Sweden, as many other high-income countries, has adopted guidelines to offer induction of labour at 41+0 gestational weeks to decrease the risk for perinatal death. As more than 20% of the pregnant population reach this gestational age, and along with other contributing factors, induction rates have increased up to 30% in many countries. Both women and care providers have raised the question if outpatient induction could be a convenient, safe and economic alternative, reducing the burden on inpatient care in maternity hospitals. Before introducing outpatient induction into clinical routine, studies need to assure safety for the child and woman as well as efficacy of the method.

A register-based randomised controlled multicentre non-inferiority trial to study if outpatient induction in low-risk inductions is (1) as safe for the child (perinatal composite of mortality and morbidity) and (2) as effective (proportion of vaginal deliveries) as inpatient induction at the hospital. Secondary outcomes are further health outcomes, experiences of pregnant women, partners and care providers, health economics and future pregnancy outcome. Participating women with a singleton pregnancy and unripe cervix between 37+0 and 41+6 gestational weeks planned for low-risk induction will undergo induction of labour with either a balloon catheter or oral misoprostol according to clinical practice at the study site and the woman’s informed choice. Randomisation will allocate women to either outpatient (home or patient hotel) or inpatient induction (standard care). Women undergoing outpatient induction can remain at home for up to 2 days, with an assessment after 24 hours including cardiotocography. Once active labour ensues, all women will receive standard care in the hospital.

The assessment of non-inferiority will involve a two-sided 95% CI and 80% power, requiring randomisation of 8891 women to ensure a probability of at least 0.80 that the upper limit of a two-sided 95.7% CI for a difference in the primary safety outcome is below the non-inferiority margin of 1.5%. 31 of the 45 delivery units in Sweden are currently recruiting. Data will be collected from the electronic case report form and Swedish healthcare registers. Questionnaire and qualitative interview-based studies will be performed to explore experiences of pregnant women, partners and care providers. Additionally, a health economic evaluation will be performed.

The Swedish Ethical Review Authority approved the study (3 June 2020; 2020-02675 with amendments 2021-03045, 2022-00865-02, 2023-01252-02, 2024-00560-02, 2024-2024-04597-02). The Swedish Medical Products Agency approved the study for the medication arm (25 August 2020, EudraCT number: 2020-000233-41; 5.1-2020-60240 with amendments 5.1-2022-73500, 5.1-2023-630). Due to changed regulation, in 2023, the study medication arm was transferred and approved by the European Medicines Agency (23 October 2023, EU CT Number: 2023-507164-39-00; CTIS 5.1.2-2023-099775 with amendments 5.1.2-2024-081916, 5.1.2-2025-036291). The Swedish Medical Products Agency approved the study for the medical device arm (6 April 2021, CIV-ID: CIV-20-09-034712; 5.1-2021-14812 with amendments 5.1-2022-14252, 5.1-2023-596, 5.1-2024-8886, 5.1-2024-55554). The medical device arm was transferred to Regulation (EU) 2017/745 (23 December 2024, 5.1-2025-24242 and amendment 5.1-2025-6050). The study will involve more than 80% of all delivery units in Sweden, which will allow for a smooth implementation of any new routine after the study’s conclusion. Results will be published in relevant scientific journals, presented at national and international conferences, and communicated to participants and relevant institutions through the Outpatient Induction study homepage (www.optionstudien.se), the webinars of the Swedish Network for National Clinical Studies in Obstetrics and Gynecology (www.snaks.se) as well as social and public media.

EudraCT No: 2020-000233-41, after transfer to the European Medicines Agency EU CT Number: 2023-507164-39-00; CIV-ID 20-09-034712.

Paediatric cervical spine injury (CSI) is uncommon but can have devastating consequences. Many children, however, present to emergency departments (EDs) for the assessment of possible CSI. While imaging can be used to determine the presence of injuries, these tests are not without risks and costs, including exposure to radiation and associated life-time cancer risks. Clinical decision rules (CDRs) to guide imaging decisions exist, although two of the existing rules, the National Emergency X-Radiography Low Risk Criteria and the Canadian C-Spine Rule (CCR), focus on adults and a newly developed paediatric rule from the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) is yet to be externally validated. This study aims to externally validate these three CDRs in children.

This is a multicentre prospective observational study of children younger than 16 years presenting with possible CSI following blunt trauma to 1 of 14 EDs across Australia, New Zealand and Singapore. Data will be collected on presenting features (history, injury mechanism, physical examination findings) and management (diagnostic imaging, admission, interventions, outcomes). The performance accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values) of three existing CDRs in identifying children with study-defined CSIs and the specific CDR defined outcomes will be determined, along with multiple secondary outcomes including CSI epidemiology, investigations and management of possible CSI.

Ethics approval for the study was received from the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne Human Research Ethics Committee in Australia (HREC/69436/RCHM-2020) with additional approvals from the New Zealand Human and Disability Ethics Committee and the SingHealth Centralised Institutional Review Board. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and future management guidelines.

Registration with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry prior to the commencement of participant recruitment (ACTRN12621001050842). 50% of expected patients have been enrolled to date.

Individuals with stroke or spinal cord injury (SCI) often have poor balance control, leading to falls and activity limitations. One intervention that targets balance control—functional electrical stimulation with visual feedback balance training (FES+VFBT)—may improve balance control but needs modifications for clinical use.

To use a participatory design approach to identify potential challenges and solutions for the clinical implementation of FES+VFBT as a balance intervention.

A descriptive qualitative study involving four semi-structured focus group meetings was conducted to explore the perspectives of individuals with stroke and SCI, physical therapists and a hospital administrator on the feasibility and challenges of implementing FES+VFBT into clinical settings. The interviews were transcribed and analysed using deductive and inductive content analyses. The deductive analysis was based on the social ecological model (SEM) levels, while the inductive approach was used to identify categories and codes.

Virtual.

Two individuals with chronic SCI and one individual with chronic stroke who were able to stand but reported deficits in their balance control. Two physical therapists who had experience with FES and the rehabilitation of individuals with SCI or stroke. One hospital administrator who worked within a neurological rehabilitation setting.

Themes were organised according to the SEM’s four levels: intrapersonal, interpersonal, organisational/training environment and society/policy. Identified categories included potential challenges at the intrapersonal level (ie, lack of knowledge, safety and tolerance of user) and organisational/training environment level (ie, technical challenges, cost, physical space and time). The categories also included possible solutions at all SEM levels, such as intrapersonal (ie, reading and education), interpersonal (ie, practising together), organisational/training environment (ie, technology characteristics and creating resources) and society/policy (ie, purchasing options, guidelines and foundation grants).

End-users identified anticipated challenges and solutions to using the FES+VFBT system clinically. The results will inform the design and clinical implementation of a revised version of the system and other FES devices.