To develop and user-test a patient decision aid for people diagnosed with degenerative cervical myelopathy and who are considering surgery.

Mixed-methods study describing the development of a patient decision aid.

A draft decision aid was developed by a multidisciplinary steering group (including study authors with degenerative cervical myelopathy, health professionals and researchers) informed by the best available evidence, authorship consensus and existing patient decision aids.

Patient-participants and health professional-participants who manage people with degenerative cervical myelopathy were recruited through social media and the steering group’s research and practice network. Quantitative questionnaires were used to gather baseline data, descriptive feedback, refine the decision aid and assess its acceptability. Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted online to gather feedback on the decision aid and were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

We conducted 32 interviews: 19 patient-participants and 13 health professional-participants who manage people with degenerative cervical myelopathy (neurosurgeons, neurologists, physiotherapists, orthopaedic surgeons, general practitioners, rehabilitation and pain specialists and consultant occupational physicians and chiropractors). Participants were from 10 countries (Australia, Canada, Cyprus, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and USA). Most participants rated the decision aid’s acceptability as good-to-excellent and agreed with most aspects of the decision aid (eg, defining degenerative cervical myelopathy, management recommendations, potential benefits and harms, questions to consider asking a health professional).

Our patient decision aid was rated as an acceptable tool by both health professional-participants who treat degenerative cervical myelopathy and patient-participants with lived experience of degenerative cervical myelopathy. This decision aid can be used by clinicians and people with degenerative cervical myelopathy to help with shared decision making following a diagnosis of degenerative cervical myelopathy. A study testing the potential benefits of this decision aid in a clinical setting is recommended.

Language-concordant care, or healthcare in one’s preferred language, is important both for health equity and for improving health outcomes. Linguistic minorities, like Francophones in Ontario, Canada, are at risk of poorer clinical outcomes if they receive non-language-concordant primary care. However, common ratio-based access measures can provide misleading views of minorities’ actual access levels. This cross-sectional geospatial study demonstrates a new way to measure primary care access using average travel time to the nearest five English- and French-speaking family physicians. We also introduce the concept of primary care access fragility, where a region’s primary care access may depend on one or a few local family physicians. Our research question is: are there differences in travel burden and access fragility for census subdivisions (CSDs) across language (English/French), rurality (urban/rural) and region (north/south) in the province of Ontario, Canada?

We conducted a cross-sectional geospatial analysis to estimate English-language and French-language primary care travel burdens and access fragility in Ontario, Canada. We used population and boundary data from Statistics Canada’s 2021 census, road-network data from OpenStreetMaps, and family physician practice locations and language abilities from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. We measured travel burden using Valhalla, an open-source road-network analysis platform.

We conducted our analysis for Ontario, Canada’s 577 CSDs, which correspond roughly to municipalities and with populations ranging from 5 inhabitants in Rainy Lake 17B to a high of 2 794 356 in Toronto.

Using public data from January 2026, we identified 15 762 family physicians practising in Ontario, of whom 11.0% reported speaking French. Patient data were obtained from the most recent 2021 census.

Our first primary outcome measures were CSD-level mean travel time to the nearest five English-speaking family physicians, and CSD-level mean travel time to the nearest five French-speaking family physicians, which we compared to explore regional inequities in travel burden. Our secondary outcome measures were based on a novel notion of the travel burden component of ‘primary care access fragility’. This metric indicates how dependent a region’s access is on a small number of local physicians and is defined as the difference between the CSD-level mean travel time to the nearest one physician and to the nearest five physicians. As the difference in travel times grows, so too does access fragility.

Median differences in French-language and English-language travel burdens were strongly significant across rurality, regions and overall (median difference 13.4 min, p

Compared with the general public, Ontario’s French-speakers face higher travel burdens to language-concordant family physicians and higher access fragility, especially in rural and northern regions. Our results are of interest to policymakers and health-system planners, and our methods are applicable to other populations and regions.

To develop and evaluate an explainable machine learning framework enhanced with synthetic data generation to predict unplanned 30-day hospital readmissions among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), heart failure (HF) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and to identify key clinical and social predictors of readmission.

A retrospective cohort study using electronic health record data incorporating both structured variables and information extracted from unstructured clinical notes. Synthetic data were generated using advanced resampling and deep learning-based techniques to address outcome imbalance and improve model training.

Intensive care unit and general ward admissions at a single tertiary academic medical centre included in the MIMIC-IV (Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV) database.

Adult patients (≥18 years) were admitted with a primary diagnosis of COPD (n=14 050), HF (n=7097) or T2DM (n=12 735) between 2008 and 2019, with complete 30-day follow-up and no in-hospital mortality during the index admission.

The primary outcome was unplanned all-cause hospital readmission within 30-days of discharge. Predictors were drawn from six domains, including demographics, comorbidities, clinical acuity, therapies, behavioural factors and care continuity. Predictive performance was evaluated using multiple machine learning methods and fivefold cross-validation, with model interpretability assessed using established goal and local explanation approaches.

Ensemble-based machine learning models demonstrated the strongest predictive performance across all three disease cohorts. Key predictors of readmission included higher illness severity, greater comorbidity burden, medication non-adherence, gaps in preventive care and limited social support. Models incorporating synthetic data augmentation showed improved discrimination compared with models trained on original data alone.

An explainable synthetic-data driven framework incorporating clinical, behavioural and social data can support prediction of 30-day readmissions among patients with common chronic conditions using routinely available electronic health record data.

To synthesise the prevalence and patterns of dementia-relevant structural brain MRI abnormalities in adults with suspected or confirmed dementia in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), and to summarise MRI protocols and the incremental diagnostic contribution of MRI beyond cognitive screening.

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and PsycINFO (January 1990–27 January 2025), plus reference list screening and targeted manual searches.

Observational or diagnostic-accuracy studies from World Bank-defined LMICs including adults (≥50 years) with suspected or confirmed dementia who underwent brain MRI as part of diagnostic evaluation.

Two reviewers independently screened, extracted data and assessed risk of bias using ROBINS-I. Random-effects models pooled prevalence of dementia-relevant MRI abnormalities; diagnostic-accuracy outcomes were synthesised narratively due to heterogeneous reference standards and incomplete reporting.

39 LMIC studies were included; 23 studies (2513 participants) contributed to the meta-analysis. Dementia-relevant MRI abnormalities (defined as ≥1 clinically relevant structural abnormality per study definition) were present in 1248/2513 participants. The pooled prevalence of dementia-relevant MRI abnormalities was 58% (95% CI 43% to 72%), with substantial heterogeneity (I²=95%) and a wide prediction interval (8–96%), indicating marked between-study variability; this estimate should be interpreted as a descriptive summary of study-level proportions rather than a precise population parameter.

Brain MRI frequently demonstrates dementia-relevant pathology in LMIC clinical cohorts, usually with mixed neurodegenerative-vascular patterns. Structured visual ratings may add aetiologic specificity beyond cognitive screening, but pooled estimates should be interpreted as summaries of heterogeneous study-level findings rather than precise population parameters, given high heterogeneity and risk of bias.

CRD42024510241.

Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) have become the leading cause of mortality globally, with a sharp rise in Iran due to lifestyle changes and urbanisation. Although many NCD risk factors are modifiable, limited understanding of their determinants hinders effective prevention. To address this, the Prospective Epidemiological Research Studies in Iran (PERSIAN) Cohort was established in 2014 to study NCDs nationwide. The Sabzevar PERSIAN Cohort Study (SPECS) is the first in northeastern Iran, aiming to investigate environmental and social factors influencing NCDs in a unique regional context.

SPECS enrolled 5174 adults (aged 35–70 years) in northeastern Iran between January 2018 and January 2019 through a census and an online registration process. The baseline data collection included demographic verification, informed consent, health questionnaires, anthropometric measurements and biological samples (blood, urine, hair, nails). The annual follow-up began in April 2019, with full reassessments every 5 years over a 15-year period. The data is gathered via an active and passive follow-up, supported by trained staff and registry linkages.

Of the 5174 participants, 4241 (81%) remained in the study. Among the cohort, 54.5% were female, with a mean age of 50.5 years. The majority were married (93.5%), and nearly half had at least high-school education (46.5%) and moderate socioeconomic status (49.4%). Drug abuse history (smoking/drugs) was reported by about 15% of the sample. The mean body mass index was 26.9 kg/m², and the average blood pressure was higher in males (118.1/74.0 mm Hg) than in females (111.5/70.2 mm Hg). The common conditions included hypertension (22.8%), kidney stones (22.4%), fatty liver (15.4%) and diabetes (13.8%). Cancer had the highest treatment rate (100%), while fatty liver had the lowest (70.1%). Stroke had the highest mean age of onset (51.2 years), and epilepsy the lowest (23.7 years). All health data were self-reported.

SPECS, part of the national PERSIAN cohort initiative, is the only adult NCD-focused study in Khorasan Razavi. Its 15-year follow-up aims to generate region-specific insights into the incidence of NCDs and their risk factors. The ethnically homogeneous sample enhances statistical power, and the findings may inform culturally tailored health policies. While self-reported data have limitations due to bias, high initial participation and access to free healthcare support long-term engagement, especially among lower-income groups.

Socioeconomic inequalities in neonatal mortality are observed globally but gaps remain in the evidence from current reviews, specifically: a wider range of socioeconomic indicators at the individual, household and area level than previous reviews, and alternative time frames to define neonatal mortality. Thus, a comprehensive updated review of the literature is required, focusing on multiple measures of socioeconomic status and alternative time frames, to assess the relationship between maternal socioeconomic status and neonatal mortality in high-income countries.

Three different search approaches will be used: electronic searching of three databases, grey literature searching and reference list checking. First, the three databases Medline, Scopus and Web of Science will be searched using relevant synonyms and adapted terms from medical subject heading terms (MeSH) in Medline for maternal socioeconomic status and neonatal mortality identified from previous systematic reviews on inequalities in adverse pregnancy outcomes. Second, grey literature will be searched by entering the relevant terms into Google. Title, abstract and full text screening will be conducted by the review team against the inclusion and exclusion criteria, with at least 10% checked by a second reviewer to assess for any bias and errors. We will also conduct the kappa statistic for inter-rater reliability. Third, the reference lists of included studies will be reviewed for any additional studies that meet the criteria. Data will be extracted using a data extraction form and extracted studies will be assessed using the Liverpool Quality Assessment Tool. A narrative synthesis will be conducted and, where appropriate, meta-analysis will be performed. If the data allow, subgroup analysis by neonatal care population and specific gestational ages will be performed.

Ethical approval is not required as all studies in this systematic review will be publicly available. The findings of this review will be presented at conferences and disseminated in peer-reviewed publications.

CRD42022315407.

The clinical practicum is a critical component of nursing education. In Spain, it is currently facing systemic challenges that compromise its quality and sustainability. A persistent nursing shortage, combined with increasing pressure on healthcare systems and a growing number of students intended to address this gap, is adding strain to clinical learning environments, which may compromise the capacity of nurses to provide adequate supervision and meaningful learning experiences for nursing students. This not only diminishes the quality of the training experiences, but also negatively affects the well-being of both students and nurses, further worsening the situation. This protocol outlines a study aimed at conducting an in-depth analysis of the current challenges affecting the clinical practicum and proposing a new model that effectively addresses them, with significant potential for adaptation and implementation across different health education fields and geographical locations.

The study will employ a sequential mixed-methods design comprising two integrated phases. In phase I, quantitative, qualitative and scoping review methodologies will be combined to identify current challenges and opportunities. Quantitative data will be obtained by administering questionnaires to nursing students and clinical mentors (CMs) tutoring them in Catalonia, examining potential barriers and facilitators to their mentoring role. Data will be analysed through descriptive and inferential statistics. Qualitative data will emerge from semistructured interviews with CMs and nurse coordinators, as well as from a visual elicitation technique, the ‘Emojional’ Calendar, conducted with students to understand their clinical practicum experiences. These will be analysed through an inductive thematic analysis approach. The scoping review, following the Arksey and O’Malley framework, will identify best practices in clinical practicums in nursing and other health studies globally. Phase II will involve a three-round qualitative Delphi study in which all preceding results will be presented to stakeholders and decision makers in order to redesign the clinical practicum model.

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from Hospital del Mar Clinical Research Ethics Committee (Ref #2023/11123). Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations, as well as via strategic actions (forums and meetings with healthcare managers, deans and policymakers) and general outreach (talks, social media and websites) targeted at professionals, students and the public.

Well-being of healthcare professionals (HCPs) is vital for care quality, staff retention and overall healthcare system effectiveness. This study aims to identify the organisational and workplace variables associated with sick leave and measures of engagement of HCPs on department level within a single Dutch academic hospital.

Cross-sectional study using routinely collected organisational data.

A tertiary-care academic hospital in the Netherlands.

25 clinical departments were included. Department level variables were derived from routinely collected hospital databases. Availability of data varied across variables. Analysis included information on patient population, human resources, care processes, quality of care and employee and patient experiences to assess differences, correlations and predictors for sick leave and engagement.

Primary outcome measures were (1) sick leave (%) and (2) engagement, assessed through two staff-survey items (vitality and connectedness; 0–10 Numeric Rating Scale). Both outcomes were analysed at department level.

Employee population data showed the most consistent patterns across analyses. Departments with higher staffing capacity had higher sick leave and lower engagement in group comparisons (p=0.009, p=0.030, respectively). In multivariable models, higher staffing capacity remained associated with increased sick leave (B=1.38, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.23, p=0.003). Engagement was positively associated with higher inflow (B=0.92, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.77, p=0.037) and negatively associated with outflow (B = –1.36, 95% CI –2.08 to –0.63, p=0.001). No consistent associations were found with patient population and patient experience measures.

Workforce-related factors, particularly staffing capacity and inflow and outflow, are strongly linked to sick leave and engagement. Routinely collected hospital data can be used to identify at-risk departments and inform targeted strategies for improving workforce sustainability. Future studies should explore more granular, team-level data to better support staff well-being and care quality.

Settings with insufficient human resources struggle to provide timely eye care services and information to the population. mHealth (mobile healthcare) is a promising solution; however, evidence on the effectiveness of interactive voice response (IVR) and real-time phone-based education remains scarce, despite their potential to be scalable and cost-effective. This study aims to implement the Virtual Baithak, an interactive mHealth platform, to improve eye-health literacy among older adults residing in rural India. The objectives are to (1) Develop and validate the Virtual Baithak for improving vision health and (2) Determine its effectiveness, feasibility and acceptability among the older adults.

This 3-armed, parallel, randomised controlled trial of 14 months duration will enrol 381 older adults (aged 60 years and above). Participants will be blinded and randomly (computer-generated) assigned to either of the three groups based on the intervention for eye-health education they receive: both IVR and group calls moderated by a healthcare professional, only IVR and usual care. The two intervention arms will receive the information weekly over a 3-month period through the Virtual Baithak platform, which will be designed for this study using a participatory research approach to develop the content. The primary study outcomes are digital health literacy and vision health knowledge scores, measured at baseline and 14 months. The secondary outcomes include m-health technology acceptance and usage practices. A mixed-method process evaluation will be conducted to assess the intervention feasibility and implementation, including in-depth interviews with participants. The qualitative data will be thematically analysed to explore factors that promote or restrain the implementation. The inferential statistical quantitative analysis will be performed using linear mixed models.

The study has been approved by the ‘Institute Ethics Committee,’ PGIMER, Chandigarh, India (PGI/IEC/2022/EIC000282 dated 18 February 2022). The results will be disseminated via presentations and/or publications at the national and international levels.

CTRI/2023/02/049383, dated 1 February 2023.

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.

Survival outcomes for early-stage breast cancer have improved substantially; however, many survivors experience persistent treatment-related toxicities that adversely affect long-term quality of life (QoL) and functional recovery. Prospective survivorship data from China remain limited. The PERSEVERE study aims to characterise longitudinal trajectories of QoL and treatment-related toxicities among Chinese women treated for stage I–III breast cancer and to identify factors associated with suboptimal recovery.

PERSEVERE is a prospective, multicentre, observational cohort study enrolling approximately 3000 women with newly diagnosed stage I–III invasive breast cancer across cancer centres in China. Data are collected at baseline and serially for up to 5 years, including clinical variables, a validated suite of patient-reported outcome measures collected via a centralised REDCap electronic platform and baseline biospecimens. The primary outcome is the change in the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 global health status/QoL score from baseline to 12 months. Longitudinal and time-to-event analytical approaches appropriate for observational cohort studies will be applied, with exploratory analyses planned to investigate symptom trajectories and biological correlates.

The study protocol (ID: NCC25/629-5575) has been approved by the Independent Ethics Committee of the National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences. Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants. Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed open-access publications and presentations at national and international conferences, with summaries shared with clinicians and patient advocacy groups.

NCT07010939.

Patient decision aids (PtDAs) are effective interventions to support patient involvement in health decisions and have the potential to impact favourably on health inequities by reducing gender bias in clinical practice. The aim was to explore sex and gender reporting and differences in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating PtDAs for adults making treatment or screening decisions.

Secondary analysis of the Cochrane review of PtDAs of RCTs that reported sex and/or gender. The original review searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO and EBSCO from journal inception to March 2022. Two team members independently screened citations, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. For this secondary analysis, we only included primary outcomes from the original review. We assessed appropriate use of terminology for sex (biological attribute) and gender (social construct). When terms were used interchangeably, it was considered inaccurate. Findings were synthesised descriptively, and we used meta-analysis when two or more RCTs were conducted with females/women or males/men using similar outcome measures.

Informed values-choice congruence and the quality of the decision-making process (eg, knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision making, undecided) and adverse events (eg, decision regret, emotional distress) by sex and gender.

Of 209 RCTs in the original review, 206 reported sex and/or gender, with 35 (17%) using accurate terminology. Of 206 RCTs, 70 were with females/women only, 27 males/men only, 12 analysed by sex/gender and 97 RCTs did not disaggregate findings by sex or gender. Meta-analysis comparing RCTs for females/women to usual care and RCTs for males/men only compared with usual care showed similar mean differences in knowledge scores (10.84 vs 9.38 out of 100; p=0.44). Males/men had significantly higher self-reported participation in decision making compared with females/women (RR 3.16 vs 0.95; p

In PtDA RCTs, sex and gender terms are used interchangeably and 6% analysed outcomes by sex or gender. Meta-analysis of males/men only given PtDAs showed higher self-reported decision making participation in clinical practice compared to usual care versus females/women only compared with usual care. Researchers must improve reporting sex and gender in PtDA RCTs to assess how it influences health inequities.

Previous studies have suggested an association between childhood obesity and musculoskeletal problems,2 but the evidence is limited due to a lack of participant diversity and unexplained confounding factors. To address this gap, Firman et al1 conducted a cohort study in primary care to assess whether children living with...

The visibility and acceptance of transgender identities have increased, leading to more young individuals questioning their gender or identifying as transgender.1 This shift is reflected in the rise in referrals to specialist gender services, presenting challenges for healthcare systems.1 Gender dysphoria, defined as the psychological...

Elderly patients, defined as adults aged 65 years and above, represent a growing segment of the surgical population.1 Despite numerous advances in surgical techniques and postoperative care, elderly patients face unique physical and psychological challenges that can exacerbate their risk of poor clinical outcomes.2 The recent study by Kata et al explores...

Understanding the quality of published research is essential for nurses, educators and healthcare researchers striving to implement evidence-based practice. However, ‘quality assessment’ can seem abstract or overly technical, primarily for those new to research appraisal. In an era where clinical decisions and policy recommendations are increasingly data-driven, evaluating the methodological rigour of quantitative studies is more critical than ever.1

High-quality research provides trustworthy, valid and ethically sound conclusions. In contrast, poorly conducted studies can lead to misguided clinical decisions, suboptimal patient care and inefficient resource use.2 This article clarifies quality assessment in quantitative nursing research, introduces common appraisal tools, outlines key domains and provides guidance for interpreting study quality confidently.

Quality assessment involves evaluating a study’s design, methodology and reporting to determine its risk of bias and trustworthiness.3 This process typically follows literature...