To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of implementing a penicillin allergy assessment pathway (PAAP) versus usual care within the NHS.

A decision tree analysis over a 5-year time-period, informed by a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of PAAP and systematic review. Value of information analysis was also conducted to estimate the value of conducting a new trial.

Model inputs were informed by the ALABAMA RCT participants included in the primary analysis, 811 adults with penicillin allergy labels and recent antibiotic prescriptions, and data from published literature.

Participants in the ALABAMA trial included in the primary analysis: PAAP (n=401) and usual care (n=410).

Costs are presented in GBP (£) at 2022–2023 prices, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), the probability of cost-effectiveness at the £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY threshold, and the cost effectiveness of a new follow-on trial.

PAAP had incremental costs of £–83 (probability of cost saving 47.5%) and incremental QALYs of 0.036 (probability of positive benefits 47.5%). The INMBs (probability of cost-effectiveness) were £806 (48%) and £1167 (48%) under the decision thresholds of £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY, respectively. PAAP was more cost-effective among females, people aged >65 years, and more frequent antibiotic users. A new follow-on trial involving 1267 participants was estimated to cost £2.4 million and, by reducing uncertainty in the evidence, would avoid £19.6 million in costs of incorrect management decisions for eligible patients over the next 10 years.

The PAAP was considered cost-effective, but significant uncertainty remained. Future trials with adequate power and longer follow-up are needed to determine the most cost-effective models for penicillin allergy testing.

ISRCTN20579216.

Many adolescent girls experience body dissatisfaction and have low levels of physical activity. Secondary school physical education (PE) offers opportunities for girls to build self-confidence and stay active; however, PE uniforms can be a barrier to participation.

To explore how secondary school PE uniform policies influence body image attitudes and PE engagement (participation and enjoyment) among adolescent girls, and how these policies could be co-developed in future.

A qualitative study involving focus groups and interviews.

Forty-four 12–13 year-old girls and six PE staff members from six mixed-sex secondary schools in England.

Using topic guides and participatory activities to aid discussions, we explored PE uniform preferences and the influence on body image attitudes and PE engagement with adolescent girls, as well as the PE uniform policy development process with PE staff. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis, supported by NVivo V.14.

Three themes were generated. Theme 1, ‘Striking the right balance between choice, comfort and uniformity’, describes the challenges of developing PE uniform policies that offer pupils choice to maximise comfort, while maintaining uniformity to ensure smartness, and to reduce social comparison. Theme 2, ‘PE uniforms are "made for boys"’ reflects that current policies can often provide unisex uniforms that do not fit the female body, or gendered options that limit girls’ choices over style and fit. Theme 3, ‘Self-confidence influences comfort in wearing PE uniform, and in turn PE engagement’ suggests girls with high self-confidence may be less concerned about others’ opinions and how they look, leading to greater PE enjoyment, whereas girls with lower self-confidence described feeling self-conscious, especially in communal changing rooms, which could impact their comfort and PE engagement.

Our findings suggest that developing PE uniform policies, which allow pupils to choose their own bottoms, wear additional layers and wear PE uniform all day may improve comfort and inclusivity among girls, facilitating better PE engagement.

Despite growing evidence to characterise cancer-associated cognitive decline (CACD) in women with breast cancer, interventions to mitigate CACD are limited. Emerging evidence suggests aerobic exercise may enhance cognition after breast cancer diagnosis and treatment; yet, CACD remains an understudied outcome of exercise, and few high-quality studies have been conducted. In addition to knowledge gaps in effectiveness, the translation of exercise interventions to community settings remains challenging. The Breast cancer Reasoning and Activity INtervention (BRAIN) investigates the effectiveness of aerobic exercise training, delivered in a community-based setting, for improving cognitive function in women with breast cancer and gathers information on the implementation success of the intervention.

This Hybrid Type I effectiveness–implementation study is conducted at an academic medical centre in the southwestern United States in partnership with a non-profit, community health and wellness organisation. The study enrols 160 women diagnosed with stage I–IIIa breast cancer and within 3–36 months of treatment completion into a 1:1 randomised controlled trial. Individuals randomised to the exercise group receive a 6-month, individually tailored aerobic exercise programme delivered by exercise trainers employed at local community fitness centres. The programme is progressive in nature and designed to help participants achieve aerobic exercise levels consistent with guidelines for cancer survivors. Individuals randomise to the control group receive a 6-month health education control intervention delivered virtually by hospital-based health educators. Cognitive performance (primary), self-reported cognition, patient-reported outcomes, physical activity and cardiorespiratory fitness are measured at baseline, 6 months (postintervention) and 12 months (follow-up). Brain structure and function are measured via magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at baseline and 6 months. Implementation outcomes are defined by the RE-AIM framework, which includes reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance. RE-AIM outcomes are measured at baseline, 6 months, 12 months and ongoing during the study.

This study was approved by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board (#23-000020). All participants provide informed consent prior to participation. Findings will be disseminated to scientific, clinical and community audiences through manuscripts, presentations and newsletters.

NCT04816006.

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a major global healthcare challenge. This is, in part, due to the lack of treatment response and chronic course of MDD. Such a course of illness is often termed treatment-resistant depression (TRD) and is seen in over one-third of people with MDD. Reasons for treatment resistance are not well established, nor is the definition of TRD. Duration and severity of depression, however, are associated with TRD and are also associated with cognitive deficits. Thus, TRD could be particularly prone to cognitive deficits and at heightened risk for neuroprogression. While the cognitive profile of MDD has been investigated in several systematic reviews, no systematic review of cognition in TRD exists to date. The present study will fill this gap in the literature. It is expected that TRD will show more severe cognitive deficits than generally reported in MDD and deficits in all cognitive functions are expected.

A systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines will be performed of the databases Embase, Pubmed/MEDLINE, PsychINFO and Cochrane including peer-reviewed studies on humans using standardised cognitive tests. Pilot searching was performed in January 2025 and the full search will be commenced in June 2025, with additional searches following completion. Where sufficient data are reported, a meta-analysis comparing deficits in TRD with MDD and healthy control participants will be performed; alternatively, effects based on norms will be calculated. Meta-regression, subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be conducted to explore moderators that are sufficiently reported in the literature. The quality of studies will be assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

Ethical approval is not necessary to perform the study, and results will be presented at a suitable conference and published in a peer-reviewed journal.

CRD42024538898.