Influenza is a major global health concern, responsible for up to 650 000 respiratory-related deaths annually. Although influenza is often perceived as mild in healthy adults, it can cause severe outcomes in high-risk groups, such as older adults, young children, pregnant women and those with underlying medical conditions. Various clinical, sociodemographic and environmental factors influence the progression to severe outcomes, whereas resilience factors, such as vaccination, may reduce risks. Despite growing research, the evidence base regarding risk and resilience is spread across many different aspects of the literature. This umbrella review will synthesise evidence from existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses to identify key risk and resilience factors associated with the progression of influenza to severe outcomes in the general population.

This umbrella review follows the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines. We will include systematic reviews and meta-analyses reporting host-related risk or resilience factors for severe influenza outcomes. Four databases (EMBASE, Scopus, Medline and CINAHL) will be searched for English-language publications. Study quality will be assessed using AMSTAR 2, and the body of evidence will be evaluated using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Due to heterogeneity, findings will be analysed narratively. Risk and resilience factors will be grouped into demographic, clinical, behavioural, social and psychological domains.

No ethical approval is required. The completed review will be shared through peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations.

CRD420250644475.

First post-contrAst SubtracTed (FAST) MRI, an abbreviated breast MRI scan, has high sensitivity for sub-centimetre aggressive breast cancer and short acquisition and interpretation times. These attributes promise effective supplemental screening. Until now, FAST MRI research has focused on women above population-risk of breast cancer (high mammographic density or personal history). DYAMOND aims to define the population within the population-risk NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) likely to benefit from FAST MRI. The study population is the 40% of screening clients aged 50–52 who have average mammographic density (BI-RADS (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System) B) on their first screening mammogram. DYAMOND will answer whether sufficient numbers of breast cancers, missed by mammography, can be detected by FAST MRI to justify the inclusion of this group in a future randomised controlled trial.

Prospective, multicentre, diagnostic yield, single-arm study with an embedded qualitative sub-study: all recruited participants undergo a FAST MRI. An internal pilot will assess the willingness of sites and screening clients to participate in the study. Screening clients aged 50–52, with a clear first NHSBSP mammogram and BI-RADS B mammographic density (by automated measurement) will be invited to participate (recruitment target: 1000). The primary outcome is the number of additional cancers detected by FAST MRI (missed by screening mammography). A Fleming’s two-stage design will be used as this allows for early stopping after stage 1, to save participants, funding costs and time continuing to the end of the study if the question can be answered earlier.

The NHSBSP Research and Innovation Development Advisory Committee and the Yorkshire and Humber–Sheffield Research Ethics Committee (23/YH/0268, study ID (IRAS): 330059) approved this research protocol. Participation involves a two-stage informed consent process, enabling screening for eligibility through automated mammographic density measurement. Patients with breast cancer helped shape the study design and co-produced participant-facing documents. They will disseminate the results to the public in a clear and meaningful way. Results will be published with open access in international peer-reviewed scientific journals.

ISRCTN74193022

The COVID-19 pandemic led to major disruptions in society across many spheres, including healthcare, the economy and social behaviours. While early predictions warned of an increased risk of suicide during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, rates of suicide deaths remained stable or decreased over that period for most countries. In contrast, the prevalence of suicidal ideation doubled and suicide attempts slightly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic in the adult general population worldwide, accompanied by a higher prevalence of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders. While these data can tell us what happened, they cannot tell us why. Qualitative suicide research seeks to understand experiences of individuals with suicide-related thoughts and behaviours, provides an in-depth exploration of their lives and interactions with others and centres their views and unique context. There is little qualitative research focusing on suicidality during the pandemic. This study will use a qualitative approach to explore the extent and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Canadians who experienced suicidality and review their experiences of accessing mental healthcare to identify key components in supporting safety and recovery.

This study will involve approximately 100 semistructured interviews with participants across four Canadian provinces and will explore experiences with suicide-related thoughts and behaviours during the COVID-19 pandemic. Transcripts will be analysed through qualitative analysis informed by constructivist grounded theory.

The study was approved by the Research Ethics Board of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto Academic Health Sciences Network (for JZ: CAMH REB No 104-2022). In addition to traditional peer-reviewed presentations and publications, a report will make study findings accessible to policy makers, media and the public.

Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) are sugary drinks such as sodas, fruit drinks and sweetened teas and are the leading source of added sugars in the American diet. SSBs are also linked to chronic diseases like type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and certain cancers. Despite their well-known health risks, SSB consumption remains high in the United States of America (USA), with 63% of adults consuming them daily, often exceeding the recommended limit of 50 g of added sugar per day. Though efforts to reduce SSB intake through educational programmes, policy initiatives and taxes exist, further research is needed to assess the effectiveness of interventions to reduce SSB consumption in the USA. Understanding the role of behavioural interventions in lowering SSB consumption among adults is critical to address public health strategies.

The proposed scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodological framework for scoping reviews. An advanced search will be conducted in three electronic databases: PubMed, PsycINFO and Scopus. The reference lists of included studies will also be reviewed to identify additional relevant literature. All identified citations will be compiled in EndNote, and duplicate citations will be eliminated. Identification of studies will occur through the three-step search process: (1) initial screening of studies according to inclusion criteria, (2) eligibility determined through full-text assessment and (3) inclusion of qualified studies meeting the criteria. To be included, studies must report on an existing behavioural intervention to reduce SSB consumption. All studies will undergo screening by two independent reviewers. Any disagreements that arise will be resolved through discussion or with an additional reviewer. A data extraction tool has been developed to extract relevant data from all eligible studies. The extracted data will be presented in a diagrammatic form, alongside a narrative summary, in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis: extension for Scoping Reviews reporting guidelines.

Ethics approval was not sought as all data will be collected from published literature. We will present our findings at relevant conferences and submit manuscripts for publication in peer-reviewed journals.

In the UK, approximately 5.4 million adults live with asthma, of whom one in five have an uncontrolled form. Uncontrolled asthma reduces quality of life and increases healthcare use. Engaging with peers through online health communities (OHCs) can empower patients to self-manage their long-term condition. While OHCs have been in existence for several years and growing numbers of patients access them, the role of primary care in signposting patients to them has been minimal and ad hoc. We have co-developed with patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) an intervention for adult patients with asthma, consisting of an appointment with a primary care HCP to introduce online peer support and sign patients up to an established asthma OHC, followed by OHC engagement. Feasibility work found the intervention acceptable to patients and HCPs. This protocol outlines our plan to test the intervention’s effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

An individual randomised controlled trial will be carried out. Eligible participants will be recruited via an online survey sent to adult patients on the asthma register in 50–70 general practices in several UK locations. Participants will be invited to attend a one-off, face-to-face appointment with a primary care HCP, during which they will be individually randomised to the intervention or usual care. An asthma control test (primary outcome) and other measures of clinical effectiveness will be collected at baseline and every 3 months over a 12-month follow-up period. Descriptive and inferential statistics will be used to compare outcome measures between study arms. Cost-effectiveness assessment of the intervention compared with current standard of asthma management in primary care will be reported. A sample of patients and HCPs will be interviewed at study exit and the data analysed thematically.

The study was approved by a National Health Service Research Ethics Committee (reference: 25/NE/0006). Written consent will be obtained from all participants. Findings will be disseminated through various means, including sharing with general practices, conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications.

NCT06849245.

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.

Athletes have been found to experience a similar prevalence of mental health issues to non-athletes. However, they are subjected to a greater array of barriers to help-seeking for mental health, including sport-specific factors. This scoping review synthesised the literature on athletes’ access to, attitudes towards and experiences of help-seeking for mental health from formal (mental health professionals such as psychiatrists) and semiformal sources (those who are not mental health professionals but are a service provider such as a coach).

The Joanna Briggs Institute framework and recommendations were used alongside the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Protocols checklist for scoping reviews. This scoping review was predominantly informed by Arksey and O’Malley’s framework for scoping reviews, supplemented by Levac et al’s additional recommendations. Rickwood and colleagues’ help-seeking frameworks informed the research question, inclusion/exclusion criteria and analysis.

The search terms and synonyms of "athlete" AND "mental health" AND "help-seeking" were searched in PsychINFO, Embase, MEDLINE, APA PsychArticles Full Text, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, Sport Discus, CINAHL and Proquest (Education Database, Health & Medical Collection, Nursing & Allied Health database, Psychology Database, Public Health Database, Education Collection, and Medicine & Education). These searches were conducted at three time points between April 2022 and 2024.

The inclusion and exclusion criteria were initially predetermined and specified in the protocol paper published in BMJ Open. Primary research articles, interventions and systematic reviews that referred to semiformal and formal sources of support were included.

The lead reviewer (KRB) screened all titles and abstracts, and full texts, and extracted data from all included studies. A second reviewer was involved in screening and extracting 20%–30% of studies at each stage. Findings were synthesised descriptively (eg, study population, data collection method and location of studies) and by content (eg, access, attitudes and experiences, sources of support, use of theory and the validity of quantitative measures used).

After screening 4954 titles and abstracts and 275 full texts in Covidence, 104 papers were included in the review. This comprised of 87 primary research articles, 13 interventions and 4 systematic reviews. Most of the primary articles and interventions were published in the USA (50%). 49.4% of the primary articles used quantitative methods, 34.5% used qualitative methods and 16.1% used mixed methods. Attitudes towards mental health help-seeking were investigated in 78.8% of the included studies, experiences of help-seeking in 53.8% and access to sources of support in 31.7% of studies. Of the primary articles and interventions, formal sources were investigated in 55% of studies, semiformal sources in 2% and both in 26% of studies.

This scoping review of 104 papers showed the benefit of using help-seeking frameworks to shape and analyse a review. Analysing the results using these frameworks provided a novel contribution to the literature, showing where the athlete help-seeking literature base is currently focused and identified gaps for further research. For example, there is a need for further research on athletes in less developed nations, more qualitative and mixed methods studies, and further research on athletes’ access to mental health support and their interactions with semiformal sources. The results have applied implications in public health and sport by highlighting the different factors that impact athlete help-seeking, and therefore areas where they require support.

Progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) is a devastating neurodegenerative disease characterised by cognitive, behavioural and motor problems. Motor symptoms are highly disabling, while cognitive and behavioural changes have a major impact on carer burden, quality of life and prognosis. Apathy and impulsivity are very common, often coexistent in PSP, and negatively predict survival. In preclinical models and other diseases, apathy and impulsivity are associated with noradrenergic deficits, which can be severe in PSP.

Noradrenaline for Progressive Supranuclear Palsy Syndromes trial is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover design, Phase IIb clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral atomoxetine for the treatment of cognitive and behavioural changes in PSP. Participants receive atomoxetine 40 mg (10 mg/mL oral solution) once daily or a matched placebo solution, in random order, each for 8 weeks. An ‘informant’, who knows the patient with PSP well, is co-recruited to complete some of the trial outcome measures. Participants remain in the trial for 22 weeks after randomisation. The primary objectives are to assess (1) safety and tolerability and (2) efficacy versus placebo on challenging behaviours as reported in a subscale of the Cambridge Behavioural Inventory. Secondary and exploratory measures relate to cognition, the PSP Rating Scale, mood and potential baseline predictors of individual response to atomoxetine computed from imaging, genetic and cognitive measures at baseline.

The trial was approved by the South Central-Oxford B Research Ethics Committee (REC) and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (REC reference: 20/SC/0416). Dissemination will include publication in peer-reviewed journals, presentations at academic and public conferences and engagement with patients, the public, policymakers and practitioners.

ISRCTN99462035; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN99462035; EudraCT (European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database)/CTIS (Clinical Trial Information System) number: 2019-004472-19; IRAS (Integrated Research Application System) number: 272063; Secondary identifying numbers: CPMS (Central Portfolio Management System) 44441.

Prescribing antibiotics may reinforce patients’ beliefs that antibiotics are needed and increase future consultations for similar symptoms. This review determines the effect of antibiotic prescribing for respiratory infections in primary care on future reattendance.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies and reported following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Participants were adults or children presenting with respiratory infection in primary care.

MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, clinical trial registries and grey literature sources were searched from inception until 6 February 2024.

Eligible studies included open-label RCTs or cohort studies of antibiotics compared with no antibiotics in adults or children with respiratory infections. The outcome of interest was reattendance at least 28 days after the initial consultation.

Two reviewers independently screened, selected, assessed the quality and extracted data. Separate meta-analyses were presented for RCT and cohort studies and a combined meta-analysis of all studies.

We identified 2128 records and reviewed 48 full texts, of which five met the inclusion criteria. These reported three RCTs (1207 randomised to antibiotics, 672 controls) and three cohort studies (209 138 exposed to antibiotics, 46 469 controls). In the meta-analysis of RCTs, relative risk (RR) of reattendance with antibiotics was 1.10 (95% CI: 0.99 to 1.23), and in cohort studies, RR was 1.21 (95% CI: 0.94 to 1.49). An important limitation is that most studies were in UK primary care.

Evidence suggests prescribing antibiotics for acute respiratory tract infections in primary care probably modestly increases future reattendance for similar conditions. Reducing antibiotic prescribing may help decrease demand for primary care.

CRD42023470731.

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.

Social accountability is a key value and aspirational goal of many medical institutions. While much has been studied on social accountability in the context of medical education and institutions, less research has examined how social accountability influences research. In light of this absence, the objective of our scoping review is to research the following questions: (1) What characterises socially accountable research (SAR), and how is it expressed and experienced? (2) How do language, positionality, and worldview influence SAR?, and (3) What structures and considerations are necessary to support successful SAR in local and global contexts?

To answer the above research questions, the Arksey and O’Malley, Levac et al, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews and Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines will be followed. The search strategy was adapted and applied to MEDLINE, Embase, ERIC, and CINAHL databases. A total of n=5289 eligible articles were identified. Articles were excluded if they were published before 1995, were in a language other than English, or were duplicates, leaving n=2840 articles for title/abstract screening.

Ethical approval is not required to complete this study. We will take an integrated knowledge translation approach. Throughout the project, results will be disseminated to knowledge users (ie, consultations, following Arksey and O’Malley). Our findings will be presented to the larger academic community, policymakers, and healthcare practitioners through presentations, reports, newsletters, and an online repository.

Open Science Framework 16 July 2024. osf.io/mvhnu.

African, Caribbean and Black (ACB) communities experience disparities in health outcomes, with higher rates of chronic diseases, such as heart disease and stroke, and lower self-reported health status compared to their White counterparts. Barriers to timely access to healthcare services further exacerbate these inequities. Some studies link racialisation to surgical disparities and subpar surgical outcomes. However, the findings are diverse, and there is no synthesis of the evidence on disparities in surgical care for ACB patients in high-income countries with universal healthcare systems. The objective of the scoping review is to systematically describe, characterise and map the existing literature on disparities in the access to and quality of surgical care among ACB patients in high-income countries with universal healthcare systems, and to identify gaps in the literature on surgical access and quality of surgical care in ACB patients.

The scoping review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and report according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. The search strategy will be customised for each database (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, APA PsycINFO and Cochrane Library) using terms for ACB and surgery. Grey literature and references from included studies will be searched for additional sources, with no limitations on publication date or language. All study designs will be eligible. Two independent reviewers will screen titles, abstracts and full texts in duplicate for eligibility. One reviewer will chart data, with a second reviewer validating the data charted. The findings will be synthesised, quantitatively summarised using descriptive statistics and qualitatively analysed through thematic analysis.

Ethics approval is not required as the study utilises published data. The dissemination of the findings will inform future research and improve understanding of the surgical care experiences of ACB patients. Dissemination will target academics and healthcare professionals through publications, presentations and workshops.