Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) followed by definitive treatment consisting of either radical radiotherapy or radical cystectomy is the recommended treatment for patients with organ-confined muscle-invasive bladder cancer (OC-MIBC). A randomised controlled trial (RCT) aimed to compare the effectiveness of radical radiotherapy and radical cystectomy but failed to recruit. Radical radiotherapy is non-invasive and organ-preserving, and observational studies have suggested this treatment may be associated with similar outcomes compared with radical cystectomy. However, in these observational studies, the risk of confounding was high, and they did not consider the receipt of NAC. The surgery or radiotherapy (SORT) for the early-stage cancer study will assess the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of either radical cystectomy or radical radiotherapy, both after NAC for OC-MIBC. We will use a target trial emulation approach to reduce the risk of bias when assessing comparative effectiveness from observational data.

The SORT study will use UK’s National Cancer Registry to identify individuals diagnosed with urothelial OC-MIBC (T2-4aN0M0) between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2021 who received either radical radiotherapy or radical cystectomy after NAC. The data will be linked to Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), National Radiotherapy Data Set (RTDS) and Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapy (SACT) data sets to gather information on clinical, tumour and socio-demographic characteristics and receipt of treatment. Using the target trial emulation framework, we will define the eligibility criteria and radical radiotherapy and radical cystectomy receipt. To reduce the risk of confounding, we will use advanced statistical approaches to allow for differences in measured baseline characteristics between the comparison groups.

The primary outcome is 3-year all-cause mortality after radical treatment receipt. Secondary outcomes will include all-cause and bladder-cancer-associated mortality at 3 and 5 years, time to death, incremental costs and incremental cost-effectiveness reported according to net health benefits.

The study was approved by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Ethics Committee (Reference number 29717 - 1). Results will be communicated in open-access journals and conferences to clinicians, researchers, patients and policymakers.

A proportion of patients hospitalised for COVID-19 acquire the disease during their hospital stay, underscoring the risk of hospital-acquired COVID-19 (HA-COVID-19). This risk is presumed to be high, given how commonly and intensely air and surfaces within hospitals are reportedly contaminated with SARS-CoV-2. However, the true extent of HA-COVID-19 worldwide remains unknown, with limited understanding of factors that influence its occurrence and how these have evolved over time. This review will therefore aim to estimate the pooled prevalence of HA-COVID-19 among hospitalised COVID-19 patients globally and investigate differences by country, type of hospitals, medical specialty, length and timing of studied periods.

A systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted adhering to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. MEDLINE and PubMed Central (via PubMed), Scopus, Embase (via Ovid), the Web of Science Core Collection as well as websites of public health agencies (PHA) will be searched until 1 July 2026. All journal articles and sources from PHAs reporting any primary data on the prevalence of HA-COVID-19 will be included. Methodological quality will be assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data. The primary outcome will be the global prevalence of HA-COVID-19. Data synthesis will include random-effects proportional meta-analysis. Estimates will be presented with two-sided 95% CIs and heterogeneity assessed using the I² statistic.

Ethical approval is not needed as no original data will be generated. This review will be published in an international, peer-reviewed journal.

CRD420251136884.

Older patients admitted under surgical care have longer length of stay (LOS) and are at risk of functional decline, hospital-acquired complications and geriatric syndromes. Embedded specialist geriatrician models within surgical care teams can reduce length of stay and perioperative complications. Evidence gaps remain regarding the implementation of these models of care and their impact on patient outcomes. This study aims to measure hospital, patient and implementation outcomes of an embedded perioperative geriatric service in a large Australian tertiary referral hospital.

This hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation trial involves four services (emergency general, elective general, urology and vascular surgery), with a predicted reach of >2000 patients over 24 months. The intervention consists of a proactive geriatrician-led service providing a comprehensive geriatric assessment and ongoing review during the acute admission. Service evaluation will be via (1) traditional hospital outcomes (primary outcome LOS); (2) implementation outcomes; and (3) patient reported outcomes across three 6 month phases: (1) prior to service implementation; (2) during service implementation and (3) continued service but without active implementation. Data analysis will include descriptive statistics of patient demographics, clinical characteristics and implementation outcomes; cost-effectiveness; univariate and multivariate analysis of outcomes against demographic and clinical characteristics and thematic analysis of qualitative data.

This trial has been approved by the Hunter New England Research Ethics Committee (2024_ETH023259). The findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. The research team will facilitate adoption more broadly within the health service.

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12625000404426)

To co-develop the Stay-At-Work (SAW) intervention, a person-centred, interdisciplinary, cross-sectoral vocational rehabilitation (VR) programme for individuals on, or at risk of, sick leave due to chronic low back pain (CLBP) and to advance methodological understanding of how evidence, qualitative insights, stakeholder input and programme theory can be systematically integrated and operationalised into concrete intervention components.

A three-stage intervention development study, guided by the Medical Research Council framework for complex interventions, involving evidence review and stakeholder consultation (previously reported); multistakeholder co-design; and prototyping in clinical settings.

The intervention was developed within a Danish public healthcare and welfare context, involving a secondary care spinal service, municipal employment services (n=3), municipal rehabilitation services (n=3) and general practice.

Stage 1: 17 individuals on long-term sick leave due to CLBP participated in interviews and focus groups. Stages 2 and 3: The co-design group included individuals living with CLBP (n=2); clinicians from a secondary care spine service (n=2) and municipal rehabilitation services (n=6); general practitioners (n=2); municipal employment service professionals (n=3) and local managers (n=3); and employer and employee representatives (n=2). Participants were purposively recruited based on their roles and experience in VR and return-to-work processes and contributed across different stages of intervention development.

The SAW intervention consists of eight structured activities, developed through multistakeholder co-design and underpinned by a programme theory with four core mechanisms: (1) strengthened interprofessional and cross-sectoral understanding and collaboration; (2) stronger alignment around functional capacity and work ability; (3) addressing psychological vulnerability through systematic screening and support; and (4) enhanced coordination of care and rehabilitation efforts across services.

Stakeholder input from the co-design group informed the intervention’s content and procedures, thereby improving alignment with local contexts and strengthening cross-sector collaboration. Some proposals were excluded due to inconsistency with clinical guidelines.

This study demonstrates how a structured, theory-informed co-development process can be used to integrate evidence, stakeholder input and programme theory into a coherent, cross-sectoral VR intervention. The approach enhanced transparency, supported alignment with real-world practice, and provides methodological insight to strengthen the reproducibility and transferability of complex interventions.

Registration number: The Region of Southern Denmark’s Research Registry (journal no. 23/44927).

Recent research indicates that around 8% of older people living in prison have signs or symptoms of dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI), yet the care they receive is not equivalent to care in the community and this means their needs may not be met. We co-developed an intervention specifically for older people living in prison with dementia/MCI (Dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment in prison care pathway and training package–DECISION). To date, this has not been implemented or evaluated. This paper presents our protocol for a study to assess the feasibility and acceptability of DECISION.

This is a non-randomised, realist-informed mixed-methods feasibility study with integrated process evaluation, which will take place in two prisons in England. The intervention was codeveloped with experts with lived experience. Participants will include older people living in prison, staff working in prison and peer supporters. We will assess the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention (eg, numbers eligible; rates of recruitment and retention), and the evaluation design (eg, completion rates of standardised outcome measures). Methods will include semistructured, realist-informed interviews; an audit to assess implementation fidelity; focused ethnography; training questionnaires; and collection of resource use data. We will refine the DECISION programme theory using realist-informed methods to examine and refine how contexts and mechanisms interact to produce the intervention’s outcomes.

This study received a favourable ethical opinion from the Wales REC 3 Research Ethics Committee in January 2025 (reference number 24/WA/0323). HMPPS National Research Committee approval was also granted in January 2025 (reference number 2024-1451). Findings will be disseminated through a range of avenues, including stakeholder engagement events, open-access papers, conference presentations, evidence briefings for commissioners, providers and practitioners, and newsletters for service users.

Students enrolling in higher education often adopt lifestyles linked to worse mental health, potentially contributing to the peak age onset of mental health problems in early adulthood. However, extensive research is limited by focusing on single lifestyle behaviours, including single time points, within limited cultural contexts, and focusing on a limited set of mental health symptoms.

The UNIversity students’ LIFEstyle behaviours and Mental health cohort (UNILIFE-M) is a prospective worldwide cohort study aiming to investigate the associations between students’ lifestyle behaviours and mental health symptoms during their college years. The UNILIFE-M will gather self-reported data through an online survey on mental health symptoms (ie, depression, anxiety, mania, sleep problems, substance abuse, inattention/hyperactivity and obsessive/compulsive thoughts/behaviours) and lifestyle behaviours (ie, diet, physical activity, substance use, stress management, social support, restorative sleep, environment and sedentary behaviour) over 3.5 years. Participants of 69 universities from 28 countries (300 per site) will be assessed at university admission in the 2023 and/or the 2024 academic year and followed up for 1, 2 and 3.5 years.

The study was first approved at a national level in Brazil (CAE:63025822.8.1001.5346). Study sites outside Brazil obtained additional ethics approval from their institutions using the main approval. Results from the UNILIFE-M cohort will be disseminated through scientific publications, presentations at scientific meetings, press releases, the general media and social media.

Nasogastric tubes (NGTs) are standard practice in the management of adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO). Their insertion can be associated with significant patient discomfort and complications. Current research suggests that patients with ASBO managed with NGTs may experience poorer outcomes and higher rates of operative intervention compared with those managed without. However, to date, there are no prospective clinical trials evaluating this.

This study will be designed as a single centre, prospective, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial to determine if the avoidance of an NGT is non-inferior to its use in ASBO. Patients meeting inclusion criteria will be randomised to either receive an NGT or no NGT for ASBO management. The primary outcome will be the rate of operative intervention as determined by review of medical records at day 30 post discharge. Secondary outcomes will include rate of bowel resection or bowel ischaemia, length of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay, time to operative intervention, rate of ICU admission, incidence of postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo classification), quality of life scores (European Quality of Life 5 Dimension 5 Level: EQ-5D-5L) at admission, day 30 and day 90, 90-day mortality, incidence of pulmonary complications (Melbourne Group Scale), rate of NGT specific complications and rate of Gastrografin use. The study will be powered at 80% to detect a clinically relevant difference of 10% between groups receiving an NGT compared with no NGT, requiring a total of 490 study participants. Statistical analysis will follow intention to treat principles. Differences between treatment arms will be summarised using mean differences, 95% CIs and p values.

This study has been approved by the Hunter New England Human Research Ethics Committee (2023/ETH00296). Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations.

This study has been registered prospectively in the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12623000341628).

Food insecurity is increasing in the UK, impacting choice and diet quality. The current means-tested free school meals (FSM) policy was put in place to address dietary inequalities and food insecurity in school children. In secondary schools, approximately 20% of students who are eligible and registered do not take their FSM. Working across a range of schools that have variable levels of FSM uptake, this study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the current means-tested FSM policy in UK secondary schools on diet and food insecurity outcomes, understand what factors are associated with uptake and test the potential impact of any proposed policy change.

Secondary schools (n=32) in both Northern Ireland and the Midlands region of the UK are being recruited into the study. Data will be collected from school staff, governors, students and parents via questionnaires, as well as observational data of school eating environments. Qualitative data will be collected in selected case study schools (n=6–8). Multilevel modelling will be undertaken to evaluate the association between FSM uptake and fruit and vegetable intake, overall diet quality and food insecurity in all students. Economic evaluation will be conducted using a cost–utility approach. The effect of policy change will be modelled and school factors associated with FSM uptake explored using multiple methods.

Ethical approval has been obtained from Queen’s University Belfast Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences Research Ethical Committee (MHLS 23_55). Findings will be disseminated to key national and local agencies, to schools through reports and presentations, and to the public through media and open access publications.

To explore National Health Service (NHS) healthcare professionals’ experiences of delivering rehabilitation for patients with Achilles tendon rupture (ATR).

Qualitative study using semistructured interviews and reflexive thematic analysis.

NHS hospital sites in the United Kingdom, providing non-surgical ATR management using the Leicester Achilles Management Protocol (LAMP).

Twenty-one NHS healthcare professionals, including physiotherapists and orthopaedic consultants with a mean of 10.8 years of clinical experience, purposively sampled based on profession and experience managing ATR.

Three main themes were identified: (1) clinical training on Achilles tendon ruptures, (2) rehabilitation following ATR and (3) the NHS service delivering rehabilitation. Participants reported limited training on ATR, leading to reduced confidence and slower rehabilitation progressions. Fear of re-injury influenced clinical decision-making, while discharge decisions were goal-oriented but constrained by service limitations.

This study highlights limited clinical training, inconsistent rehabilitation practices and NHS service constraints that collectively slow rehabilitation progress and affect return to sport following ATR. Enhanced training, service development and greater standardisation of ATR rehabilitation pathways are recommended to improve patient outcomes.

Competency assessment tools are well-recognised as a method to achieve a standardised level of practice for a group of healthcare professionals with similar characteristics. The aim of this study is to develop and pilot a new competency assessment tool to support therapists caring for patients with blunt chest trauma from prehospital care through to long-term follow-up following hospital discharge.

A mixed-methods study will be undertaken, with three distinct phases: (1) an integrative narrative review to examine the literature regarding therapist competencies; (2) focus groups with patients, therapists and key stakeholders to explore opinions regarding important aspects of care (phases I and II will inform the content of the tool), followed by final tool development by an international expert panel; and (3) a multicentre pilot study using questionnaires and elicitation interviews, in which final tool acceptability to therapists will be tested. The total sample size will be between 40 and 50 participants for the focus groups. For the final tool development work, a panel of 10 international experts will be identified, with a subgroup of 3–5 experts who will be recruited to confirm content validity. We will pilot the tool at five health boards in Wales, aiming for 10 therapists from each. Elicitation interviews will be undertaken with a smaller sample size of between 15 and 20 therapists. A mixed qualitative and quantitative data analysis approach will be used.

Proportionate ethics approval has been granted (South Yorkshire Research Ethics Committee, reference number: 24/YH/0231). We will publish the work in an open-access peer-reviewed journal to ensure equitable access and present at relevant conferences. Webinars will be used to achieve a wide audience. The results will be shared with the research participants via an infographic which will be designed and developed with the public research partners.

Integrative review is registered at the Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/CEXNR

While group, task-oriented, community-based exercise programs (CBEPs) delivered in-person can increase exercise and social participation in people with mobility limitations, challenges with transportation, cost and human resources, threaten sustainability. A virtual delivery model may help overcome challenges with accessing and delivering in-person CBEPs. The study objective is to estimate the short-term effect of an 8-week, virtual, group, task-oriented CBEP called TIME™ (Together in Movement and Exercise) at Home compared with a waitlist control on improving everyday function in community-dwelling adults with mobility limitations.

A randomised controlled trial incorporating a type 1 effectiveness-implementation hybrid design is being conducted in four Canadian metropolitan centres. We aim to stratify 200 adults with self-reported mobility limitations by site, participation alone or with a partner, and functional mobility level, and randomise them using REDCap software to either TIME™ at Home or a waitlist control group. During TIME™ at Home classes (2 classes/week, 1.5 hours/class), two trained facilitators stream a 1-hour exercise video and facilitate social interaction prevideo and postvideo using Zoom. A registered healthcare professional at each site completes three e-visits to monitor and support implementation. Masked evaluators with physical therapy training evaluate participants and their caregivers at 0, 2 and 5 months using Zoom. The primary outcome is the change in everyday function from 0 to 2 months, measured using the physical scale of the Subjective Index of Physical and Social Outcome. The study is powered to detect an effect size of 0.4, given α=0.05, power=80% and a 15% attrition rate. Secondary outcomes are mobility, well-being, reliance on walking aids, caregiver assistance, caregiver mood, caregiver confidence in care-recipient balance and cost-effectiveness. A multimethod process evaluation is proposed to increase understanding of implementation fidelity, mechanisms of effect and contextual factors influencing the complex intervention. Qualitative data collection immediately postintervention involves interviewing approximately 16 participants and 4 caregivers from the experimental group, and 8 participants and 4 caregivers from the waitlist control group, and all healthcare professionals, and conducting focus groups with all facilitators to explore experiences during the intervention period. A directed content analysis will be undertaken to help explain the quantitative results.

TIME™ at Home has received ethics approval at all sites. Participants provide verbal informed consent. A data safety monitoring board is monitoring adverse events. We will disseminate findings through lay summaries, conference presentations, reports and journal articles.

NCT06245135.

Randomised controlled trials have aimed to assess the effectiveness of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) with curative intent versus surgical resection for individuals diagnosed with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) but have failed to recruit sufficient numbers of patients. Non-randomised studies for early-stage NSCLC have reported mixed outcomes following curative SABR versus surgical resection, but did not fully address confounding by indication. The Surgery Or RadioTherapy for early-stage cancer study (SORT) will assess the comparative effectiveness of SABR with curative intent versus surgical resection for NSCLC with a target trial emulation approach, as this can reduce biases in observational studies that aim to estimate the causal effect of interventions.

The SORT study will use the National Cancer Registry for individuals diagnosed with early-stage NSCLC in England during 2015–2020 (inclusive) who received SABR with curative intent or surgical resection. These data will be linked to Hospital Episode Statistics, National Radiotherapy Data Set and the Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapy dataset to obtain information on clinical and sociodemographic characteristics and the treatment received. This target trial emulation will define study population eligibility criteria and regimens for SABR with curative intent and surgical resection. We will reduce the risk of residual confounding with instrumental variable analyses that will exploit geographical variation across the National Health Service in England in the use of SABR with curative intent versus surgical resection for early-stage NSCLC. The primary outcome will be 3-year all-cause mortality after treatment initiation. Secondary outcomes will include 3-month, 6-month, 12-month and 24-month all-cause and lung-cancer mortality, time to death, numbers of hospitalisations, incremental costs and incremental cost-effectiveness.

Ethical approval was obtained from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Research Ethics Committee (reference number 29 717–1). Results will be disseminated to clinicians, patients, policy-makers and researchers.

Urban green and blue space (UGBS) interventions, such as the development of an urban greenway, have the potential to provide public health benefits and multiple co-benefits in the realms of the environment, economy and society. This paper presents the protocol for a 5-year follow-up evaluation of the public health benefits and co-benefits of an urban greenway in Belfast, UK.

The natural experiment evaluation uses a range of systems-oriented and mixed-method approaches. First, using group model building methods, we codeveloped a causal loop diagram with stakeholders to inform the evaluation framework. We will use other systems methods including viable systems modelling and soft systems methodology to understand the context of the system (ie, the intervention) and the stakeholders involved in the development, implementation and maintenance phases. The effectiveness evaluation includes a repeat cross-sectional household survey with a random sample of 1200 local residents (adults aged ≥16 years old) who live within 1 mile of the greenway. The survey is complemented with administrative data from the National Health Service. For the household survey, outcomes include physical activity, mental well-being, quality of life, social capital, perceptions of environment and biodiversity. From the administrative data, outcomes include prescription medications for a range of non-communicable diseases such as cardiovascular disease, type II diabetes mellitus, chronic respiratory and mental health conditions. We also investigate changes in infectious disease rates, including COVID-19, and maternal and child health outcomes such as birth weight and gestational diabetes. A range of economic evaluation methods, including a cost-effectiveness analysis and social return on investment (SROI), will be employed. Findings from the household survey and administrative data analysis will be further explored in focus groups with a subsample of those who complete the household survey and the local community to explore possible mechanistic pathways and other impacts beyond those measured. Process evaluation methods include intercept surveys and direct observation of the number and type of greenway visitors using the Systems for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities tool. Finally, we will use methods such as weight of evidence, simulation and group model building, each embedding participatory engagement with stakeholders to help us interpret, triangulate and synthesise the findings.

To our knowledge, this is one of the first natural experiments with a 5-year follow-up evaluation of an UGBS intervention. The findings will help inform future policy and practice on UGBS interventions intended to bring a range of public health benefits and co-benefits. Ethics approval was obtained from the Medicine, Health and Life Sciences Research Ethics Committee prior to the commencement of the study. All participants in the household survey and focus group workshops will provide written informed consent before taking part in the study. Findings will be reported to (1) participants and stakeholders; (2) funding bodies supporting the research; (3) local, regional and national governments to inform policy; (4) presented at local, national and international conferences and (5) disseminated by peer-review publications.