Poor indoor air quality and heat, individually and together, cause serious health impacts on children. Thus, there is a growing interest in creating school classroom environments that reduce health risks associated with these indoor environmental conditions. However, it is unclear if the existing evidence provides effective, practical and reliable interventions or strategies that can be implemented in classrooms. Additionally, the pertinence of these strategies for low-income communities needs to be elucidated. This scoping review will, therefore, document the findings of studies that have analysed interventions and strategies to improve school classroom conditions by reducing heat exposure and poor air quality to protect the health and well-being of children. This scoping review will consider: (1) interventions or adaptation strategies that have reduced heat exposure in classrooms; (2) interventions or adaptation strategies that have reduced air pollutant exposure in classrooms; (3) classroom building modifications that reduce exposure to heat and poor air quality and (4) improved health outcomes in children due to reduced heat and air pollutants. Studies that report reductions in heat or air pollutant exposure and show significant improvements in learner health outcomes will be prioritised for deeper analysis and considered particularly valuable for informing evidence-based recommendations.

We will explore original and review articles from both high-income and low-income settings that evaluate interventions and strategies for preventing or reducing heat exposure and poor air quality, to safeguard the health and well-being of children in classrooms. A comprehensive literature search will be conducted on Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Global Health, PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect and Web of Science. Searches will be limited to literature published in the last 10 years (2015–2025). Results will be exported to EndNote for deduplication and to Abstrackr software for screening. Four reviewers will do abstract screening to ensure consistency. Data from included papers will be presented in tables with a narrative commentary.

No ethical approval is required for this study as primary data collection will not be conducted. A manuscript detailing the findings from this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Saskatchewan is facing a public health crisis driven by high rates of HIV, syphilis and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections, particularly among people who use drugs. Injection drug use is a major contributor to these syndemic infections, exacerbated by structural barriers such as stigma, poverty and limited culturally safe healthcare. Innovative, community-informed approaches are urgently needed to improve prevention, testing and linkage to care.

This study will implement a rapid assessment and response system in Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada, integrating geospatial mapping of community needle prevalence with pop-up interventions. Needle hotspot maps will be used to guide the deployment of community-based pop-up events offering point-of-care testing for HIV, syphilis and HCV, alongside education on pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and postexposure prophylaxis (PEP). A convergent participatory mixed-methods design will be used to evaluate feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness, guided by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance framework. Quantitative data will assess changes in knowledge of PrEP and PEP, satisfaction with the intervention and report new diagnoses and participant demographics descriptively. A qualitative substudy will include 30 participants and will explore experiences with the intervention, barriers to care and perceptions of service delivery.

Ethical approval has been obtained from the research ethics board of the Saskatchewan Health Authority (#24–91). Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and community reporting. This study may provide a model of community-based geospatial testing and education that could be scaled up and adapted elsewhere.

Open Science Framework https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/HVK3B

To examine the relationship between catastrophic thinking and postural stability in individuals with chronic non-specific neck pain (CNSNP); to assess the moderating role of pain duration and intensity; and to investigate the mediating role of fear-avoidance beliefs.

Cross-sectional observational study.

Outpatient musculoskeletal and pain rehabilitation clinics.

Eighty-six adults aged 18–65 years with CNSNP (mean age: 45.3±10.5 years) were recruited via purposive sampling.

Primary outcomes included postural stability parameters—centre of pressure path length, sway velocity, range of movement in the anterior-posterior and mediolateral directions, and sway area—measured using computerised posturography. Catastrophic thinking was assessed using the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS). Secondary measures included the Neck Disability Index (NDI) to evaluate disability, the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) to measure pain intensity, the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) to assess fear-related beliefs, and the Short Form-36 (SF-36) Health Survey to evaluate quality of life. Pain duration and intensity were analysed as moderating variables, and fear-avoidance beliefs were examined as a potential mediator.

Moderate positive correlations were found between PCS scores and COP path length (r=0.41, p=0.014), sway velocity (r=0.38, p=0.022) and sway area (r=0.43, p=0.011). Participants with high PCS scores demonstrated significantly worse postural stability than those with low PCS scores. Pain duration (β=0.35, p=0.004) and intensity (β=0.42, p=0.006) significantly moderated this relationship. Fear-avoidance beliefs were statistically identified as a partial mediator of the association between catastrophic thinking and postural stability (indirect effect=0.22; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.35).

Catastrophic thinking is linked to reduced postural stability in individuals with chronic non-specific neck pain, with pain characteristics and fear-avoidance beliefs potentially influencing this association. These results underscore the importance of psychological factors in balance and support the need for further longitudinal research to inform comprehensive management strategies.

Using the community-based participatory research (CBPR) methodology, sustained peer group treatment has effectively improved medication adherence. Although many studies investigate the effectiveness of peer group therapy, there is a lack of evidence addressing the cost-effectiveness of CBPR models in low- and middle-income countries. This protocol outlines the methods for the economic evaluation of the PArticipatory Research model for medicaTIon adherenCe In People with diAbetes and hyperTEnsion (PARTICIPATE) trial to determine whether the CBPR approach to enhance medication adherence among patients with diabetes and/or hypertension is cost-effective in India.

A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) from a societal perspective will be conducted alongside a multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial to identify, measure and evaluate the key resource and outcome impacts of a CBPR model compared with usual care aimed at improving medication adherence in adult rural Indian patients with diabetes and/or hypertension. The CEA will provide results in terms of the cost per improvement in medication adherence score, and a cost-utility analysis (CUA) will express the findings as the cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) or quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Intervention costs and effects will be projected for the population of Indian adults with diabetes and/or hypertension who are on medication, analysed over the cohort’s lifetime. Results from the modelled CUA will detail incremental costs, costs per death averted and costs per DALY averted/QALY gained for the interventions relative to the comparator. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios will be computed by dividing the cost difference between the intervention and comparator by the difference in benefits. Health economic evaluation methods, including a lifetime horizon, a 3% discount rate for costs and benefits and a societal perspective, will be followed. The effects of sampling uncertainty on estimated incremental costs and effectiveness parameters, as well as the influence of methodological assumptions (such as the discount rate and study perspective), will be examined through both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Relevant differences in costs, outcomes or cost-effectiveness disparities among subgroups of patients with varying baseline characteristics will also be reported. Results will be illustrated using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves across a range of willingness-to-pay thresholds. Modelled CUA will broaden the target population and time frame to offer decision-makers insights into the cost-effectiveness of the CBPR approach for enhancing medication adherence. Furthermore, a return on investment analysis will be performed to express benefits in monetary terms relative to investments made, allowing for a comprehensive expression of both costs and the full spectrum of intervention benefits in monetary units.

The Institutional Ethics Committee of Sri Aurobindo Medical College and PGI, Indore, provided ethics approval. The results of the main trial and economic evaluation will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated through reports to Indian Council of Medical Research and conference presentations.

Clinical Trial Registry of India (CTRI) CTRI/2024/01/061939.