Diabetic retinopathy (DR) in pregnancy can cause blindness. National guidelines recommend at least one eye examination in early pregnancy, then ideally 3-monthly, through to the postpartum for pregnant women with pregestational diabetes. Here we examined adherence rates, barriers and enablers to recommended DR screening guidelines.

Cross-sectional survey study, as part of a larger prospective cohort study.

Participants were recruited from two tertiary maternity hospitals in Melbourne, Australia.

Of the 173 pregnant women with type 1 (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D) in the main cohort study, with an additional four who participated solely in this survey study, 130 (74.3%) completed the survey.

This study calculated rates of adherence to guideline-recommended DR screening schedules and collected data on the enablers and barriers to attendance using a modified Compliance with Annual Diabetic Eye Exams Survey. Each of the 5-point Likert-scale survey items was compared between adherent and non-adherent participants using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test and logistic regression models were constructed to quantify associations as ORs.

A retinal assessment was undertaken at least once during pregnancy in 86.3% of participants, but only 40.9% attended during their first trimester and only 21.2% attended the recommended number of examinations. Competing priorities were the main barriers to adherence, with eye examinations ranked as the fourth priority (IQR 4th–5th) among other health appointments during pregnancy. Meanwhile, knowledge of the benefits of eye screening examinations, eye-check reminders and support from relatives was identified as enablers.

Despite the risk of worsening DR during pregnancy, less than half of the participants adhered to recommended screening guidelines, suggesting that eye health is not a priority. Proactive measures to integrate care are needed to prevent visual loss in this growing population.

Parkinson’s disease is a neurological disease with a rising incidence and prevalence. Patients with Parkinson’s disease may receive antipsychotics, for example, due to Parkinson’s disease psychosis. Parkinson’s disease psychosis is characterised by visual hallucinations and other psychotic symptoms. To date, no systematic review has evaluated the effects of antipsychotics in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Therefore, this review aims to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of antipsychotics for Parkinson’s disease.

This is a protocol for a systematic review. A search specialist will perform a search in major medical databases (eg, MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online), EMBASE (Excerpta Medica database), CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials)) and clinical trial registries. Published and unpublished randomised clinical trials comparing antipsychotics to any control (placebo, standard care or other antipsychotics) in patients with Parkinson’s disease will be included. Two review authors will independently extract data and conduct risk of bias assessments with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool—V.2. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and significant falls. Secondary outcomes will be hospitalisations, non-serious adverse events, Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale total score and psychotic symptoms using any valid symptom scale. Data will be synthesised by aggregate meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis and network meta-analysis. Several subgroup analyses are planned. An eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed by GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations) and CiNeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis) approach.

This protocol does not include results, and ethics approval is not required for the project. The findings from the systematic review will be published in international peer-reviewed scientific journals.

PROSPERO ID: CRD42025633985. Available from https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42025633985.

To increase the sustainability of healthcare, clinical trials must assess the environmental impact of interventions alongside clinical outcomes. This should be guided by Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extensions, which will be developed by The Implementing Climate and Environmental Outcomes in Trials Group. The objective of the scoping review is to describe the existing methods for reporting and measuring environmental outcomes in randomised trials. The results will be used to inform the future development of the SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions on environmental outcomes (SPIRIT-ICE and CONSORT-ICE).

This protocol outlines the methodology for a scoping review, which will be conducted in two distinct sections: (1) identifying any existing guidelines, reviews or methodological studies describing environmental impacts of interventions and (2) identifying how environmental outcomes are reported in randomised trial protocols and trial results. A search specialist will search major medical databases, reference lists of trial publications and clinical trial registries to identify relevant publications. Data from the included studies will be extracted independently by two review authors. Based on the results, a preliminary list of items for the SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions will be developed.

This study does not include any human participants, and ethics approval is not required according to the Declaration of Helsinki. The findings from the scoping review will be published in international peer-reviewed journals, and the findings will be used to inform the design of a Delphi survey of relevant stakeholders.

Registered with Open Science 28 of February 2025.

The WHO has declared climate change the defining public health challenge of the 21st century. Incorporating climate and environmental outcomes in randomised trials is essential for enhancing healthcare treatments’ sustainability and safeguarding global health. To implement such outcomes, it is necessary to establish a framework for unbiased and transparent planning and reporting. We aim to develop extensions to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT 2025) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT 2025) statements by introducing guidelines for reporting climate and environmental outcomes.

This is a protocol for SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions on reporting climate and environmental outcomes in randomised trials termed SPIRIT-Implementing Climate and Environmental (ICE) and CONSORT-ICE. The development of the extensions will consist of five phases: phase 1—project launch, phase 2—review of the literature, phase 3—Delphi survey, phase 4—consensus meeting and phase 5—dissemination and implementation. The phases are expected to overlap. The SPIRIT-ICE and CONSORT-ICE extensions will be developed in parallel. The extensions will guide researchers on how and what to report when assessing climate and environmental outcomes.

The protocol was submitted to the Danish Research Ethics Committees, Denmark in June 2025. Ethics approval is expected in September 2025. The SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions will be published in international peer-reviewed journals.

This study aimed to analyse the number of myocardial infarction (MI) admissions during the COVID-19 lockdown periods of 2020 and 2021 (March 15th to June 15th) and compare them with corresponding pre-pandemic period in 2019. The study also evaluated changes in critical treatment intervals: onset to door (O2D), door to balloon (D2B) and door to needle (D2N) and assessed 30-day clinical outcomes. This study examined MI care trends in India during the COVID-19 lockdown period, irrespective of patients’ COVID-19 infection status.

Multicentre retrospective cohort study

Twenty-three public and private hospitals across multiple Indian states, all with 24/7 interventional cardiology facilities.

All adults (>18 years) admitted with acute myocardial infarction between March 15 and June 15 in 2019 (pre-pandemic), 2020 (first lockdown) and 2021 (second lockdown). A total of 3614 cases were analysed after excluding duplicates and incomplete data.

Number of MI admissions, median O2D, D2B and D2N times.

30-day outcomes including death, reinfarction and revascularisation.

MI admissions dropped from 4470 in year 2019 to 2131 (2020) and 1483 (2021). The median O2D increased from 200 min (IQR 115–428) pre-COVID-19 to 390 min (IQR 165–796) in 2020 and 304 min (IQR 135–780) in 2021. The median D2B time reduced from 225 min (IQR 120–420) in 2019 to 100 min (IQR 53–510) in 2020 and 130 min (IQR 60–704) in 2021. Similarly, D2N time decreased from 240 min (IQR 120–840) to 35 min (IQR 25–69) and 45 min (IQR 24–75), respectively. The 30-day outcome of death, reinfarction and revascularisation was 4.25% in 2020 and 5.1% in 2021, comparable to 5.8% reported in the Acute Coronary Syndrome Quality Improvement in Kerala study.

Despite the expansion of catheterisation facilities across India, the country continues to fall short of achieving international benchmarks for optimal MI care.

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.

There are estimated to be 3.4 million patients in the UK living after a diagnosis of cancer. We know very little about their quality of life or healthcare usage. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are tools which help to translate a patient’s quality of life into measurable categories, but how to do this at scale remains underexplored. The study employs a randomised design to assess different engagement strategies for optimising participation, data linkage and questionnaire completion in Northwest London and then nationally, with appropriate research approvals.

We have designed and implemented an online, patient-completed, randomised observational trial. We will pilot it in Northwest London before national roll-out, using initially the General Practice (GP) record of a cancer diagnosis and then exploring the use of social media. The primary objective is to explore the feasibility of recruiting participants via self-identification or contact from the primary care research network and obtaining consent to link participants’ PROMs responses to their cancer registry records. Data collection occurs through a secure platform, with participants directly responsible for data entry. There is no formal target sample size because this is a feasibility study, and we want to explore how many patients we can recruit. Analyses will be conducted using descriptive statistics, repeated measures multilevel modelling and machine learning techniques. If a substantial difference in responses between randomisation arms is detected, ineffective strategies will be removed. If no clear difference is observed, recruitment will continue with periodic reviews based on response rates and data completeness.

The Study Coordination Centre has obtained approval from the London—Surrey Research Ethics Committee and Health Research Authority. We will publish and disseminate the results in local, national and international meetings, in peer-reviewed journals, on social media and on websites.

It has been registered under ‘Investigating Digital Outcomes for Cancer Survivors in the Community’ (NCT06095024).

NCT06095024: Investigating Digital Outcomes for Cancer Survivors in the Community.

Ischaemia reperfusion injury (IRI) is inevitable in kidney transplantation and negatively affects patient and graft outcomes. Anaesthetic conditioning (AC) refers to the use of anaesthetic agents to mitigate IRI. AC is particularly associated with volatile anaesthetic (VA) agents and to a lesser extent to intravenous agents like propofol. VA like sevoflurane interferes with many of the processes underlying IRI and exerts renal protective properties in various models of injury and inflammation. We hypothesise that a sevoflurane-based anaesthesia is able to induce AC and thereby reduce post-transplant renal injury, reflected in improved graft and patient outcome, compared with a propofol-based anaesthesia in transplant recipients of a deceased donor kidney.

Investigator-initiated, multicentre, randomised, controlled and prospective clinical trial with two parallel groups. The study will include 488 kidney transplant recipients from donation after brain death (DBD) or donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors. Participants are randomised in a 1:1 design to a sevoflurane (intervention) or propofol (control) group. The primary endpoint is the incidence of delayed graft function in recipients of DCD and DBD donor kidneys and/or 1-year biopsy-proven and treated acute rejection. Secondary endpoints include functional delayed graft function defined as failure of serum creatinine levels to decrease by at least 10% per day for three consecutive days; primary non-function is defined as a permanent lack of function of the allograft; length of hospital stay and postoperative complications of all kinds, estimated glomerular filtration rate at 1 week and 3 and 12 months calculated with the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) formula; readmissions at 3 and 12 months, graft survival and all-cause mortality at 12 months.

The study is approved by the local ethical committees and national data security agencies. Results are expected to be published in 2025.

NCT02727296.

Acute abdominal pain is a chief complaint in emergency departments and represents 7%–10% of emergency room (ER) visits. Acute appendicitis represents 15% of the causes of abdominal pain and 62% of the causes that require surgical treatment. Opioid analgesia has been evaluated in clinical trials, and they have determined it does not impact diagnostic accuracy. Despite evidence, withholding analgesia is still a common practice. Pain severely impacts quality of life and analgesia has become essential in humanised medicine. We aim to determine the safety and effectiveness of different opioid regimens for adult patients that present to the ER with acute suspected appendicitis.

We will search MEDLINE and Embase via Ovid, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials without restrictions on the study publication date. Screening, extraction and risk of bias assessment will be performed in duplicate. We will use the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. We will perform both pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) if transitivity and coherence principles are met. Heterogeneity will be evaluated using the I² and ² and using the thresholds recommended by Cochrane. We will perform sensitivity analysis based on the pre-established potential effect modifiers, risk of bias and data that required transformation or imputation. Publication bias will be addressed by using funnel plots on a pairwise level. We will assess the strength of the body of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach (GRADE) per outcome, and evidence from the NMA will be assessed using the GRADE approach for NMA.

Approval by an ethics committee is not required for this study since no personal information will be handled. Information will be disseminated by publication on a peer-reviewed journal.

CRD42024583804.

Exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can lead to reduced lung function and worse clinical outcomes. Previous studies have reported associations between severe exacerbations and increased risk of hospitalisation and/or mortality. This meta-analysis examined the impact of moderate exacerbations on the risk of future exacerbations and all-cause mortality.

This meta-analysis included seven observational studies from the EXACOS (EXAcerbations of COPD and their OutcomeS)/AVOIDEX (Impact of AVOIDing EXacerbations of COPD) programme studies.

This meta-analysis used data from regional claims databases or electronic healthcare records from seven countries.

The individual studies included patients with a diagnosis of COPD and ≥12 months of data availability before (regarded as baseline) and after the index (ie, the date of the first COPD diagnosis), with postindex data considered the follow-up period.

The number of COPD exacerbations experienced during the baseline period (ie, the exposure variable) was used to categorise patients into the following groups: no exacerbations, one moderate exacerbation only or two or more moderate/severe exacerbations. Outcomes assessed included risk of COPD exacerbations and all-cause mortality during follow-up as a function of baseline exacerbations. For meta-analyses, all rate ratios (RRs) were log-transformed, and associations were pooled across studies using random-effects meta-analysis models.

Among 2 733 162 patients with COPD, one moderate exacerbation was significantly associated with a twofold increased risk of future exacerbations compared with having no exacerbations during baseline, with pooled RRs (95% CIs) of 2.47 (1.47 to 4.14) at 1 year, 2.49 (1.38 to 4.49) at 2 years and 2.38 (1.30 to 4.34) at 3 years postindex. The pooled RR (95% CI) for all-cause mortality was 1.30 (1.05 to 1.62), indicating a 30% increase in risk following one moderate exacerbation versus no exacerbations.

Preventing moderate exacerbations in patients with COPD should be a priority that may improve patient trajectories and outcomes.

Using the community-based participatory research (CBPR) methodology, sustained peer group treatment has effectively improved medication adherence. Although many studies investigate the effectiveness of peer group therapy, there is a lack of evidence addressing the cost-effectiveness of CBPR models in low- and middle-income countries. This protocol outlines the methods for the economic evaluation of the PArticipatory Research model for medicaTIon adherenCe In People with diAbetes and hyperTEnsion (PARTICIPATE) trial to determine whether the CBPR approach to enhance medication adherence among patients with diabetes and/or hypertension is cost-effective in India.

A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) from a societal perspective will be conducted alongside a multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial to identify, measure and evaluate the key resource and outcome impacts of a CBPR model compared with usual care aimed at improving medication adherence in adult rural Indian patients with diabetes and/or hypertension. The CEA will provide results in terms of the cost per improvement in medication adherence score, and a cost-utility analysis (CUA) will express the findings as the cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) or quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Intervention costs and effects will be projected for the population of Indian adults with diabetes and/or hypertension who are on medication, analysed over the cohort’s lifetime. Results from the modelled CUA will detail incremental costs, costs per death averted and costs per DALY averted/QALY gained for the interventions relative to the comparator. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios will be computed by dividing the cost difference between the intervention and comparator by the difference in benefits. Health economic evaluation methods, including a lifetime horizon, a 3% discount rate for costs and benefits and a societal perspective, will be followed. The effects of sampling uncertainty on estimated incremental costs and effectiveness parameters, as well as the influence of methodological assumptions (such as the discount rate and study perspective), will be examined through both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Relevant differences in costs, outcomes or cost-effectiveness disparities among subgroups of patients with varying baseline characteristics will also be reported. Results will be illustrated using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves across a range of willingness-to-pay thresholds. Modelled CUA will broaden the target population and time frame to offer decision-makers insights into the cost-effectiveness of the CBPR approach for enhancing medication adherence. Furthermore, a return on investment analysis will be performed to express benefits in monetary terms relative to investments made, allowing for a comprehensive expression of both costs and the full spectrum of intervention benefits in monetary units.

The Institutional Ethics Committee of Sri Aurobindo Medical College and PGI, Indore, provided ethics approval. The results of the main trial and economic evaluation will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated through reports to Indian Council of Medical Research and conference presentations.

Clinical Trial Registry of India (CTRI) CTRI/2024/01/061939.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide. Despite the organised CRC screening programme, the uptake rate of the population-based CRC screening was still low. Thus, we will conduct a randomised controlled trial in a community setting to evaluate the effectiveness of a theory-based chatbot in promoting CRC screening uptake.

A total of 500 eligible participants will be randomly assigned to a WhatsApp Messenger-initiated chatbot outreach group or a standard text reminder group at a ratio of 1:1. The intervention group will deliver Chinese culturally tailored education texts and videos developed based on the Health Belief Model and the Trans-Theoretical Model. The control group will deliver a standard text reminder of information about the Hong Kong organised CRC screening programme. In addition to the baseline assessment and postintervention assessment, all subjects will be followed up for 3 months and 6 months, respectively. The primary outcome will be the CRC screening uptake rate at the 3 month and 6 month follow-up. The secondary outcomes will be the intention to undergo CRC screening uptake, time interval to participate in and complete screening after recruitment, and reasons for not participating in screening at the 3 month and 6 month follow-up. Quantitative data will be analysed using Student’s t-test, Pearson’s ² test or Fisher’s exact test. Qualitative data will be analysed by thematic analysis.

Ethical approval of this trial was granted by the Joint Chinese University of Hong Kong-New Territories East Cluster Clinical Research Ethics Committee (2022.614). Written informed consent will be obtained from study participants before enrolment. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals.

The study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT06192862).

This study explored the knowledge and awareness of Dutch patients, healthcare professionals (HCPs) and healthcare insurers on the climate impact of inhalers as well as (factors influencing) their attitude towards climate-friendly inhaler prescription.

We recruited participants for this qualitative study with purposive sampling. We conducted four online focus groups with patients, six with HCPs and two interviews with healthcare insurer representatives. Determinants were analysed with the Framework Approach.

21 patients, 27 HCPs and two healthcare insurer representatives.

Knowledge and awareness on the climate impact of inhalers varied and was generally lower among patients and healthcare insurers than among HCPs. The attitude towards climate-friendly inhaler prescription was variable among patients and mainly positive among HCPs. Both patients and HCPs assigned a greater role to HCPs than to patients in considering climate impact and agreed that patients’ interest must remain paramount. Factors influencing implementation were mainly related to outcome expectancies, such as expected effect on freedom of choice, expected response of patients and expected effect on patients’ health. The latter is partly influenced by beliefs about different types of inhalers. HCPs expressed a need for information and training on the topic and for collaboration with other stakeholders in the field of pulmonary care. Healthcare insurers assign themselves a role in a more climate-friendly healthcare but are reluctant to direct the preference policy on climate impact.

Both patients and HCPs feel climate-friendly inhaler prescription is important. Implementation can be promoted by enhancing awareness and providing HCPs with information on inhaler climate impact, how to safely practice climate-friendly prescription and how to inform patients about its benefits. Both patients and HCPs emphasise the significance of preserving freedom of choice in prescription and highlight the need for a consensus approach on climate-friendly prescribing endorsed by all pulmonary care stakeholders.

Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are highly prevalent and pose a significant burden among older adults. Accurate diagnosis in this population is challenging due to the high prevalence of pre-existing lower urinary tract symptoms, inability to express symptoms and asymptomatic bacteriuria. Current diagnostic tests are unreliable, often resulting in over- and underdiagnosis. A previous pilot study proposed a higher cut-off for pyuria and identified five promising biomarkers for the diagnosis of UTIs in older adults. The UTI-GOLD study aims to validate these five new biomarkers and the higher leucocyte cut-off as a diagnostic tool for UTIs in older people in a real-world setting.

Between August 2024 and December 2027, an observational multicentre diagnostic accuracy study is being conducted across primary, secondary and tertiary healthcare facilities in the Netherlands and the UK. Adults ≥65 years with a suspected UTI will be considered eligible. Patients with pre-existing decision-making incapacity or an indwelling catheter will be excluded. UTI will be defined according to an international consensus-based reference standard. Biomarkers will be measured by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin, tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase 2 and CXC motif chemokine ligand 9) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (interleukin 6 and azurocidin). Pyuria will be quantified by automated microscopy and/or flow cytometry. Diagnostic accuracy measures will be calculated using the receiver operating characteristic curves, and sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios and predictive values will be reported for optimal cut-offs.

The protocol was reviewed by the local Leiden University Medical Center research committee, who declared on 15 April 2024 that the medical research involving human subject act (Dutch abbreviation: WMO) does not apply to the current study (reference number nWMODIV2_2024025). The study also received approval from the NHS Research Ethics Committee in the UK (reference number 24/LO/0649).

The study findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at academic congresses and shared with healthcare providers.

The study was registered at clinicaltrial.gov on the 24 September 2024 with registration number: NCT06610721.

To explore facilitators and barriers in the financial model of hospitals when a change in a care pathway is implemented.

A qualitative research reported according to the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research.

Five hospitals in the Netherlands, between February and September 2023.

28 interviewees with 7 different stakeholders: (director of) healthcare procurement, contracting manager, financial, business or project manager, physical therapist, board of Medical Consultant Group and surgeon.

The absence of permanent funding in the hospital reimbursement model and the allocation of available resources in the internal hospital distribution model are the two most important barriers when implementing prehabilitation for patients with colorectal cancer. The main facilitator was found to be the internal provision of spare budget. Lump sum agreements are the preferred contract type because they may facilitate internal substitution of budgets according to need. Bundling primary and hospital care funding is recommended to overcome barriers in the financial model. Activity-based budgeting is the preferred budgeting method because budgets can be adjusted over time according to costs. Cost reduction can only be achieved when prehabilitation is offered to more patients. In addition to an appropriate financial model, preconditions like the involvement of a medical specialist and sense of urgency in the organisation should also be arranged.

The financial model of hospitals may affect the implementation of changes in care pathways. Despite barriers in both the reimbursement and the distribution model, it is possible to facilitate this transformation.

Mental health problems are important causes of disability and economic costs worldwide. Randomised clinical trials examining the treatment of mental health disorders measure heterogeneous outcomes, causing difficulties in data synthesis, interpretation and translation into clinical practice. The aim of the Patient Important Outcomes in Psychiatry (PIO-Psych) Initiative is to develop an overarching, transdiagnostic research-based and consensus-based core outcome set for adult mental health disorders.

The development of the PIO-Psych transdiagnostic core outcome set will include three phases: (1) a systematic scoping review of the literature to develop the initial list of outcomes for the Delphi study; (2) a Delphi study in three rounds including people with lived experience of mental health disorders and their relatives, clinicians, researchers and others (administrators, mental healthcare policymakers, philosophers); (3) a hybrid consensus meeting to agree on the final overarching, transdiagnostic core outcome set and corresponding time points of assessment of each outcome.

Ethical approval is not applicable to this study according to the Research Ethics Committee of the Capital Region of Denmark, as it is not an interventional study. All data will be reported anonymously, and it will not be possible to identify study participants. Results will be disseminated via stakeholder and research networks and peer-reviewed publications.

The PIO-Psych Initiative was pre-registered with COMET (Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness Trials) on 17 May 2024 (https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/3125).

The AMBulatoRy blOod preSsure In older Adults (AMBROSIA) study cohort was designed to determine whether ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring (ABPM) is useful for identifying older adults with hypertension taking antihypertensive medication who are at increased risk for falls. The association of home BP monitoring (HBPM) with falls was assessed in an ancillary study (AMBROSIA-HOME).

AMBROSIA was a prospective observational study of adults aged 65 years and older taking antihypertensive medication for hypertension. Participants were recruited from Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC), an integrated healthcare delivery system, and enrolled from May 2019 to November 2022. Demographic and clinical characteristics and geriatric assessments were collected over the course of two consecutive study visits. Participants completed a 24-hour ABPM and 1 week of HBPM. Over the following year, falls were assessed using a monthly falls calendar, and serious fall injuries were assessed from the KPSC electronic health record (EHR).

We enrolled 670 participants; 656 completed 24-hour ABPM and 536 also completed HBPM. The mean (SD) age of the AMBROSIA cohort was 75 (6) years, 16% were over 80 years of age and 56% were female. There were 13% non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander, 22% non-Hispanic Black, 18% Hispanic and 44% non-Hispanic White participants. Nearly 72% had mild cognitive impairment, 50% were pre-frail and 4% were frail. Overall, 87% of participants returned all monthly calendars during follow-up.

The AMBROSIA cohort can be updated with longitudinal data from the EHR including antihypertensive medication to explore the relationship of fall risk and white coat effect, defined as the difference between clinic BP and out-of-clinic BP, BP variability over 24 hours and postprandial BP decline with antihypertensive medication intensification during follow-up. Additionally, the cohort can be updated to include outcomes data from the EHR such as cardiovascular events to examine BP phenotypes as potential predictors of cardiovascular events.

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a serious disorder that burdens individuals and society. The current standard of first-line treatment for PTSD is spaced trauma-focused treatment (S-TFT), involving weekly sessions. While effective, S-TFT may take relatively long to complete, especially in patients exposed to multiple potentially traumatic events (PTEs). Massed trauma-focused treatment (M-TFT), involving increased session frequency, potentially results in faster symptom reduction and restoration of quality of life, as well as in a reduction of societal costs. However, M-TFT is not recommended as first-line treatment. This paper describes the research protocol of a single-blind, multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) aimed at investigating: (1) the clinical and cost-effectiveness of M-TFT versus S-TFT in employed, multiply traumatised patients who seek first-line treatment for PTSD and (2) predictive and moderating factors related to treatment response.

186 participants are recruited from five centres and will be included if they are ≥18 years old, meet criteria for a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition PTSD diagnosis based on ≥two PTEs, seek treatment for the first time and are employed. Patients with specified comorbid disorders and insufficient Dutch language proficiency are excluded. Participants are randomised to 800 min of either M-TFT or S-TFT. M-TFT consists of two once-weekly preparatory sessions, 10 twice-daily sessions of prolonged exposure, eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing therapy for 2 weeks and two once-weekly closing sessions. S-TFT consists of weekly sessions of one of five evidence-based treatment interventions. Outcomes are assessed at baseline and at 7 weeks, 17 weeks, 6 months and 9 months after baseline. Primary outcomes are clinical effectiveness in terms of PTSD symptom severity and cost-effectiveness based on quality of life measures and societal costs. Data will be analysed with linear mixed models.

This study protocol was approved by the Medical Ethics Review Board of the Amsterdam University Medical Center (NL86057.018.24). Participants will provide informed consent before enrolment in the trial. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and will be released to clinicians, patient groups and the general community.

This protocol is registered at Overview of Medical Research in the Netherlands (OMON; trial register number 56960) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06700590).

A consensus study to establish a Core Outcome Set for dysarthria after stroke identified four key outcome domains that should be measured in research and clinical practice: (1) intelligibility of speech, (2) ability to participate in conversations, (3) living well with dysarthria and (4) communication partners skills and knowledge (where relevant). This review aimed to systematically identify corresponding measurement instruments and to examine their clinical utility and psychometric properties.

Systematic review conducted in alignment with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycInfo and Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, Linguistics and Language Behavioral Abstracts (LLBA). Major trials registers: WHO ICTRP, ISRCTN registry and ClinicalTrials.gov searched March 2024.

We included trials that developed or used measurement instruments for poststroke dysarthria. We identified studies that could be included in an update of the Cochrane systematic review of interventions for non-progressive dysarthria to identify what measurement instruments were used in therapy trials for poststroke dysarthria.

Records were screened independently by three authors. Psychometric data were extracted, by two authors, from included studies and methodological quality was evaluated using Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) and Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) guidance. Assessment of clinical utility followed Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) guidance.

Following screening, 19 publications reporting 12 measurement instruments were identified. According to COSMIN standards, all 19 publications were rated as having low, very low or unknown quality of evidence. Three measurement instruments were identified as having the most relevant clinical utility to the population, the highest quality of evidence and had the potential to measure some specific aspects from three of the four agreed domains, intelligibility, conversations and living well with dysarthria from the patient and clinician perspective. These were the Frenchay Dysarthria Assessment II, the Communication Outcomes After Stroke Scale and the Therapy Outcome Measures for Dysarthria.

This review provides a comprehensive overview and appraisal of dysarthria measurement instruments to align with a Core Outcome Set. We only included English language-based measurement instruments. Many dysarthria measurement instruments were developed for non-stroke populations, including progressive dysarthria, with limited psychometric data for stroke. Measurement instruments with uncertain quality of evidence can still be considered for inclusion with a Core Outcome Set and three have been suggested. There is a need for further psychometric testing of these and the development of new measurement instruments to cover all aspects of intelligibility, conversations, living well with dysarthria and communication partner skills.

CRD42022302998.

Providing support to second victims in workplaces is crucial for maintaining high-quality performance. Peer support approach has proven to be one of the most effective and well-accepted approaches. However, the specific competencies required for peer supporters remain unclear. This review aims to address this gap by identifying and categorising these competencies.

This scoping review examines the competencies (skills, attitudes and knowledge) needed to support workers where the pressure of their roles may lead to errors that could cause harm to others. In such situations, these individuals may experience intense feelings of responsibility, potentially impacting their ability to perform their duties. In the healthcare sector, these workers are commonly referred to as ‘second victims’.

This review includes studies that define the competencies necessary for peer supporters assisting second victims in any industry. It covers all professional roles susceptible to human errors affecting people’s well-being. The focus is on peer support and psychological first aid, encompassing relevant competencies, attitudes and knowledge for addressing safety-related incidents and workplace errors.

The scoping review was conducted following Arksey and O’Malley’s framework and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Studies were identified through a comprehensive search of databases, including Embase, ProQuest, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science. References from eligible studies were also considered.

Data were extracted and categorised into competency domains through a standardised process. Two reviewers independently performed data extraction, with discrepancies resolved by consensus.

A total of 34 studies were included in the review. Across five identified domains, 91 specific and 30 general competencies were categorised. Additionally, the review identified 29 types of peer-based interventions designed to support professionals following incidents or stressful situations.

The findings underscore the need for well-defined competencies for peer supporters of second victims, emphasising training in communication, emotional support and role-specific knowledge. Tailoring peer support programmes to the professional context and industry-specific characteristics is essential for providing effective assistance.