Neutropenic fever (NF) has a crude mortality rate of 3–18%. International guidelines recommend that all patients with NF receive ultrabroad-spectrum antibiotics (UBSAs) within 1 hour of emergency department (ED) registration. However, over 70% patients presenting to hospital with suspected NF (sNF) cannot access absolute neutrophil count (ANC) result within 1 hour, do not have NF and do not require UBSAs. In ED and hospitalised patients with sNF, we hypothesise that the ASTERIC protocol effectively and safely reduces the use of UBSAs compared with standard care alone.

This pragmatic, parallel, multicentre, type 1, hybrid effectiveness-implementation, stepped-wedge, before-and-after, cluster randomised controlled trial aims to evaluate whether antibiotic prescribing can be safely reduced through implementing a multifaceted antibiotic stewardship intervention (ASTERIC) in adult patients with sNF presenting to EDs. The sNF was defined as a fever with a single oral temperature of ≥38.3°C (101°F) within 24 hours before ED registration or a temperature of ≥38.0°C (100.4°F) sustained over a 1-hour period, following last chemotherapy or targeted therapy within 6 weeks for any solid tumour, or in any period following therapies against leucaemia, lymphoma, myelodysplastic syndrome, aplastic anaemia, multiple myeloma or recipient of HSCT. The study will involve eight hospitals in Hong Kong with variable baseline practice. We will include 704 adult patients (352 patients in pre-implementation and post-implementation periods, respectively) with sNF (tympanic temperature ≥38.3°C) and 48 staff participants (6 staff participants in each hospital). Healthcare professionals will receive a multifaceted stewardship intervention consisting of risk assessment tools, fast-track ANCs, a decision tool for patient management and antibiotic use, supported by an educational package and staff interaction programmes (ASTERIC protocol). Patients’ blood ANC, and cancer therapy and chronic illness therapy scores will be measured. The RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) and Proctor conceptual frameworks will be followed for evaluation of implementation. The main outcome measures are the mean total dose of UBSAs prescribed in 7 days and serious adverse events at 30 days. Data analysis will incorporate intention-to-treat, per-protocol and as-treated analyses for service outcomes (effectiveness, safety, quality of life assessments and cost-effectiveness) and mixed methods for implementation outcomes, informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework. We expect that the study results will inform health policy with improvement in hospital services in treating stable sNF, evidenced by improved safe antibiotic stewardship, early antibiotic de-escalation and reduced costs and length of stay.

The institutional review boards of all study sites approved this study. This study will establish the ASTERIC protocol safely improves antibiotic stewardship and clinical management in adult patients with sNF. We will disseminate the findings through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and educational activities. All patients with sNF will be influenced by the new protocol which is agreed at hospital level. Randomisation is at hospital level, not patient level. Patient consent is sought for follow-up and data access, not for treatment. Staff consent is sought for interviewing.

NCT06794320.

While loneliness has been recognised as a global public health concern, there are still knowledge gaps about how to prevent or reduce loneliness. The Social Relationship Expectations (SRE) Framework (Akhter-Khan et al, 2023) has been developed to enhance mechanism-based interventions targeting individuals’ expectations for social relationships. However, no scale has yet been developed to measure these expectations. We aim to measure SRE across the six interdependent dimensions identified in the theoretical framework, across diverse settings. This protocol outlines the methodology for developing the SRE scale.

The scale will be developed using both inductive and deductive techniques in a multicountry observational study. First, items will be extracted from published qualitative studies on loneliness and SRE across 15 lower-middle-income countries and from a qualitative focus group study with older Myanmar and Thai adults. Second, using a Delphi process for item development, experts across five world regions (Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe and Oceania) will be involved in the item selection and scale creation process. A preliminary item pool will be administered in English, German and Chinese. Classical test theory as well as network analysis will be used to assess the dimensionality of the scale, understand item relationships and clusters, and select the final items for the SRE scale.

Ethics approval for the scale development has been obtained from King’s College London (reference number: MRSP-24/25-46512). Informed consent will be obtained from all participants prior to completing the cognitive interviews and online surveys. Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals in collaboration with coauthors across different countries and disciplines.

Upper limb motor dysfunction after stroke is a leading cause of disability worldwide, resulting in a significant economic burden on society. Rehabilitation is a key strategy for improving this condition. Although studies have shown that digital mirror therapy and repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation individually provide benefits, the effectiveness of their combination remains unclear. We are conducting a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of combining digital mirror therapy with repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation in treating upper limb motor dysfunction post-stroke, in order to meet the urgent clinical need for more effective treatment options.

This is a single-blind randomised controlled trial. A total of 46 participants will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either the digital mirror therapy combined with repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation group or the repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation group. Both groups will undergo the intervention protocol spanning four consecutive weeks. Assessments will be conducted at baseline and after 4 weeks of treatment. The primary outcome will be evaluated using the Fugl-Meyer Assessment for Upper Extremity score. Secondary outcomes include the Action Research Arm Test, Box and Block Test, Modified Barthel Index, Fugl-Meyer Assessment - Upper Extremity Sensory subscale, Modified Ashworth Scale, as well as pinch strength, grip strength and adverse events. Intention-to-treat analysis will be applied to all data, including missing or dropout data.

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Quanzhou First Hospital on 23 September 2024 (2024K193). The final results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

ChiCTR2400092692.

To systematically review the evidence on the association between non-standard working time arrangements (such as night work or shift work) and the occurrence of safety incidents.

Systematic review conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and using a structured narrative approach and the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis framework to evaluate and summarise findings.

MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science and ProQuest Health and Safety Science Abstracts were searched through February 2024.

We included peer-reviewed English-language studies of paid workers (18–70 years) that examined the association between non-standard working time arrangements and safety incidents (accidents, near-accidents, safety incidents or injuries), excluding cross-sectional designs and studies on unpaid workers, athletes or military personnel.

Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using standardised forms, extracting study characteristics (author, year, country, sector and population), working time arrangements and exposure assessment, outcomes and their assessment, and reported risk estimates. We conducted a narrative synthesis, classifying studies into three exposure contrasts (shift worker versus non-shift worker, time-of-day and shift intensity), and summarised risk estimates using forest plots without calculating pooled effects.

A total of 13 569 records were screened, and 24 studies met the inclusion criteria. The results indicated that shift workers generally had an elevated safety incident risk compared with non-shift workers (risk estimates ranged from 1.11 to 5.33). Most of the included studies found an increased risk of safety incidents during or after night shifts. Accumulated exposure to evening or night shifts increased the risk of safety incidents during the following 7 days. However, bias and heterogeneity across studies in design, populations and outcome measures resulted in an overall low to very low certainty of the evidence.

Non-standard working time arrangements, including night and evening shifts, appear to increase the risk of occupational safety incidents. Despite the low certainty of evidence, the findings highlight a potential area for preventive measures in work scheduling. Future longitudinal studies using individual data on daily working hours are needed.