture results was 98.5% (796/808), with a Cohen’s Kappa test coefficient () of 0.9149 (almost perfect agreement). There was no significant difference in the rate of positive urine culture results between testing arms for any organisms (margin of non-inferiority prospectively defined as ±2.5% for Escherichia coli positive cultures). For microscopy, there was agreement in meeting culture thresholds for 1308 of 1353 paired samples with a difference in culturing rates of 0.00517 (95% CI –0.0045 to 0.015, ie, high level of agreement). The estimated base case carbon footprint of PiP testing was 95g CO2e compared to 270g CO2e for SOC testing.

This study found the PiP to be non-inferior for routine urine microscopy and culture testing and to have a lower carbon footprint compared with SOC urine testing.

The Optimising older People’s Transition from acute care Into residential aged care through Multidisciplinary Assessment and Liaison (OPTIMAL) trial is a multisite hybrid type II stepped wedge randomised controlled trial with an embedded process evaluation that aims to evaluate the effectiveness of implementing a bundle of evidence-based interventions to provide systematic support to older adults being discharged from hospital to residential aged care (RAC) homes for the first time. The trial is based on evidence from models of care used internationally to improve the quality of care transitions and addresses a need to provide evidence of transferability and effectiveness of these models in the Australian context. The embedded process evaluation will assess the acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, adoption and fidelity of the OPTIMAL intervention, as well as the mechanisms of impact.

The OPTIMAL trial will be implemented across the three metropolitan local health networks (LHNs) in South Australia. The process evaluation will be conducted in parallel with the main trial and is theoretically informed by the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) implementation framework, which theorises that the implementation success of OPTIMAL is determined by the facilitation of the intervention with the intended recipients in their inner and outer contextual setting. The process evaluation will employ a mixed methods approach. Qualitative and quantitative data will be collected through baseline context mapping of LHNs, interviews with key LHN and RAC stakeholders, online survey of clinical teams, fortnightly check-in forms, and activity logs and field notes maintained by the nurse facilitator in each LHN. Data will be mapped and reported based on the i-PARIHS framework.

Ethical approval for the OPTIMAL trial was obtained from the Southern Adelaide Clinical Human Research Ethics Committee (approval 2023/HRE00111), and the relevant governance approvals were obtained for each participating LHN. Ethical approval includes a waiver of the requirement for consent for routinely collected patient data. Study findings will be disseminated via journal publications, presentations at conferences, stakeholder discussions, consumer forums and advocacy to key decision makers to support knowledge translation.

Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ACTRN12624001008516, registered 20 August 2024.

To explore stakeholder experiences with implementing the living guideline (LG) development framework in oncology, and to identify barriers, facilitators and solutions to support its uptake and sustainability.

An exploratory sequential mixed methods design was used, beginning with qualitative semi-structured interviews with guideline development stakeholders, analysed thematically; and followed by a cross-sectional survey to quantitatively rate the importance of factors identified in phase one.

National and international oncology guideline development programmes using the LG development framework.

Stakeholders involved in LG development, including expert panel co-chairs, panel members, patient representatives, methodologists and administrative staff.

Nine stakeholders participated in qualitative interviews, and 45 completed the survey. Most participants were male (5/9:56% qualitative; 26/45:58% quantitative) and based in the US (7/9:78% and 29/45:64%, respectively). Overall, the results from both the qualitative and quantitative strand revealed seven themes (34 subthemes) as barriers and six themes (21 subthemes) as facilitators. Additionally, 9 themes were proposed as solutions. The most frequently reported barriers included evidence timeliness, interpretation and publication delays. Prominent facilitators included effective management, resource optimisation and panel engagement. Participants strongly endorsed investment in artificial intelligence enhanced tools to improve the speed and efficiency of evidence acquisition and review.

While the LG framework provides strong methodological guidance, its practical application presents notable challenges, particularly in resource demands and implementation logistics. Successful adoption requires adequate infrastructure, expertise and oversight. These findings highlight critical considerations for developers aiming to implement sustainable LG models in oncology and beyond.

The aim of the study was to evaluate the healthcare costs and effects of a remote person-centred care (PCC) add-on intervention compared with usual care for people with chronic heart failure (CHF) and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary Disease (COPD) from a societal perspective.

A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) based on the results from a randomised controlled trial.

The study was conducted from August 2017 until June 2021 within nine primary care centres across Western Sweden.

Participants in the study had a diagnosis of COPD (J43.0, J44.0–J44.9) and/or CHF (I50.0–I50.9).

224 patients were randomly allocated to the study groups. After two withdrawals, the final intention-to-treat analysis included 110 participants in the intervention group and 112 in the control group.

Both the intervention and control group received usual care through their primary care centres. In addition, the intervention group participated in a remote PCC add-on intervention consisting of a digital platform and structured telephone support.

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio using direct healthcare costs, productivity loss and prescription drug costs, compared with health effects measured using the EuroQoL questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) over a 2-year time horizon.

The intervention group had lower healthcare utilisation in inpatient care, specialised outpatient care and reduced productivity loss. The CEA showed incremental effects of 0.0469 quality-adjusted life years and incremental costs of SEK –68 533 (Swedish crowns). The PCC alternative was both more effective and resulted in lower healthcare costs compared with usual care, that is, PCC was dominant.

The results of this CEA demonstrated that a remote PCC add-on intervention for people with COPD and/or CHF had lower healthcare costs and higher health-related quality of life compared with usual care.

NCT03183817 ClinicalTrials.gov.