Heart failure (HF) is associated with complex symptoms and frequent hospitalisation that reduce patients’ quality of life (QoL). This study aims to assess the association between angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) use and changes in QoL and disease-related outcomes among patients with HF in Jordan.

Prospective observational cohort study.

The study was conducted among patients with HF attending the outpatient cardiology clinics at Jordan University Hospital, a tertiary care centre in Amman, Jordan. Patients either initiated on ARNI or receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) were included in the study at a 1:2 ratio. All participants were followed up for up to 1 year after recruitment. The study period was from 4 February 2024 to 29 May 2025.

Data on QoL, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were collected at baseline and after 3 months of treatment. Hospitalisation data were collected for the preceding year and the year following participants’ recruitment. Medication adherence and ARNI side effects were assessed after 3-month of follow-up period.

A total of 227 patients with HF were included; 74 were initiated on ARNI, and 153 were receiving ACEIs/ARBs. At baseline, significantly lower QoL scores and LVEF were observed in the ARNI group compared with the ACEIs/ARBs group. After 3-month, the ARNI group showed improvements in all QoL scores, NYHA functional class and LVEF (p

ARNI use was associated with favourable QoL, NYHA class, and LVEF as well as lower hospitalisation rates among patients with HF in Jordan. The safety profile was consistent with previous studies.

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a life-shortening genetic disorder traditionally mischaracterised as affecting only populations of European descent. This framing has contributed to under-recognition of CF in African populations, despite emerging evidence of both common and region-specific cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator mutations across the continent. Diagnostic barriers, structural inequities and lack of surveillance further exacerbate disparities in care and visibility.

This scoping review aims to characterise CF in African populations by synthesising evidence on clinical presentation, diagnostic practices, genotypic diversity, prevalence and structural barriers to care. We will include case reports, cohort studies, registry analyses and other primary data sources involving individuals of African descent with suspected or confirmed CF. Key outcomes include clinical phenotype, age at diagnosis, mutation profile, diagnostic testing access and mortality. Data sources include Ovid Medline, Embase, Ebsco Global Health, CAB Abstracts and Web of Science Core Collection. Multiple-reviewer screening and extraction will be conducted. We will use narrative synthesis, thematic analysis and meta-analysis for prevalence where feasible.

No ethical approval is required as the review uses published data. Results will be shared with clinicians, researchers and CF networks in Africa and globally to inform diagnostic strategies and policy.

Nigeria has the highest number of maternal deaths globally, and maternal peripartum sepsis is one of the leading causes of maternal mortality. A single oral dose of azithromycin (AZM; 2 g) is safe and effectively reduces 33%–60% of maternal sepsis during planned vaginal birth in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, the clinical and cost-effectiveness of oral AZM during vaginal birth in Nigeria remains unknown in the context of poor antimicrobial stewardship practices, significant antimicrobial resistance and healthcare financing. Evidence is also lacking on the standard care for the prevention of maternal sepsis among pregnant women undergoing vaginal births in Nigeria. The AZIN-V trial is a hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation trial to determine the safety, clinical and cost-effectiveness of intrapartum oral AZM versus usual care in the prevention of peripartum maternal sepsis. The trial will also examine the impact of implementation strategies in enhancing adherence to the oral AZM protocol during planned vaginal births and identify effective strategies to improve adherence (fidelity) to the protocol in real-world LMIC settings.

This is a multicentre hybrid type 2 trial conducted in six Nigerian states: Ebonyi, Edo, Gombe, Kano, Kwara and Lagos. The study aims to simultaneously test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of AZM (clinical trial) and the impact of implementation strategies (implementation research) in Nigeria’s unique healthcare context. The clinical trial is a two-arm, cluster-randomised controlled trial conducted across 48 health facilities, randomly assigned (1:1) to either intrapartum administration of oral AZM (intervention group) or usual care—the current routine practice (control group). A total of 5040 study participants (2520 in each group) will be enrolled in the clinical trial. The implementation trial is a two-arm cluster non-randomised controlled trial conducted in 12 health facilities (1:1) allocated to either a bottom-up approach using the Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle or a usual top-down approach with a one-time training workshop and distribution of clinical guidelines, with both arms administering oral AZM during vaginal birth while assessing fidelity (primary outcome).

For the clinical trial, data will be analysed using intention-to-treat statistical methods. The cost-effectiveness outcome will be analysed using the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio. Implementation outcomes will be analysed using descriptive statistics and a thematic approach.

This study has been approved by the National Health Research Ethics Committee, Nigeria (NHREC/01/01/2007-30/09/2024), the ethics committees of the participating health institutions (Lagos University Teaching Hospital Research Ethics Committee: ADM/DSCST/HREC/APP/6325; University of Ilorin Teaching Hospital Health Research Ethics Committee: ERC/PAN/2025/03/0581; University of Benin Teaching Hospital Health Research Ethics Committee: ADM/E22/A/VOL. VII/483117141; Aminu Kano Teaching Hospital Research Ethics Committee: AKTH/MAC/SUB/12 A/P-3/VI/2509 and Irrua Specialist Teaching Hospital Research Ethics Committee: ISTH/HREC/20241507/605), the Ministries of Health of the six states and the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control. Written informed consent will be obtained from all eligible study participants before enrolment. Results will be shared with communities and policy stakeholders and through peer-reviewed journals and will be presented at conferences.

ISRCTN16415327.

Health inequalities remain resistant to interventions that primarily target individual behaviour. Although systems approaches are increasingly promoted, their application in practice is often not well grounded in real-world settings. In this protocol paper, we present the approach we will take in an overarching project that synthesises the combined insights of four ongoing systems-based research projects on system-based approaches for reducing health inequalities in the Netherlands. By bringing together and comparing findings across diverse contexts, populations and interventions, we aim to generate an empirically grounded understanding of what works, for whom, in what contexts and why, and to derive actionable strategies for systemic change to reduce health inequalities.

We use a realist approach to synthesise insights from the four ongoing projects. The design involves four iterative steps: (1) Identifying cross-cutting themes from project proposals and literature, (2) Developing and refining context–mechanism–outcome (CMO) configurations through literature review and Slow Science meetings, (3) Engaging Critical Friends to co-develop actionable strategies and (4) Assessing and validating these strategies across diverse contexts. Iterative feedback loops ensure continuous refinement, integration of stakeholder perspectives and exploration of emergent challenges. This design enables theory-informed, practice-based strategies to support sustainable system change in reducing health inequalities.

Ethical approval for the four underlying projects has been obtained from the relevant institutional review boards, and the way their data is used for this overarching project falls within their approved scope. Dissemination will be ongoing and co-created with stakeholders, including policy briefs, factsheets, educational tools and academic publications, to support uptake of strategies for systems change.

This paper examines the challenges frontline health workers face, as well as their coping practices following district splitting. It also has ramifications for the need to take into account the nexus between district splitting and subnational health system functioning.

A qualitative cross-sectional study employing an exploratory design. Data were collected using an in-depth interview guide for individual interviews. We used a deductive thematic analysis to identify and structure challenges faced and coping mechanisms by health workers in new districts. The data were analysed deductively using Braun and Clarke’s six-step thematic analysis.

Frontline health workers from four randomly selected regions with one parent district selected randomly from each region and a respective child district that had been split from it between 2005 and 2015. Interviews were conducted between June and November 2018.

In-depth interviews were conducted with 24 frontline health workers whose age ranged from 33 to 51 years and these had changed locations between districts after district splitting occurred.

The challenges frontline health workers faced included work-related role changes, social demands, team integration and health system inadequacies. Health workers switched roles across districts, adapting to leadership while balancing clinical and administrative duties. Overall, five themes emerged during analysis. Newly promoted staff faced knowledge gaps in facility management. Social demands included accommodation issues and family/community pressures. Team integration impacted daily work, requiring newcomers to navigate hierarchy and culture. Health system issues, such as understaffing, poor infrastructure, drug shortages and strained work relations, worsened working conditions. Coping practices included induction, leadership training, staff appraisals, duty rosters, supervision, team building, partner support and financial/community planning.

District splitting worsens challenges for frontline health workers. While they show resilience through coping strategies, systemic improvements remain essential. Addressing root causes like better resource distribution, expanded training and stronger administrative support is crucial to achieving the district splitting goal of improving healthcare delivery in newly formed districts in Uganda.

Many researchers conduct a process evaluation alongside an effectiveness trial of a public health intervention to better understand mechanisms behind observed effects. Yet, there is no standardised, scientifically accepted guideline for reporting such process evaluations, which impedes interpretation and comparison of study results. The aim of this project was to develop a consensus-based and expert-based guideline for reporting process evaluations of public health interventions conducted alongside an effectiveness trial.

We conducted an e-Delphi study with a large panel of international experts.

Based on purposive sampling, we invited 137 international experts that had been involved in the design of process evaluations, researchers who published high-profile process evaluations or frameworks, editors of journals that publish process evaluations, and authors of other reporting guidelines.

Based on a literature search, a first draft of the reporting guideline included 32 items, which was proposed to panel members during the first round. Of the invited 137 invited international experts, 73 (53%) participated in at least one round of the e-Delphi study. Participants rated the inclusion and comprehensibility of the proposed items on a 5-point Likert scale and provided comments and suggestions for relevance and definitions of the items. Adjustments to the items and descriptions were proposed to the e-Delphi panel until consensus of ≥67% for each individual item was reached. In total, 64 (88% of 73) completed round 2, and 55 (76% of 73) completed round 3. This resulted in 19 items that are included in the consensus-based process evaluation reporting guideline for public health intervention studies (CONPHES) guideline. The items cover a detailed description of the intervention that is evaluated, the implementation strategies applied, and underlying causal pathways, and the role of the delivery and support team. The guideline also requires describing the evaluation framework and how evaluation outcomes were assessed. Lastly, the guideline includes items on providing a detailed description of applied analyses (both quantitative and qualitative) and measures for assuring quality. The guideline is accompanied by an Explanation and Elaboration document, with a more detailed explanation of each item.

We expect that the CONPHES reporting guideline for process evaluations of public health interventions can improve the reporting of process evaluations of interventions aimed at promoting public health. This can potentially facilitate more effective translation of public health research into practice and contribute to improving both individual and population health outcomes.

Binge drinking in the previous month was reported in 23.5% of US adults, and 28.1 million adults met criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) in 2023. Individuals with AUD face increased risks of oral health problems, including caries, periodontal disease and mucosal lesions. Poor oral hygiene, nutrition and dental care all contribute to these conditions, but individuals with AUD are often under-represented in oral health surveys. Understanding relationships between oral health behaviours, attitudes and general health is crucial for designing future interventions. This pilot aims to explore the relationship between oral and systemic health in subjects with AUD, focusing on oral health behaviours, salivary biomarkers and clinical phenotype, including systemic biomarkers of inflammation, to inform future research on oral–systemic interactions in AUD.

This protocol has two parts. Part 1 involves cognitive interviews to assess the content validity and interpretability of the Oral Health Behaviours Assessment (OHBA) questionnaire. Part 2 will collect biological and behavioural data from treatment-seeking patients with AUD and matched controls (age, sex and smoking status), including saliva, blood, dental exams, and health behaviour and symptom measures. Inpatients with AUD will provide biospecimens and answer symptom severity questionnaires at admission and again at the dental exam visit (7–12 days later), while controls will provide a single set of measures at their dental exam visit. Oral health will be assessed through structured dental and periodontal examinations, radiographs and validated questionnaires (including the OHBA). Additional data will include alcohol use history, psychiatric and medical history assessments, dietary recall, and measures of stress, sleep and mood to capture potential moderators of oral–systemic relationships. Biomarkers of inflammation and stress will be quantified from saliva and blood using immunoassays. Primary outcomes will compare oral health, salivary biomarkers and clinical measures between AUD and controls, while secondary outcomes will evaluate within-subject changes in patients with AUD during inpatient treatment and early abstinence.

This clinical protocol was approved by the National Institutes of Health Institutional Review Board (IRB #002005). Prior to enrolling, participants will be informed of the study purpose, risks and benefits, and study procedures, and evaluated for understanding prior to signing consent. Part 1 of the protocol is currently active and recruiting participants for cognitive interviews. The study findings will be disseminated through journals and conferences related to addiction medicine, psychology, immunology, neuroscience and dentistry. We expect the results of the pilot study will inform future research on oral health and salivary bioscience while also providing treatment-seeking patients with AUD targeted information on the importance of oral health behaviours for maintaining oral and systemic health.

NCT06684483; preresults.

Low back pain (LBP) is the leading contributor to disability globally. It has a substantial impact on the lives of those who experience it, and places considerable economic burden on healthcare systems. Despite these impacts, and the consistency of guideline recommendations, many individuals do not receive recommended LBP management. Structural barriers to accessing timely, evidence-based care, as well as public uncertainty about where to seek appropriate management, can influence the care individuals receive. Telephone and digitally based helplines assist to overcome many traditional barriers to accessing care and offer a scalable platform to improve the delivery of guideline recommended management for LBP. However, uptake of such services can be limited without targeted promotion and patient-centred design. This project aims to codesign, implement and evaluate an upgraded component of an existing Australian helpline service, tailored for people with back pain and supported by a media awareness campaign. This protocol outlines the codesign process, implementation and planned evaluation of the helpline.

This protocol uses three complementary frameworks—an iterative codesign process, the Practical Robust Implementation Sustainability Model, and the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance framework—to guide the codesign and development, implementation and evaluation of an upgraded helpline for people with LBP. The codesign process involves key stakeholders, including consumers and clinicians, to inform the development and implementation of both the upgraded helpline service and the media campaign to raise awareness and uptake of the helpline. Data sources will include a pre–post cohort of helpline service users, routinely collected service data (eg, monthly call rate) and health system data to evaluate the broader population level impact (eg, rates of emergency department presentations for LBP in the Australian region targeted by the media campaign). Implementation evaluation will include Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance as well as internal and external environmental factors that influence the success of these outcome measures.

The project was approved by the University of Sydney’s Human Research Ethics Committee (HE001081). This project involves collaboration with consumers, clinicians and other stakeholders to interpret, translate and disseminate research findings to relevant audiences.