In Bangladesh, evidence on the long-term trajectory of adolescents' sexual and reproductive health (SRH) remains limited, largely due to the lack of longitudinal data to assess the changes over time. To address this gap, the Advancing Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (AdSEARCH) project of International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b) set up an adolescent cohort study aimed at documenting changes in SRH knowledge, attitudes and practices, and identifying the factors affecting these changes. This article presents the baseline sociodemographic and SRH characteristics of this cohort as a pathway for future analyses.

This cohort study included 2713 adolescents from the Baliakandi Health and Demographic Surveillance System run by icddr,b. The cohort covered three age groups from girls and boys, giving a total of five cohorts: girls aged 12, 14 and 16 years; and boys aged 14 and 16 years. A total of seven rounds of data had been collected at 4-month intervals over 2-years follow-up period.

The majority of adolescents were attending school (90%), and school dropouts were higher among boys. Around 17% of the respondents were involved in income-generating activities, which were mostly boys. Among girls, the mean age of menarche was 12.2 years. Overall, 6% of adolescents had major depressive disorder, with prevalence increasing with age. Gender differences were evident regarding knowledge about conception and contraception. Egalitarian attitudes towards social norms and gender roles were found higher among girls (52%) compared to boys (11%). The majority of adolescents reported experiencing social/verbal bullying (43%), followed by physical violence (38%) and cyberbullying (4%).

This article presents the baseline findings only. A series of papers is in the pipeline for submission to different peer-reviewed journals. The findings from this study will be used to support data-driven policy formulation for future adolescent health programmes.

Incretin-based drugs, including glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (RAs) and dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 RAs, are increasingly used in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus and obesity. While these agents have shown cardiovascular benefits, their effects on both cardiovascular outcomes and cardiac structure and function remain uncertain—particularly in patients with and without a history of heart failure (HF).

We will conduct a systematic review and search major medical databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S)), as well as clinical trial registries from their inception and onwards to identify relevant randomised trials. The literature search is scheduled for July 2025. Two review authors will independently extract data and assess risk of bias. We will include randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of cagrilintide/semaglutide, liraglutide, semaglutide and tirzepatide in patients with and without a history of HF. The primary outcome will be cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes will include HF hospitalisation, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide, left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular end-diastolic volume and left ventricular end-systolic volume. Data will be synthesised by aggregate data meta-analyses and trial sequential analysis. Risk of bias will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, version 2, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE).

As this study is a systematic review based on secondary analysis of published data, ethical approval is not required. Findings will be published in international peer-reviewed scientific journals.

CRD420251003374.

In the UK, approximately 5.4 million adults live with asthma, of whom one in five have an uncontrolled form. Uncontrolled asthma reduces quality of life and increases healthcare use. Engaging with peers through online health communities (OHCs) can empower patients to self-manage their long-term condition. While OHCs have been in existence for several years and growing numbers of patients access them, the role of primary care in signposting patients to them has been minimal and ad hoc. We have co-developed with patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) an intervention for adult patients with asthma, consisting of an appointment with a primary care HCP to introduce online peer support and sign patients up to an established asthma OHC, followed by OHC engagement. Feasibility work found the intervention acceptable to patients and HCPs. This protocol outlines our plan to test the intervention’s effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

An individual randomised controlled trial will be carried out. Eligible participants will be recruited via an online survey sent to adult patients on the asthma register in 50–70 general practices in several UK locations. Participants will be invited to attend a one-off, face-to-face appointment with a primary care HCP, during which they will be individually randomised to the intervention or usual care. An asthma control test (primary outcome) and other measures of clinical effectiveness will be collected at baseline and every 3 months over a 12-month follow-up period. Descriptive and inferential statistics will be used to compare outcome measures between study arms. Cost-effectiveness assessment of the intervention compared with current standard of asthma management in primary care will be reported. A sample of patients and HCPs will be interviewed at study exit and the data analysed thematically.

The study was approved by a National Health Service Research Ethics Committee (reference: 25/NE/0006). Written consent will be obtained from all participants. Findings will be disseminated through various means, including sharing with general practices, conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications.

NCT06849245.

Over the past two decades, initiatives promoting research-policy engagement have increased broadly and in health. Numerous factors influencing the engagement of policymakers in research have been described primarily from the perspective of researchers. This scoping review aimed to identify the enablers and barriers to policymaker engagement across the research process from the perspective of policymakers.

Scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute Methods Manual for scoping reviews.

MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Social Policy and Practice, Campbell Collaboration, Health Systems Evidence and World Bank e-Library, supplemented by grey literature from Google Scholar, WHO Global Index Medicus and VHL Regional Portal.

We included English language studies published after 2007 that involved policymakers at national or subnational levels who were actively engaged in research at any stage. We excluded studies which did not include policymakers, where engagement was passive, or perspectives were marginal or not clearly outlined.

After screening and full-text review, we extracted and coded data using MAXQDA Plus 24. We conducted thematic analysis, categorising findings as enablers or barriers into three levels: individual, organisational and contextual/system. Findings were iteratively reviewed and refined by the research team.

We screened 5384 titles and abstracts, reviewed 59 full-text documents and included 30 articles for analysis. Most studies were published after 2016 and were focused on policymaker engagement at the national level. Organisational factors were the most frequently reported influences on engagement of policymakers in research across different contexts. The most frequent enablers mentioned in the literature were (1) the institutionalisation of partnerships, initiatives and having formal agreements; (2) defining goals, roles, responsibilities and conflict resolution mechanisms; (3) researchers providing practical and expert advice to policymakers; (4) leveraging networks; and (5) having supportive institutions. The most frequent barriers were (1) the lack of regulations, infrastructure, funding and communication channels to support engagement; (2) the lack of skills of researchers to understand policymaking processes and work in collaboration with policymakers; and (3) the mismatch in priorities, values, perspectives and expectations.

Our study highlights the role of institutional support, widespread collaboration opportunities and the interconnected nature of these factors within the research-policy ecosystem.

Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/ynr78/).

SARS-CoV-2 infection provides protection against reinfection and severe COVID-19 disease; however, this protective effect may diminish over time. We assessed waning of natural immunity conferred by previous infection against severe disease and symptomatic reinfection in Brazil and Scotland.

We undertook a test-negative design study and nested case–control analysis to estimate waning of natural immunity against severe COVID-19 outcomes and symptomatic reinfection using national linked datasets. We used logistic regression to estimate ORs with 95% CIs. A stratified analysis assessed immunity during the Omicron dominant period in Brazil.

We included data from the adult populations of Brazil and Scotland from 1 June 2020 to 30 April 2022.

Severe COVID-19 was defined as hospitalisation or death. Reinfection was defined as reverse-transcriptase PCR or rapid antigen test confirmed at least 120 days after primary infection.

From Brazil, we included 30 881 873 tests and 1 301 665 severe COVID-19 outcomes, and from Scotland, we included 1 520 201 tests and 7988 severe COVID-19 outcomes. Against severe outcomes, sustained protection was observed for at least 12 months after primary SARS-CoV-2 infection with little evidence of waning: 12 months postprimary infection: Brazil OR 0.12 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.14), Scotland OR 0.03 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.04). For symptomatic reinfection, Brazilian data demonstrated evidence of waning in the 12 months following primary infection, although some residual protection remained beyond 12 months: 12 months postprimary infection: OR 0.42 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.43). The greatest reduction in risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection was in individuals with hybrid immunity (history of previous infection and vaccination), with sustained protection against severe outcomes at 12 months postprimary infection. During the Omicron dominant period in Brazil, odds of symptomatic reinfection were higher and increased more quickly over time when compared with the overall study period, although protection against severe outcomes was sustained at 12 months postprimary infection (whole study: OR 0.12 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.14); Omicron phase: OR 0.15 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.19)).

Cross-national analyses demonstrate sustained protection against severe COVID-19 disease for at least 12 months following natural SARS-CoV-2 infection, with vaccination further enhancing protection. Protection against symptomatic reinfection was lower with evidence of waning, but there remained a protective effect beyond 12 months from primary infection.

Though prior trials have shown the effectiveness of community-based hypertension detection and care delivery models, their adoption and translation to practice has been slow. In this study, we will develop and test strategies for the implementation and scale-up of a proven multicomponent hypertension intervention (MCHI) in Pakistan that comprises health education, blood pressure (BP) monitoring and referrals by lady health workers (LHWs) and hypertension management by physicians in primary care settings.

In this 24-month hybrid type III implementation-effectiveness cluster-randomised controlled trial, we will recruit 3000 adult hypertensive patients from two rural districts of Pakistan. We will engage public health sector managers, physicians and LHWs and use the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of an already proven-to-be-effective MCHI. Using Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change and the modified Delphi technique, a set of implementation strategies addressing barriers will be identified. The strategies will be categorised as level 1 (requiring a change in processes), level 2 (requiring a change in infrastructure) and level 3 (financial restructuring). Basic health units and 250–300 households from their catchment will be considered as clusters. Clusters will be randomised in a ratio of 1:1 to intervention and control. While MCHI will be offered in both trial arms (intervention and control), the aforementioned implementation strategies will be randomised to the intervention arm only, starting with level 1 and moving to levels 2 and 3 as needed. Baseline and 6-monthly follow-up surveys, each of 6 months duration, will be conducted to collect data from the recruited participants on sociodemographics, cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors, CVD-related expenses and quality of life. The primary outcome will be the mean difference in BP-lowering medications per participant between the intervention and control arms. The primary outcome will be analysed using a linear mixed model with fixed effects for baseline value of the outcome. Additional outcomes include implementation outcomes: proportion of LHWs conducting health education, BP screening and monitoring, facility referrals and proportion of physicians diagnosing and treating hypertensive patients; effectiveness outcomes: proportion of participants with controlled BP and improved EQ-5D-5L score.

Ethical approval has been obtained from the Ethics Review Committee of Aga Khan University Pakistan (ERC # 2023-9084-26739). Findings will be reported to: (1) study participants; (2) funding body and institutes collaborating and supporting the study; (3) provincial and district health departments to inform policy; (4) presented at local, national and international conferences and (5) disseminated by peer-review publications

NCT06726057.

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) and multiple sclerosis (MS) are inflammatory diseases resulting from an interplay of genetic and environmental factors. This study aims to describe the prevalence of patients diagnosed with both conditions among those receiving hospital care in England, as well as the characteristics and healthcare resource use (HCRU) of such patients.

This study is a retrospective observational cohort study.

The study was conducted through secondary use of the English Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) Database. HES records care delivered by hospitals in England and associated diagnoses.

Patients who had a diagnosis code for either IBD or MS recorded in HES between January 2014 and May 2020 were included. Patients were classified as having each diagnosis individually or as having both diagnoses, in which case they were further categorised based on temporal occurrence.

The primary outcome was the prevalence of patients with a recorded diagnosis of either IBD, MS or both during the study period. Secondary outcome measures included patient demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as HCRU in the 6 months before and after the diagnosis of interest.

From an overall cohort of 352 698 patients, 1016 (0.3%) had both diagnoses. Among those with both, 29.8% (303) had a record of IBD first, 40.5% (411) had MS diagnosed first and 29.7% (302) had the first record of both diagnoses in the same episode. From the overall cohort, 80.9% (285 439) of patients had a single diagnosis of IBD, and 18.8% (66 243) of patients had a single diagnosis of MS.

The population with a dual diagnosis of IBD and MS is larger than previously reported and shows evidence of frequent interactions with secondary care.

The night-time economy comprises various sectors, including hospitality, transportation and entertainment, which generate substantial revenues and contribute to employment opportunities. Furthermore, the night-time economy provides spaces for leisure activities, cultural expression and social interaction. On-trade alcohol premises (places where consumers can buy and consume alcohol such as bars, pubs, clubs and restaurants) are a significant component of this night-time economy, functioning as focal points for socialising, entertainment and cultural events. However, when on-trade alcohol premises stay open later at night, this can be associated with negative public health impacts including increased alcohol consumption, intoxication, assaults, injuries and burden on public services including ambulance call outs, hospitalisations and increased impacts on criminal justice services. The evidence on the societal impact of policies to ‘later’ trading hours for bars and clubs in the night-time economy is limited. This protocol details the design of an economic evaluation of policy to later trading hours for bars and clubs in the night-time economy alongside the ELEPHANT study (National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research, ref:129885).

The research design is an economic evaluation alongside a natural experiment within the ELEPHANT study carried out in Glasgow and Aberdeen. The economic evaluation has been designed to identify, measure and value prospective resource impacts and outcomes to assess the costs and consequences of local policy changes regarding late night trading hours for bars and clubs. A number of economic evaluation frameworks will be employed. A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is appropriate for assessing the effectiveness of complex interventions when the impacts of policy are measured in natural units. Therefore, a CEA will be conducted for the primary consequence, alcohol-related ambulance call-outs, using a health service sector perspective. Since this outcome is essentially a cost, the CEA will also be reported as a cost-analysis. A cost-consequence analysis will also be performed for the primary and secondary consequences including all ambulance call-outs and reported crimes to evaluate the full economic impacts of later trading hours for bars and clubs in the night-time economy. The analysis will be conducted from a wider societal perspective, including health sector, criminal justice system, business and third sector perspectives and will be in line with the recent National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance and recommendations.

The economic evaluation of the ELEPHANT study will be conducted using secondary data. Thus, no ethical approval is required for this economic evaluation. However, ethical approval for the ELEPHANT study has been granted from the University of Stirling’s General Research Ethics Committee, and prior consent has also been obtained from the participants, if involved. The results of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications in journals and national and international conferences.

Minority ethnic groups disproportionately experienced adverse COVID-19 outcomes, partly a consequence of disproportionate exposure to socioeconomic disadvantage and high-risk occupations. We examined whether minority ethnic groups were also disproportionately vulnerable to the consequences of socioeconomic disadvantage and high-risk occupations in Scotland.

We investigated effect modification and interaction between area deprivation, education and occupational risk and ethnicity (assessed as both a binary white vs non-white variable and a multi-category variable) in relation to severe COVID-19 (hospitalisation or death). We used electronic health records linked to the 2011 census and Cox proportional hazards models, adjusting for age, sex and health board. We were principally concerned with additive interactions as a measure of vulnerability, estimated as the relative excess risk due to interaction (RERI).

Analyses considered 3 730 837 individuals aged ≥16 years (with narrower age ranges for analyses focused on education and occupation). Severe COVID-19 risk was typically higher for minority ethnic groups and disadvantaged socioeconomic groups, but additive interactions were not consistent. For example, non-white ethnicity and highest deprivation level experienced elevated risk ((HR=2.7, 95% CI: 2.4, 3.2) compared with the white least deprived group. Additive interaction was not present (RERI=–0.1, 95% CI: –0.4, 0.2), this risk being less than the sum of risks of white ethnicity/highest deprivation level (HR=2.4, 95% CI: 2.3, 2.5) and non-white ethnicity/lowest deprivation level (1.4, 95% CI: 1.2, 1.7). Similarly, non-white ethnicity/no degree education (HR=2.5, 95% CI: 2.2, 2.7; RERI=–0.1, 95% CI: –0.4, 0.2) and non-white ethnicity/high-risk occupation (RERI=0.3, 95% CI: –0.2, 0.8) did not experience greater than additive risk. No clear evidence of effect modification was identified when using the multicategory ethnicity variable or on the multiplicative scale either.

We found no definitive evidence that minority ethnic groups were more vulnerable to the effect of social disadvantage on the risk of severe COVID-19.

Hypersexuality involves an inability to control intense, recurring sexual impulses, resulting in repetitive sexual behaviours. It frequently manifests in patients with neurodegenerative disorders such as Parkinson’s disease (PD) and dementia. Using a qualitative approach, this study aims to explore the impact of hypersexuality on spousal carers of patients with PD and dementia.

Qualitative study using semistructured interviews and thematic analysis.

This study was conducted in secondary care settings, including movement disorder and dementia clinics, as well as through patient support organisations. Participants were recruited from multiple centres across the UK. Interviews were conducted in a clinical research setting.

Eight spousal carers (five caring for patients with PD, three for patients with dementia) participated in the study. Participants were selected based on their role as primary carers and their experience managing hypersexuality in their partners.

The thematic analysis identified 12 themes: manifestations, sexual practices, impact, control, emotional formulations, beliefs in causes of hypersexuality and attributions, relationship with the partner, dealing with hypersexuality, coping with hypersexuality, self-image, stigma and professional help-seeking. Hypersexuality altered patients’ sexual cognitions and behaviours, causing distress and strain on carers’ mental health and marital life. Carers struggled to cope with their partners’ hypersexuality, facing emotional burden and barriers to seeking professional help.

Hypersexuality significantly impacts spousal carers of patients with PD and dementia, affecting their emotional well-being and relationships. Healthcare professionals should recognise and address hypersexuality’s psychological and relational consequences. Psychoeducation, support groups and tailored interventions for patients and carers are recommended to alleviate emotional distress. Future research should explore the broader familial impact of hypersexuality and develop effective management strategies.