HIV/sexually transmitted infection (STI) prevention interventions are only modestly successful among youth, particularly for young people of colour and sexual and gender minority (SGM) youth. Even among disparate intervention modalities delivered with high fidelity, differences between intervention types have been minimal. One consistent theme has emerged: the role of the youth:provider relationship in predicting intervention response. In line with calls for examination of relational factors, the next essential step is a harmonised analysis to evaluate connections between the youth:provider relationship and co-occurrence of alcohol and cannabis use, in youth HIV/STI prevention intervention response.

Our team has completed six sizeable HIV/STI behavioural prevention studies, generating n=1136 independent youth (baseline M_age=17, range=13–24; 43% female; 21% SGM; 54% Hispanic; 9% African American; 7% Native American/Alaska Native) who received prevention programming and were followed at 1-, 3-, 6-, and/or 12 months. We will harmonise these studies and build a longitudinal mixed-effects machine learning model, with youth:provider relationship as a predictor of intervention response. Participant factors, provider factors and their interaction will be included in the model. Given high rates of alcohol and cannabis comorbidity, we will also examine syndemic outcomes (co-occurring HIV/STI risk behaviours, alcohol use and cannabis use). These data are crucial to informing next step HIV/STI and syndemic intervention programming with this age group.

This secondary analysis study is exempt from human subjects regulations under category 4(iii) as determined by the Institutional Review Board at UConn Health. Results will be disseminated via presentations at annual scientific conferences, submissions to peer-reviewed journals, to mental health and substance use providers, as well as community programmes for youth at high risk for HIV/STI and substance use.

In the field of medicine, there has been a growing understanding of the impact of social and economic inequities on patients’ health outcomes. Social medicine was established with the intention of addressing these social and economic drivers of health when caring for patients. Physicians who practise social medicine aim to take an interdisciplinary and interprofessional approach to patient care with an emphasis on the promotion of health equity and patient advocacy. As the effects of social determinants of health (SDOH) on health outcomes have become more widely appreciated, medical professional organisations and accrediting bodies have advocated for formal education on the impact of SDOH in undergraduate and graduate medical curricula. The goal of this scoping review is to examine how undergraduate and graduate medical education programmes in the USA have implemented social medicine concepts into their curricula.

The proposed scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. The review team worked with a medical librarian, who created a unique search for five databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials, ERIC and the Web of Science Core Collection). Additionally, we will conduct a grey literature search that includes medical school and residency programme websites, as well as Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), Council of Residency Directors in Emergency Medicine (CORD), Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine (AAIM) and Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) conference abstracts. Two independent reviewers will assess all articles for eligibility. Data will be extracted using the Covidence data extraction tool. We will present the results of the extraction in tabular form. Themes identified during the full-text review and data extraction process will be discussed.

Data will be gathered from publicly accessible sources, so ethics approval is not necessary. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal and reported at conferences related to medical education and social medicine.

This protocol is registered on OSF (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/7PZ8U).

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a potentially fatal condition requiring timely diagnosis and treatment. CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) is the gold standard for diagnosis and indicates PE severity through radiological markers of right heart strain. However, accurate interpretation and communication of these findings is often suboptimal in real-world practice. Artificial intelligence (AI) could alleviate pressure on radiology services by supporting PE identification, risk stratification and worklist prioritisation. Before widespread adoption, AI tools must be rigorously validated for diagnostic accuracy, safety and clinical impact.

This pragmatic single-centre, non-randomised quasi-experimental study will evaluate the diagnostic accuracy, feasibility, and clinical-cost impact of AI-assisted PE detection and risk stratification using AIDOC and IMBIO software. We will recruit two consecutive cohorts of adult patients undergoing CTPAs for suspected PE: a comparator cohort (12 months pre-AI implementation) and an intervention cohort (12 months post-AI implementation). AI will be applied retrospectively to the comparator cohort, while in the intervention cohort, radiologists will have contemporaneous access to the AI’s interpretation of CTPA images.

A subset of retrospective scans, both PE-positive and PE-negative, will undergo expert thoracic radiologist review to establish a reference standard. Data on patient demographics, clinical management and outcomes will be collected. Clinical management pathways and patient outcomes will be compared between cohorts to assess AI’s influence on acute PE management. Health economic modelling will assess the cost-effectiveness of integrating AI technology within the diagnostic workflow of acute PE.

This study was approved by the UK Healthcare Research authority (IRAS 311735, 10 May 2023). Ethical approval was granted by West of Scotland Research Ethics Service (23/WS/0067, 3 May 2023). Results will be shared with stakeholders, presented at national and international conferences, and published in open-access peer-reviewed journals.

NCT06093217.

Palliative care supports the physical, emotional, social and spiritual needs of people with serious life-limiting illness. Future research must align with the priorities of people approaching the end of their lives, and those close to them.

To undertake a refresh of the James Lind Alliance Palliative and End of Life Care Priority Setting Partnership, to identify and prioritise areas for future research.

The James Lind Alliance process was applied, between May 2023 and February 2025. An initial online survey collected areas for future research from participants. These were synthesised into a long list of questions and shortlisted through a second online survey. Final ranking of priorities was achieved using an adapted Nominal Group Technique within a prioritisation workshop.

People living with serious life-limiting illnesses, carers, friends and family members supporting them, bereaved people, health and social care professionals, volunteers working in palliative and end-of-life care and members of the public.

1032 and 626 responses were received to survey 1 and 2, respectively. 20 people with lived and professional experience attended the prioritisation workshop. An updated list of 24 priorities for palliative and end-of-life care research was produced.

The priorities reflect the range of issues shaping end-of-life experiences and serve as a call to action for researchers and funders.

We aimed to determine whether UCLP-PRIMROSE (a care innovation to reduce physical health inequalities for people with severe mental illness) could be set up in the current UK National Health Service (NHS) context and identify the processes, barriers and facilitators to implementation.

We employed a convergent mixed methods approach, combining interviews, ethnographic site visits and the collection of meeting notes and uptake data for core model components. Interview transcripts were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis, and all qualitative data, including interview transcripts, were analysed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Qualitative work and insights from implementation uptake frequencies were integrated using Normalisation Process Theory.

We evaluated implementation in Yorkshire and three London boroughs, mainly within general practices.

We conducted interviews with 39 staff members who were implementing and/or delivering UCLP-PRIMROSE.

UCLP-PRIMROSE is an integrated evidence-based care pathway developed to reduce cardiovascular disease risk and mental health relapse in people with severe mental illness.

Adaptation and delivery varied in completeness and consistency across 24 general practices and their wider care teams. Factors outside the implementation teams’ influence challenged the embedding of UCLP-PRIMROSE. Factors included the impact from the immaturity of NHS integrated care systems, unintended consequences of the incentivised NHS severe mental illness physical health check and limited capacity for implementing in a system facing resourcing challenges. Drivers of successful implementation included staff being aligned with the values of the UCLP-PRIMROSE model and system leaders acting as champions. Supportive foundational processes acted as facilitators: these included protected and prioritised time for reflection, learning and problem solving.

Implementation of UCLP-PRIMROSE was moderately successful in a relatively short period of time. At the end of the research, all teams wanted to sustain delivery. However, further pathway simplification and additional resources are required to spread UCLP-PRIMROSE beyond early pockets of good practice.

Lower gastrointestinal symptoms attributed to colorectal disease are common. Early diagnosis of serious colorectal disease such as colorectal cancer (CRC), precancerous growths (polyps) and inflammation is important to ensure the best possible outcomes for a patient. The current ‘gold standard’ diagnostic test is colonoscopy. Colonoscopy is an invasive procedure. Some people struggle to cope with it and require intravenous sedation and/or analgesia. It is also resource-intensive, needing to be performed in specialist endoscopy units by a trained team. Across the UK, the demand for colonoscopy is outstripping capacity and the diagnosis of colorectal disease is being delayed. A colon capsule endoscope (CCE) is an alternative colorectal diagnostic. It is a ‘camera in a pill’ that can be swallowed and which passes through the gastrointestinal tract, obtaining visual images on the colon. There is now established experience of CCE in the UK. CCE might provide a less invasive method to diagnose colorectal disease if found to be accurate and effective and provide a means by which to increase the National Health Service (NHS) diagnostic capacity.

The aim of this study is to determine the diagnostic accuracy of CCE when compared with colonoscopy in representative and clinically meaningful cohorts of patients. An evaluation of the experiences of CCE for the patient and clinical team and an assessment of cost effectiveness will be undertaken.

We will undertake three research workstreams (WS). In WS1, we shall perform a paired (back-to-back) study. Each participant will swallow the CCE and then later on the same day they will have a colonoscopy. The study has been designed in collaboration with our Patient Advisory Group and as closely mirrors standard care as is possible. 973 participants will be recruited from three representative clinical contexts; suspected CRC, suspected inflammatory bowel disease and postpolypectomy surveillance. Up to 30 sites across the UK will be involved to maximise inclusivity. Measures of diagnostic accuracy will be reported along with CCE completion rates, number of colonoscopy procedures potentially prevented and adverse events, such as capsule retention. A nested substudy of intraobserver and interobserver agreement will be performed. WS2 will develop models of cost-effectiveness and WS3 will evaluate the patient and clinician experience, with reference to acceptability and choice.

The study findings will provide the evidence base to inform future colorectal diagnostic services.

The study has approval from the North East—Tyne and Wear South research ethics committee (REC reference 24/NE/0178, IRAS 331349). The findings will be disseminated to the NHS, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, other clinical stakeholders and participants, patients and the public.

ISRCTN16126290.