There are little available data on the prevalence, economic and quality of life impacts of musculoskeletal disorders in sub-Saharan Africa. This lack of evidence is wholly disproportionate to the significant disability burden of musculoskeletal disorders as reported in high-income countries. Our research aimed to undertake an adequately powered study to identify, measure and value the health impact of musculoskeletal conditions in the Kilimanjaro region, Tanzania.

A community-based cross-sectional survey was undertaken between January 2021 and September 2021. A two-stage cluster sampling with replacement and probability proportional to size was used to select a representative sample of the population.

The survey was conducted in 15 villages in the Hai District, Kilimanjaro region, Tanzania.

Economic and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) questionnaires were administered to a sample of residents (aged over 5 years old) in selected households (N=1050). There were a total of 594 respondents, of whom 153 had a confirmed musculoskeletal disorder and 441 matched controls. Almost three-quarters of those identified as having a musculoskeletal disorder were female and had an average age of 66 years.

Questions on healthcare resource use, expenditure and quality of life were administered to all participants, with additional more detailed economic and quality of life questions administered to those who screened positive, indicating probable arthritis.

There is a statistically significant reduction in HRQOL, on average 25% from a utility score of 0.862 (0.837, 0.886) to 0.636 (0.580, 0.692) for those identified as having a musculoskeletal disorder compared with those without. The attributes ‘pain’ and ‘discomfort’ were the major contributors to this reduction in HRQOL.

This research has revealed a significant impact of musculoskeletal conditions on HRQOL in the Hai district in Tanzania. The evidence will be used to guide clinical health practices, interventions design, service provisions and health promotion and awareness activities at institutional, regional and national levels.

The introduction of fentanyl and its analogues in the illicit drug supply has prompted greater emphasis on refining clinical treatment protocols to ensure sustained retention in opioid agonist treatment (OAT). Take-home dosing may lessen the treatment burden on clients and thus reduce the risk of treatment discontinuation. The evidence base supporting the use of take-home dosing, including the optimal duration of dispensations, is, however, limited. The objective of this study is to determine the comparative effectiveness of alternative take-home dosing schedules, as observed in clinical practice in British Columbia, Canada from 2010 to 2022.

We propose to emulate a target trial with a population-level retrospective study of individuals initiating methadone or buprenorphine/naloxone between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2022 who are 18 years of age or older and not currently incarcerated or pregnant with no history of cancer or palliative care. Our study will draw on nine linked health administrative databases from British Columbia and will evaluate take-home doses of 2–5 days, 6 days or >6 days compared with continuous daily dosing. The primary outcomes include OAT discontinuation and all-cause mortality on treatment. A causal per-protocol analysis is proposed with longitudinal matching and inverse probability of censoring weighting approaches to adjust for time-fixed and time-varying confounding. A range of sensitivity analyses will be executed to determine the robustness of results.

The protocol, cohort creation and analysis plan have been classified and approved as a quality improvement initiative by Providence Health Care Research Ethics Board and the Simon Fraser University Office of Research Ethics. Results will be disseminated and shared with local advocacy groups and decision-makers, developers of national and international clinical guidelines, presented at national and international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals electronically and in print.

Selecting an optimal initial dosage of opioid agonist treatment (OAT) balances effectiveness and safety, as initial doses that are too low may be insufficient, potentially prompting clients to seek unregulated drugs to alleviate withdrawal symptoms, which may increase the likelihood of treatment discontinuation. Conversely, initial doses that are too high carry a risk of overdose. As opioid tolerance levels have risen in the fentanyl era, linked population-level data capturing initial doses in the real world provide a valuable opportunity to refine existing guidance on optimal OAT dosing at treatment initiation. Our objective is to determine the comparative effectiveness of alternative initial doses of methadone, buprenorphine-naloxone and slow-release oral morphine at OAT initiation, as observed in clinical practice in British Columbia (BC), Canada.

We propose a population-level retrospective observational study with a linkage of nine provincial health administrative databases in BC, Canada (1 January 2010 to 31 December 2022). Our study includes two time-to-event primary outcomes: OAT discontinuation and all-cause mortality during follow-up. We propose ‘initiator’ target trial analyses for each medication using both propensity score weighting and instrumental variable analyses to compare the effect of different initial OAT doses on the hazard of time-to-OAT discontinuation and all-cause mortality. A range of sensitivity analyses will be used to assess the robustness of the results.

The protocol, cohort creation and analysis plan have been classified and approved as a quality improvement initiative by Providence Health Care Research Ethics Board and the Simon Fraser University Office of Research Ethics. Results will be disseminated to local advocacy groups and decision-makers, national and international clinical guideline developers, presented at international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals electronically and in print.