To develop prediction models for short-term outcomes following a first acute myocardial infarction (AMI) event (index) or for past AMI events (prevalent) in a national primary care cohort.

Retrospective cohort study using logistic regression models to estimate 1-year and 5-year risks of all-cause mortality and composite cardiovascular outcomes.

Primary care practices in England contributing data to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum and CPRD GOLD databases between 2006 and 2019.

Patients with an incident (index) or prevalent AMI event. Models were trained on a random 80% sample of CPRD Aurum (n=1018 practices), internally validated on the remaining 20% (n=255) and externally validated using CPRD GOLD (n=248).

Discrimination assessed using sensitivity, specificity and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Calibration assessed using calibration plots.

In the index (prevalent) cohorts, 94 241 (64 789) patients were included in the training and internal validation sets, and 16 832 (7479) in the external validation set. For the index cohort, AUCs for 1-year [5-year] all-cause mortality were 0.802 (95% CI 0.793 to 0.812) [0.847 (0.841 to 0.853)] internally and 0.800 (0.790 to 0.810) [0.841 (0.835 to 0.847)] externally. For the primary composite outcome (stroke, heart failure and all-cause death), AUCs were 0.763 (0.756 to 0.771) [0.824 (0.818 to 0.830)] internally and 0.748 (0.739 to 0.756) [0.808 (0.801 to 0.815)] externally. Discrimination was higher in the prevalent cohort, particularly for 1-year mortality (AUC: 0.896, 95% CI 0.887 to 0.904). Models excluding treatment variables showed slightly lower but comparable performance. Calibration was acceptable across models.

These models can support clinicians in identifying patients at increased risk of short-term adverse outcomes following AMI, whether newly diagnosed or with a prior history. This can inform monitoring strategies and secondary prevention and guide patient counselling on modifiable risk factors.

Racialised older adults living with dementia face various challenges and barriers in receiving culturally sensitive care in hospital settings. Stigma, discrimination and healthcare provider bias toward racialised older adults living with dementia infringe on their right to access quality care services in acute hospital settings and can negatively affect their quality of life. Despite the growing need to integrate culturally sensitive dementia care into acute hospital care, little research has been done in this area. Therefore, the aim of this scoping review is to summarise and map what is known about the hospitalisation experience of racialised older adults with dementia in receiving care and identify research gaps.

We will use Arksey and O’Malley’s framework and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews checklist to conduct and write the review. The search strategy will use keywords and index terms across selected databases: Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, Medline, PsycINFO and Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and hand-searching the reference lists from chosen literature. Grey literature will be searched using Google and the Alzheimer Society websites to find further evidence and literature. Two researchers will screen the titles and abstracts independently by referring to the inclusion criteria. Data from the extracted studies will be reported in tabular and narrative form that answer the scoping review’s questions. Research gaps and recommendations for future research will be identified and summarised. The review’s results will be shared with stakeholders, policymakers, healthcare professionals and community organisations working with the racialised community and dementia care.

This scoping review does not require ethics approval because it collects data from publicly available resources. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed scientific journals, professional conferences and with community organisations and healthcare providers.

This review is registered in the Open Science Framework registration link: osf.io/7rfje

Multimorbidity or the presence of two or more long-term conditions is now common in people undergoing surgery. However, current care pathways often miss these healthcare encounters to support long-term health promotion. Therefore, there is a need for practical, scalable approaches that can be integrated into routine surgical care, for which limited solutions exist at present. We have co-designed a structured preoperative checklist to help identify and manage long-term conditions in patients listed for elective surgery. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of this preoperative checklist in patients undergoing elective surgery.

This is a mixed-methods feasibility study in one National Health Service trust in the UK. We will recruit up to 50 adults scheduled for elective surgery and use the checklist during initial surgical clinic appointments. Quantitative data will include recruitment and retention rates, completion of the checklist and baseline clinical characteristics, analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data will be collected through semistructured interviews with up to 16 patients and clinicians. These interviews will be analysed thematically, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Triangulation of quantitative and qualitative data will allow us to explore fidelity, acceptability, barriers and facilitators to implementation and refine the intervention ahead of a future pilot cluster randomised trial.

This study has received approval from the Yorkshire & The Humber - Sheffield Research Ethics Committee (approval number: 25/YH/0045). All participants will give written informed consent. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and shared with participants, the public and policy stakeholders.

The vast majority of healthcare research in the UK is investigator-led. While national progress in patient and public involvement (PPI) increasingly mandates patient consultation, research questions and outcomes still frequently misalign with patient priorities. This is particularly important in rare disease research, as more than 95% of 11 000 conditions have no effective or curative treatment, and around 20% are not clinically defined, making them difficult to diagnose and manage. The unmet physical, mental and emotional needs of people living with rare diseases are immense. Extensive guidance and toolkits exist to support investigators with PPI, but none target patient communities attempting to promote their own priorities, initiate or co-lead research.

This communication article introduces the newly established patient-led Rare Disease Research Network (RDRN).

Launched in November 2024, the RDRN is an open-access collaborative platform designed to support patient-driven and co-produced research, connecting patient and professional partners with similar research interests. Originally conceived by an ultra-rare patient group, the network was co-produced with the rare disease community, including individuals living with rare conditions, parents, carers and charity advocates, whose lived experience and priorities shaped every aspect of its design. Supported by academic and research networks, its collaborative development ensures RDRN removes barriers to participation while complementing existing initiatives. RDRN is a novel approach to driving new impactful research by aligning investigator priorities with real-world needs and building capacity from patients outward. Rare disease communities bring lived expertise, creativity and motivation. Yet without a structured route to collaborate, their insights are often lost. RDRN offers an inclusive space, fostering new partnerships and supporting upstream collaboration. The approach enables patients to become ‘research ready’ and empowers them to have an active role in generating ideas and delivering research from inception, leading to innovative research and driving meaningful change in patients’ lives. With further development, RDRN could present a lasting, scalable and unified model for co-designed rare disease research. By enabling trust, capacity and shared purpose, it can drive discovery, improve outcomes and build a more resilient and self-sustaining research ecosystem, underpinning key pillars of the 2021 UK Rare Diseases Framework.

This study explored how Structured Medication Reviews (SMRs) are being undertaken and the challenges to their successful implementation and sustainability.

A cross-sectional mixed methods online survey.

Primary care in England.

120 clinical pharmacists with experience in conducting SMRs in primary care.

Survey responses were received from clinical pharmacists working in 15 different regions. The majority were independent prescribers (62%, n=74), and most were employed by Primary Care Networks (65%, n=78), delivering SMRs for one or more general practices. 61% (n=73) had completed, or were currently enrolled in, the approved training pathway. Patient selection was largely driven by the primary care contract specification: care home residents, patients with polypharmacy, patients on medicines commonly associated with medication errors, patients with severe frailty and/or patients using potentially addictive pain management medication. Only 26% (n=36) of respondents reported providing patients with information in advance. The majority of SMRs were undertaken remotely by telephone and were 21–30 min in length. Much variation was reported in approaches to conducting SMRs, with SMRs in care homes being deemed the most challenging due to additional complexities involved. Challenges included not having sufficient time to prepare adequately, address complex polypharmacy and complete follow-up work generated by SMRs, issues relating to organisational support, competing national priorities and lack of ‘buy-in’ from some patients and General Practitioners.

These results offer insights into the role being played by the clinical pharmacy workforce in a new country-wide initiative to improve the quality and safety of care for patients taking multiple medicines. Better patient preparation and trust, alongside continuing professional development, more support and oversight for clinical pharmacists conducting SMRs, could lead to more efficient medication reviews. However, a formal evaluation of the potential of SMRs to optimise safe medicines use for patients in England is now warranted.

Recent legislation in the UK regarding requirements for new developments to increase biodiversity may have significant implications for the environment and population health. Despite this, relatively little is known regarding the health and social benefits of increasing biodiversity in densely populated urban areas.

This protocol outlines plans for a mixed-method, longitudinal, natural experiment study which will evaluate the planned, biodiversity-focused redevelopment of six small urban parks in Edinburgh, Scotland (UK). Using systematic observation (at baseline, 1 month post-intervention and 1 year post-baseline) and a longitudinal household survey (at baseline and 1 year post-baseline), the primary outcomes of personal well-being, and secondary outcomes of nature connectedness and park usage behaviours, will be assessed, respectively. Consent for data linkage of respondent’s health records will also be sought. Process evaluation will employ semi-structured, qualitative interviews with stakeholders and walk-along interviews with local residents in order to understand implementation processes. Space-related well-being will also be assessed using citizen science approaches.

This study was approved by the University of Edinburgh’s School of Health in Social Sciences ethics committee. This study will provide further evidence for policymakers, the public and researchers of the health and social well-being effects of urban biodiversity interventions. Study findings will be disseminated via public forums such as community workshops and through publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentation at scientific conferences.

Participation in physical activity (PA) is a cornerstone of the secondary prevention of stroke. Given the heterogeneous nature of stroke, PA interventions that are adaptive to individual performance capability and associated co-morbidity levels are recommended. Mobile health (mHealth) has been identified as a potential approach to supporting PA post-stroke. To this end, we used a Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomised Trial design to develop an adaptive, mHealth intervention to improve PA post-stroke – The Adaptive Physical Activity programme in Stroke (TAPAS) (Clinicaltrials.Gov NCT05606770). As the first trial in stroke recovery literature to use this design, there is an opportunity to conduct a process evaluation for this type of adaptive intervention. The aim of this process evaluation is to examine the implementation process, mechanism of change and contextual influences of TAPAS among ambulatory people with stroke in the community.

Guided by the Medical Research Council Framework for process evaluations, qualitative and quantitative methods will be used to examine the (1) implementation process and the content of TAPAS (fidelity adaptation, dose and reach); (2) mechanisms of change (participants’ response to the intervention; mediators; unexpected pathways and consequences) and (3) influence of the context of the intervention. Quantitative data will be presented descriptively, for example, adherence to exercise sessions. Qualitative data will be collected among TAPAS participants and the interventionist using semi-structured one-to-one or focus group interviews. Transcribed interviews will be analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Key themes and sub-themes will be developed.

Ethical approval has been granted by the Health Service Executive Mid-Western Ethics Committee (REC Ref: 026/2022) (25/03/2024). The findings will be submitted for publication and presented at relevant national and international academic conferences.

This study validates the previously tested Screening for Poverty And Related social determinants to improve Knowledge of and access to resources (‘SPARK Tool’) against comparison questions from well-established national surveys (Post Survey Questionnaire (PSQ)) to inform the development of a standardised tool to collect patients’ demographic and social needs data in healthcare.

Cross-sectional study.

Pan-Canadian study of participants from four Canadian provinces (SK, MB, ON and NL).

192 participants were interviewed concurrently, completing both the SPARK tool and PSQ survey.

Survey topics included demographics: language, immigration, race, disability, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation; and social needs: education, income, medication access, transportation, housing, social support and employment status. Concurrent validity was performed to assess agreement and correlation between SPARK and comparison questions at an individual level as well as within domain clusters. We report on Cohen’s kappa measure of inter-rater reliability, Pearson correlation coefficient and Cramer’s V to assess overall capture of needs in the SPARK and PSQ as well as within each domain. Agreement between the surveys was described using correct (true positive and true negative) and incorrect (false positive and false negative) classification.

There was a moderate correlation between SPARK and PSQ (0.44, p60), SPARK correctly classified 90.5% (n=176/191).

SPARK provides a brief 15 min screening tool for primary care clinics to capture social and access needs. SPARK was able to correctly classify most participants within each domain. Related ongoing research is needed to further validate SPARK in a large representative sample and explore primary care implementation strategies to support integration.

Neonatal death and later disability remain common sequelae of hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy (HIE) despite the now standard use of therapeutic hypothermia (HT). New therapeutic approaches to brain protection are required. Melatonin is an indolamine hormone with free-radical scavenging, antiapoptotic, anti-inflammatory and gene regulatory neuroprotective properties, which has extensive preclinical evidence of safety and efficacy. Pharmacokinetic (PK) data suggest it is necessary to reach melatonin levels of 15–30 mg/L within 6–8 hours of hypoxia-ischaemia for brain protection. We developed a novel Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) grade melatonin in ethanol 50 mg/mL solution for intravenous use. In preclinical studies, ethanol is an adjuvant excipient with additional neuroprotective benefit; optimised dosing protocols can achieve therapeutic melatonin levels while limiting blood alcohol concentrations (BACs).

The Acute High Dose Melatonin for Encephalopathy of the Newborn (ACUMEN) Study is a first-in-human, international, multicentre, phase 1 safety study of intravenous melatonin in babies with moderate/severe HIE receiving HT. Sixty babies will be studied over two phases: a dose escalation study including four dose levels to establish the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), followed by a 6-month cohort expansion study of RP2D to further characterise PKs and affirm safety. Participants will receive a 2-hour intravenous infusion of melatonin within 6 hours of birth, followed by five maintenance doses every 12 hours to cover the period of HT. Plasma melatonin and BACs will be monitored. The RP2D will be based on the attainment of therapeutic melatonin levels while limiting BACs and the frequency of dose-limiting events (DLEs). A Bayesian Escalation with Overdose Control approach will be used to estimate the risk of DLE per dose level, with a target level of

Approval has been given by the London Central National Health Service Health Research Authority Ethics Committee (25/LO/0170) and UK Clinical Trials Authorisation from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Separate approvals have been sought in Ireland and Australia. Dissemination will be via peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations, public registries and plain language summaries for parent/legal guardian(s), in accordance with national requirements.

ISRCTN61218504. EU CT: 2025-520538-49-00.

Publication based on the UK protocol V.3.0, 08 May 2025

Primary care electronic health records provide a rich source of information for inequalities research. However, the reliability and validity of the research derived from these records depend on the completeness and resolution of the codelists (ie, collections of medical terms/codes) used to identify populations of interest. The aim of this project was to develop comprehensive codelists for identifying people from ethnic minority groups, people with learning disabilities (LDs), people with severe mental illness (SMI) and people who are transgender.

We followed a three-stage process to define and extract relevant codelists. First, groups of interest were defined a priori. Next, relevant clinical codes, relating to the groups, were identified by searching Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) publications, codelist repositories and the CPRD Code Browser. Relevant codelists were extracted and merged according to group, and duplicates were removed. Finally, the remaining codes were reviewed by two general practitioners (GPs).

The curated codelists were compared using a representative sample in the UK. The frequencies of individuals identified using the curated codelists were assessed and compared with widely used alternative codelists.

Comprehensiveness was assessed in a representative CPRD population of 10 966 759 people.

After removal of duplicates and GP review, codelists were finalised with 325 unique codes for ethnicity, 558 for LD, 499 for SMI and 38 for transgender. Compared with comparator codelists, an additional 48 017 (76.6%), 52 953 (68.9%) and 508 (36.9%) people with LD, SMI or transgender code were identified. The proportions identified for ethnicity, meanwhile, were consistent with expectations for the UK (eg, 6.50% Asian, 2.66% black and 1.44% mixed).

The curated codelists are more sensitive than those widely used in practice and research. Discrepancies between national estimates and primary care records suggest potential record/retention issues. Resolving these requires further investigation and could lead to improved data quality for research.

We calculate positive predictive values (PPVs) of patients presenting with unexpected weight loss (UWL) being diagnosed with cancer within 6 months, using data from a population of Australian primary care patients to replicate results from a previous UK study.

A diagnostic accuracy study involving calculation of the PPV for any cancer using retrospective data from routinely collected electronic healthcare records. The index date is defined as the first recorded UWL presentation and the reference standard is cancer diagnosis within 6 months of the index date.

This study uses primary care data from the Patron primary care database, linked to hospital admissions data and the Victorian Cancer Registry. We include only patients who presented to their General Practitioners (GPs) at least once between 1 July 2007 and 1 February 2022.

Patients were included if they were at least 18 years of age at the index date, had no previous diagnosis of cancer or previous weight loss intervention, including being prescribed medications for weight loss. 13 306 patients out of a primary care population of 1 791 051 patients were identified that met the eligibility criteria.

When stratified by age, sex and smoking status, we found PPVs lower than those derived in a previous UK primary care study, though still above 3% for male non-smokers over 60, female smokers over 70 and all males over 70. Patients from ages 60–79 with at least one abnormal blood test result had PPVs consistently above 3%, while overall, patients with abnormal blood test results have PPVs of up to 35%.

We confirmed that many PPVs, while consistently below those derived in the UK study, are above clinically significant thresholds and increasing with age and the number of different abnormal blood test results.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurs when a blood clot forms in a vein. It is comprised of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism and can be potentially life-threatening. Patients undergoing surgery are at increased risk of developing VTE within hospital admission and 90 days after hospital discharge are collectively known as hospital-acquired thrombosis (HAT). Without the use of thromboprophylaxis, the untreated risk of VTE is reported to be as high as 40–60% in those undergoing major orthopaedic procedures and around 15–40% in the general surgical population.

HAT accounts for around 12 000 deaths per year in the UK. For patients undergoing surgery, there is good evidence for the use of thromboprophylaxis to prevent VTE.

Thromboprophylaxis is available in both pharmacological and mechanical forms. While there is a huge body of evidence demonstrating that pharmacological thromboprophylaxis significantly reduces VTE by 30–65%, the benefit of graduated compression stockings (GCS) has been called into question. The GRACE study (Graduated Compression stocking as an adjunct to Extended duration pharmacological thromboprophylaxis for venous thromboembolism prevention) aims to evaluate the adjuvant benefit of GCS in addition to extended duration pharmacological thromboprophylaxis (EDPTP) for elective surgical patients at highest risk of VTE.

GRACE is a pragmatic, multicentre randomised trial of adults undergoing surgery who are at high risk of VTE. Participants are randomised into a 1:1 ratio to either EDPTP and compression stockings (control arm) or EDPTP (intervention arm). Following randomisation, participants will undergo surgery and be followed up centrally at 7, 21–35 and 90 days after their procedure. All participants will be offered a bilateral full lower limb duplex scan at 21–35 days post procedure to capture any asymptomatic DVT.

The trial aims to randomise 8608 participants from around 50 National Health Service (NHS) and non-NHS sites in the UK over a 24-month period. The primary endpoint is any imaging-confirmed incidence of VTE within 90 days of surgery.

On 20 December 2023, GRACE received favourable ethical approval from the Wales Research Ethics Committee 3 Cardiff (23/WA/0350) and the Health Research Authority (IRAS 333539). The results of the study will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, presentation at national and international conferences and to study participants via electronic newsletter and social media channels.

ISRCTN11667770.