Countries face challenges in maternal and newborn care (MNC) regarding costs, workforce and sustainability. Organising integrated care is increasingly seen as a way to address these challenges. The evidence on the optimal organisation of integrated MNC in order to improve outcomes is limited.

(1) To study associations between organisational elements of integrated care and maternal and neonatal health outcomes, experiences of women and professionals, healthcare costs and care processes and (2) to examine how the different dimensions of integrated care, as defined by the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care, are reflected in the literature addressing these organisational elements.

We included 288 papers and identified 23 organisational elements, grouped into 6 categories: personal continuity of care; interventions to improve interdisciplinary collaboration and coordination; care by a midwife; alternative payment models (non-fee-for-service); place of birth outside the obstetric unit and woman-centred care. Personal continuity, care by a midwife and births outside obstetric units were most consistently associated with improved maternal and newborn outcomes, positive experiences for women and professionals and potential cost savings, particularly where well-coordinated multidisciplinary care was established. Positive professional experiences of collaboration depended on clear roles, mutual trust and respectful interdisciplinary behaviour. Evidence on collaboration interventions and alternative payment models was inconclusive. Most studies emphasised clinical and professional aspects rather than organisational integration, with implementation barriers linked to prevailing biomedical system orientations.

Although the literature provides substantial evidence of organisational elements that contribute to improved outcomes, a significant gap remains in understanding how to overcome the barriers in sustainable implementation of these elements within healthcare systems. Interpreted through a systems and transition science lens, these findings suggest that strengthening integrated maternity care requires system-level changes aligning with WHO policy directions towards midwifery models of person-centred care.

Shoulder osteoarthritis most commonly affects older adults, causing pain, reduced function and quality of life. Total shoulder replacements (TSRs) are indicated once other non-surgical options no longer provide adequate pain relief. Two main types of TSRs are widely used: anatomic TSR (aTSR) and reverse TSR (rTSR). It is not clear whether one TSR type provides better short- or long-term outcomes for patients, and which, if either, is more cost-effective for the National Health Service (NHS).

RAPSODI-UK is a multi-centre, pragmatic, two-parallel arm, superiority randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of aTSR versus rTSR for adults aged 60+ with a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis, an intact rotator cuff and bone stock suitable for TSR. Participants in both arms of the trial will receive usual post-operative rehabilitation. We aim to recruit 430 participants from approximately 28 NHS sites across the UK. The primary outcome is the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) at 2 years post-randomisation. Outcomes will be collected at 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include the pain and function subscales of the SPADI, the Oxford Shoulder Score, health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), complications, range of movement and strength, revisions and mortality. The between-group difference in the primary outcome will be derived from a constrained longitudinal data analysis model. We will also undertake a full health economic evaluation and conduct qualitative interviews to explore perceptions of acceptability of the two types of TSR and experiences of recovery with a sample of participants.

Ethics committee approval for this trial was obtained (London - Queen Square Research Ethics Committee, Rec Reference 22/LO/0617) on 4 October 2022. The results of the main trial will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and using other professional and media outlets.

ISRCTN12216466.

There is limited evidence regarding the outcomes and impacts of Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research, mainly based on narrative studies. Existing frameworks for supporting and evaluating PPI often require adaptation to specific contexts, and comprehensive instruments are needed. From an international perspective, strengthening the scientific foundation that underpins PPI is crucial to generate stronger evidence to understand which approaches work best, in which contexts, and with what effects.

To promote PPI implementation in German health research, this project aims to (1) Establish an evaluation framework, (2) Develop a modular evaluation tool in the form of a questionnaire and (3) Pilot and psychometrically validate the tool.

A three-phase mixed methods approach will be employed, integrating qualitative and quantitative data. First, we will explore with researchers, research partners and other stakeholders in health services research what contributes to meaningful and successful PPI through a web-based survey and focus groups. Findings are discussed in a codesign workshop in which participants agree on an evaluation framework based on a LOGIC model. Second, items from international instruments that evaluate PPI are deductively assigned to the evaluation framework. Further items are developed based on the focus groups from phase 1. Cognitive pretests and qualitative review will be conducted with researchers and patients in order to refine the item pool and develop the evaluation tool. Third, the evaluation tool with modules for researchers and patients will be piloted in a web-based survey. Data analysis will include thematic analysis for qualitative data and descriptive and psychometric analyses for quantitative data. A participatory research team will provide ongoing support throughout all project phases.

Ethical approval has been obtained from the Local Ethics Committee of the Centre for Psychosocial Medicine, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf (LPEK-0889). The study will follow the principles of the Helsinki Declaration and good scientific practice. Results will be disseminated at national and international conferences, public symposiums and in peer-reviewed journals, contributing to the internationally developing field of PPI in research and addressing relevant research gaps.

A large bowel cancer chemoprevention potential has been demonstrated by the consumption of carrots, which represent the major dietary source of polyacetylenes. Their interaction with cancer cells and enzyme systems of animals and humans has been systematically investigated over the last 15 years and has now been characterised as anti-inflammatory compounds with antineoplastic effect. Our objective is to investigate whether selected carrot species with a high content of the polyacetylenes falcarinol (FaOH) and falcarindiol (FaDOH) prevent neoplastic transformation and growth in humans, without side effects.

We will conduct a multicentre prospective binational (Denmark and Sweden) randomised controlled trial, with the aim to test the clinical effects of adjuvant treatment with carrot juice in patients who had an excision of high-risk colon adenomas. Patients from six centres will be randomised to receive either anti-inflammatory juice made of carrots high in FaOH and FaDOH or placebo. We will compare the proportion of participants with recurrent adenoma and mean size of them, found in the 1-year follow-up colonoscopy between the two randomised groups.

Informed written consent will be obtained from all participants before randomisation. The study was approved by the regional ethics committee in Denmark (ref. S-20230072) and Sweden (ref. 2024-04732-01). After completion of the trial, we plan to publish two articles in high-impact journals: one article on primary and secondary outcomes, respectively.

NCT06335420.

Tobacco use is the most significant modifiable risk factor for adverse health outcomes, and early research indicates there are also significant harms associated with vaping. National targets aim to reduce smoking and vaping during pregnancy for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. While most Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people want to quit, cessation is frequently attempted without support, increasing the chance of relapse. Group-based smoking cessation programmes increase quit success by 50%–130% in the general population; however, they have never been evaluated in Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander communities.

The Gulibaa study is an Indigenous-led and community-embedded project that will co-design, implement and evaluate a group-based model of care to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women to be smoke- and vape-free. Staff of Health Services in New South Wales, Australia, will receive training to deliver a face-to-face group-based smoking and vaping cessation intervention. Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people who identify as a woman or non-binary, are pregnant or of reproductive age (16 to 49 years), currently smoke or vape at least once per day and are willing to attend the programme are eligible to participate. Up to 500 participants will be recruited. A mixed method evaluation approach will be implemented guided by the RE-AIM framework. Outcomes will include intervention reach, intervention effectiveness (determined primarily by self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 6 months follow-up), acceptability and feasibility of the intervention, programme fidelity and maintenance and cost effectiveness.

Embedding culturally safe support to quit during pregnancy can result in improved outcomes for both mother and child and immediately improve intergenerational health and well-being. Ethics approval has been provided by the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council and the University of Newcastle. Study findings will be disseminated to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in ways that are meaningful to them, as well as through Aboriginal health services, key national bodies, relevant state and federal government departments.

ACTRN12625001050448.

The SupportBack 2 randomised controlled trial (RCT) compared the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an internet intervention supporting self-management versus usual primary care in reducing low back pain (LBP)-related disability. In this study, we aimed to identify and understand key processes and potential mechanisms underlying the impact of the intervention.

This was a nested qualitative process evaluation of the SupportBack 2 RCT (ISRCTN: 14736486 pre-results).

Primary care in the UK (England).

46 trial participants experiencing LBP without indicators of serious spinal pathologies (eg, fractures, infection) took part in telephone interviews at either 3 (n=15), 6 (n=14) or 12 months (n=17) post randomisation. Five physiotherapists who provided telephone support for the internet intervention also took part in telephone interviews.

An internet intervention ‘SupportBack’ supporting self-management of LBP primarily through physical activity and exercise delivered in addition to usual care, with and without physiotherapist telephone support.

Data were analysed thematically, applying a realist logic to develop context-mechanism-outcome configurations.

Four explanatory themes were developed, with five context-mechanism-outcome configurations. Where benefit was reported, SupportBack appeared to work by facilitating a central associative process where participants linked increases in physical activity or exercise with improvements in LBP, then continued to use physical activity or exercise as key regulatory strategies. Participants who reported little or no benefit from the intervention appeared to experience several barriers to this associative process, including negative expectations, prohibitive beliefs about the cause of LBP or functional limitations preventing engagement. Physiotherapists appeared to provide accountability and validation for some; however, the remote telephone support that lacked physical assessment was viewed as limiting its potential value.

Digital interventions targeting physical activity and exercise to support LBP self-management may rely on mechanisms that are easily inhibited in complex, heterogeneous populations. Future research should focus on identifying and removing barriers that may limit the effectiveness of digital self-management support for LBP.

Distal radius fractures (DRFs) are common injuries, especially in older adults due to age-related frailty. Most DRFs in patients aged 60 and older are treated non-operatively since surgery offers no clinically important benefits. Although anatomical alignment has traditionally been the goal of the treatment, evidence suggests that in older populations, radiographic outcomes do not reliably correlate with functional outcomes. Current evidence, including one randomised trial, shows no functional benefit of closed reduction compared with casting alone, calling into question the routine use of the procedure in older patients. The primary objective is to evaluate whether no reduction is equivalent to closed reduction in patients aged 65 years or older with a displaced DRF, based on wrist-related pain and disability measured by the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) score at 12 months.

This is a multi-centre, randomised controlled, equivalence trial conducted in hospitals in Finland, Denmark, Sweden and Estonia. We aim to enrol 532 patients aged ≥65 years with a displaced DRF (AO/OTA 23A/23C). Participants will be randomised (1:1) to receive either a dorsal cast without reduction (experimental intervention) or closed reduction followed by casting (control comparator). The primary endpoint is the difference between groups assessed using the PRWE outcome score at 12 months. The equivalence margin will be set at 6 PRWE points. Key secondary endpoints will include the Numeric Rating Scale for pain, patient satisfaction, quality of life (EQ-5D-5L Index) and serious adverse events at 3 months and 12 months and cosmesis at 3 months. Our main analyses will follow an intention-to-treat principle, analysed using repeated measures mixed model.

Ethical approval has been granted by the Ethics Committee of Tampere University Hospital (R25001). Results of the trial will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals.

6 July 2025, v1.0.

NCT07042139.

Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a chronic and severe psychiatric condition defined by a level of opioid use which significantly impairs interpersonal and social functioning. In the biopsychosocial model of addiction, research has shown that psychiatric, sociological and neurobiological factors individually affect OUD severity. However, how these factors interact in the determination of OUD severity remains poorly understood.

The Epigenetic Bonds of Opioid Use Profiles are a multidisciplinary project whose primary objective is to characterise psychiatric and social factors of OUD in a large cohort of patients. The secondary objectives are, first, to correlate psychosocial severity with blood-derived epigenetic biomarkers to provide a deeper understanding of determinants of OUD and, second, to examine over a 2 year follow-up the correlation between the evolution of OUD and psychosocial severity with epigenetic biomarkers at inclusion. An additional objective is to analyse the impact of drug consumption rooms on access to care for most severely affected patients with OUD. In total, 300 opioid users will be recruited at supervised injection sites in Strasbourg and Paris and at addiction care centres in Strasbourg and Lyon to explore four psychiatric (substance use disorders beyond opioids, depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder) and five social (social support and status, traumatic experiences, housing, imprisonment, access to care) factors. Opioid users will be followed for 24 months and reassessed for psychosocial factors at 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. Opioid consumption will be measured in all subjects using questionnaires, complemented by toxicological screenings (mass spectrometry). Finally, DNA methylation and gene expression will be characterised in capillary blood using next-generation sequencing. Mixed models will be used to model the primary and secondary outcomes.

This ongoing study was approved by the French Ethics Committee ‘Sud Méditerranée III’ of University Hospital of Nîmes (approval 2023–2024, protocol IDRCB number 2022-A02477-36) and authorised by the French Data Protection Authority (authorisation decision DR-2023–277 in December 2023). Results will be presented in international and national conferences and published in peer-reviewed international journals.

NCT06021548.

This study aimed to examine how older adults form beliefs about their memory and how these beliefs are influenced by their level of concern about dementia. Inaccurate beliefs and excessive worrying, indicative of erroneous metacognition, are associated with negative health outcomes. This research can help identify mitigation for these harmful effects.

Qualitative focus groups; thematic analysis.

Focus group discussion with healthy older adults hosted at a university in central London.

35 healthy older individuals (women=29) without any psychiatric or neurological diagnoses, over the age of 65 years (mean 75.31, SD: 6.15). 13 participants were identified as having a high level of worry about dementia and 22 as having low worry. Groups were matched for cognitive performance on the Telephone Mini Addenbrooke’s cognitive assessment (Tele-MACE).

Participants were assigned to a focus group depending on their level of worry about dementia. During focus groups, a vignette prompted discussion around lifespan changes in memory and how this affected concerns around memory. This allowed investigation of the differences in beliefs about memory.

Thematic analysis revealed two key themes. First, older adults appear to base their definition of ‘normality’ of their own memory on comparisons. These comparisons were between themselves and others and between themselves now and their own past self. Despite similar strategies to define ‘normality’, those with high dementia worry had stricter definitions of what they determined as normal. The second theme described narratives around the ‘self’ and the ‘other’. There was a difference between those with high versus low worry; those with high worry had a strong focus on the ‘self’, while those with low dementia worry focused on ‘others’.

Comparison is a common metacognitive strategy used in forming beliefs about memory. Targeting the use of comparison is potentially valuable in interventions aiming to alleviate older adults’ memory concerns. Addressing self-focused thinking, for example, with cognitive behavioural therapy, could improve harmful levels of high worry.

Digital inclusion (which includes skills, accessibility and connectivity to the internet and digital devices) is a ‘super social determinant of health’ because it affects many aspects of life that influence health. Older people are especially vulnerable to digital exclusion. Existing digital inclusion interventions are commonly offered opportunistically to people who come into contact with services, or in specific locations. The lack of systematic identification of need unintentionally excludes older people who may be most in need of support, and that support is not addressing their needs.

This multi-method project includes six workstreams: (1) A survey of people aged 65+ to ask about digital use and engagement. Survey data will be used to develop a model that predicts digital exclusion from data available in primary care records. (2) Testing, via a further survey, the external validity of the model to identify those who are digitally excluded. (3) Interviews with community service providers to identify, understand and define the components of existing digital inclusion services for older people. Concurrently, a rapid review of the literature will identify evidence for interventions aimed at supporting digitally excluded adults aged 65+. (4) Interviews with people aged 65+ representing a range of digital use will explore factors from the COM-B model that influence digital behaviours—their capability (C), opportunity (O) and motivation (M) relating to digital engagement. Analysis outputs will identify the intersectional nature of barriers or facilitators to digital inclusion. (5) Co-production workshops with older people and community service providers will identify key components of interventions that are required to address digital exclusion. Components will be mapped against existing interventions, and the ‘best fit’ intervention(s) refined. An implementation plan will be developed in parallel. (6) Feasibility testing of the refined intervention(s) to assess acceptability and obtain feedback on content and delivery mechanisms.

This study was approved by the Yorkshire & The Humber - Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee on 23 October 2023 (ref. 23/YH/0234). Findings will be disseminated in academic journals and shared at webinars, seminars, conferences and events arranged by organisations operating across the digital inclusion and older people fields.

https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN18306736

This study explored the knowledge and awareness of Dutch patients, healthcare professionals (HCPs) and healthcare insurers on the climate impact of inhalers as well as (factors influencing) their attitude towards climate-friendly inhaler prescription.

We recruited participants for this qualitative study with purposive sampling. We conducted four online focus groups with patients, six with HCPs and two interviews with healthcare insurer representatives. Determinants were analysed with the Framework Approach.

21 patients, 27 HCPs and two healthcare insurer representatives.

Knowledge and awareness on the climate impact of inhalers varied and was generally lower among patients and healthcare insurers than among HCPs. The attitude towards climate-friendly inhaler prescription was variable among patients and mainly positive among HCPs. Both patients and HCPs assigned a greater role to HCPs than to patients in considering climate impact and agreed that patients’ interest must remain paramount. Factors influencing implementation were mainly related to outcome expectancies, such as expected effect on freedom of choice, expected response of patients and expected effect on patients’ health. The latter is partly influenced by beliefs about different types of inhalers. HCPs expressed a need for information and training on the topic and for collaboration with other stakeholders in the field of pulmonary care. Healthcare insurers assign themselves a role in a more climate-friendly healthcare but are reluctant to direct the preference policy on climate impact.

Both patients and HCPs feel climate-friendly inhaler prescription is important. Implementation can be promoted by enhancing awareness and providing HCPs with information on inhaler climate impact, how to safely practice climate-friendly prescription and how to inform patients about its benefits. Both patients and HCPs emphasise the significance of preserving freedom of choice in prescription and highlight the need for a consensus approach on climate-friendly prescribing endorsed by all pulmonary care stakeholders.