The North East of England has the lowest healthy life expectancy and the highest health inequalities of any region in England. The conventional model, whereby we ‘expect’ individuals to be motivated to attend a ‘healthcare setting’ to undergo cardiovascular disease (CVD) health checks every 5 years has low levels of uptake, with populations most at risk frequently failing to engage.

The objective of this study was to gather behavioural insights into the barriers/challenges that limit engagement with the current NHS CVD Health Checks.

Drawing on a Behavioural Insight approach, 7 qualitative focus groups with members of ethnic minorities and underserved groups (n=45 participants) were conducted to understand barriers and challenges to uptake of NHS CVD Health Checks in one region in North East England (Middlesbrough). Data were analysed using a Behavioural Insights approach, applied to establish key themes, barriers and enablers.

Our findings identified that underserved communities in North East England find engaging with NHS CVD Health Checks challenging due to issues related to access, understanding and attitudes. Communities identified that harnessing relationships with existing community champions would raise awareness and confidence in engaging. Making services accessible where communities gathered, while also increasing understanding and knowledge, was also recognised as key to engagement.

Our study suggested that despite there being substantial barriers to engagement with NHS CVD Health Checks, novel methods encouraging uptake may be effective to address the significant health inequalities seen in deprived communities. Ensuring a co-developed and co-delivered approach to CVD risk reduction with underserved communities, together with social marketing campaigns to raise awareness about the importance of CVD, and why reducing its risk is so important, is key to success.

Youth electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use is a global health challenge, with multiple jurisdictions wrestling with appropriate responses, in the face of limited evidence available on effective interventions. Identifying and synthesising evidence on the effects of interventions to prevent youth e-cigarette use is required to inform prevention-focussed health policy and practice.

We plan to undertake an individual participant data (IPD) prospective meta-analysis (PMA). We will conduct systematic searches to identify eligible planned or ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using trial registries via WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov and databases Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL and Europe PMC. We will also search grant websites for additional studies. We will include any RCT of e-cigarette and cigarette prevention interventions for youth including non-smoking and non-vaping youth aged 10 to 19 years, with no intervention, waitlist, usual care or active control. Primary outcomes will be measures of current or ever e-cigarette use. Secondary outcomes include measures of current and ever cigarette (conventional cigarette) use.

Investigators from relevant trials will be invited to join the Synthesis using Prospective meta-Analysis to Reduce youths’ E-cigarette use (SPARKE) consortium prior to trial outcomes being known using harmonised methods. They are then asked to share their data within 12 months of trial completion.

The primary outcomes will be analysed in a two-stage IPD meta-analysis model under an intention-to-treat framework. First, effect estimates and variances will be calculated for each trial with log-binomial regression models adjusting for key prognostic factors. For cluster RCTs, a nested random effect will be specified within trials to account for correlations within clusters. Second, effect estimates will be combined across trials in a random treatment effect, inverse variance meta-analysis model. Effect estimates will be reported as relative risk ratios with 95% CIs.

This study aims to generate and expedite the synthesis of data regarding prevention interventions for adolescent e-cigarette use to inform real-world decision making. Findings will be of interest to key stakeholders, including policy makers and research funders.

Each trial will be responsible for obtaining their own ethics approval. While secondary analysis of data does not usually require ethics approval, we have received cross-institutional ethics approval from the University of Sydney (2023/714) and the University of Newcastle (H-2023–0389).

Rapid-cycle randomised testing holds high potential to enhance quality improvement practice but remains under-utilised because it requires significant resource commitment. However, infrastructure for learning networks, such as collaborative quality initiatives and large-scale quality improvement consortia, holds potential to support rapid-cycle testing at low cost and with minimal effort. For example, rapid-cycle randomised testing could be used to optimise ‘precision feedback’, which prioritises highly motivating tailored content to improve engagement with audit and feedback. We combined these concepts (rapid cycle, randomised testing and precision feedback) with a low-resource emphasis in conceiving this trial.

A stepped wedge randomised controlled trial will deliver an intervention consisting of precision feedback and modifications to audit and feedback communication to 100 urologists performing ureteroscopy within the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) and will be compared with a control consisting of standard ‘one-size-fits-all’ audit and feedback. The study’s primary endpoint is online dashboard engagement, measured as the clickthrough rate through the tracking of embedded links in emails. The stent rate following pre-stented ureteroscopy will also be measured. The primary hypothesis is that precision feedback will increase engagement with an audit and feedback dashboard and decrease rates of stenting following pre-stented ureteroscopy. Endpoints will be analysed by linear modelling accounting for repeated measures within individuals, exploring the primary hypothesis through a main effect by the study arm.

Ethics and regulatory approval have been obtained from the Institutional Review Board of the University of Michigan (HUM#00248876). The findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and conferences.

ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT06465667. Registered 6/20/2024. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06465667>