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.

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.

Military personnel are a unique population with heightened vulnerability to sexually transmitted infections (STIs), often exhibiting higher prevalence rates than civilians due to demographic, environmental and occupational factors. These vulnerabilities underscore the need for global prevalence estimates to guide effective, evidence-based interventions. This study aims to quantify the global burden of STIs among military personnel, providing a comprehensive and up-to-date assessment.

This systematic review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Guidelines (2020). Using the CoCoPop (Condition, Context, and Population) framework, a comprehensive search strategy will be conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health and Scopus to retrieve peer-reviewed records published between January 2010 and June 2025. Eligible studies will report numerical STI prevalence data among military personnel. Studies with insufficient information to calculate prevalence or those relying on self-reported STI data will be excluded. Data extraction will include study details, military descriptors, STI prevalence and diagnostic methods. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical assessment tool for prevalence and incidence studies. Prevalence estimates with 95% CIs will be reported for each STI and, where appropriate, pooled for curable STIs. Subgroup analyses will stratify prevalence by geographic region, service status, deployment status and socioeconomic factors. Heterogeneity will be evaluated within predefined subgroups using the I² statistic. Data will be presented in comprehensive tables and visualised with graphical tools, including forest plots for subgroup analyses and pooled estimates.

Ethical approval is not required for this review. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations.

CRD42023472113.

The use of different electronic devices is increasing among students due to rapid advancements in digital technology. The prevalence of computer vision syndrome (CVS) has increased among school children after the COVID-19 pandemic. Different symptoms of CVS, such as eye strain, headache, blurred vision and visual discomfort, have become major public health problems. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of CVS, identify its risk factors, evaluate parental awareness and examine the impact of COVID-19 on screen time among primary school children in Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Primary data were collected from the parents of 500 primary school students aged 5–14 years using a convenience sampling method through face-to-face interviews. A structured questionnaire was administered to collect demographic information, screen usage patterns, ambient conditions and details regarding the children’s academic performance. The Computer Vision Syndrome Questionnaire scale was used to assess the prevalence and severity of CVS. Various statistical analyses were performed, including ² tests, Fisher’s exact tests and logistic regression, to identify significant predictors of CVS (p

Findings revealed that 16.4% of children were affected by CVS, with key risk factors including age, school year, maternal education and daily screen time. Children with CVS commonly reported headaches and itchy eyes, which negatively impacted their academic performance. Surprisingly, 67.4% of parents were unaware of CVS, and the odds of developing CVS were 3.74 times higher among children using electronic devices for more than 4 hours daily.

The study explored the low prevalence of CVS among primary school students in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Several symptoms, like headaches and eye discomfort, were identified that impaired their academic performance. Additionally, many parents were largely unaware of CVS. Therefore, it is necessary to take proper strategies to be aware of the consequences and lessen the prevalence of CVS to save our future generation.

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.