Artificial intelligence (AI)-based clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) are currently being developed to aid prescribing in primary care. There is a lack of research on how these systems will be perceived and used by healthcare professionals and subsequently on how to optimise the implementation process of AI-based CDSSs (AICDSSs).

To explore healthcare professionals’ perspectives on the use of an AICDSS for prescribing in co-existing multiple long-term conditions (MLTC), and the relevance to shared decision making (SDM).

Qualitative study using template analysis of semistructured interviews, based on a case vignette and a mock-up of an AICDSS.

Healthcare professionals prescribing for patients working in the English National Health Service (NHS) primary care in the West Midlands region.

A purposive sample of general practitioners/resident doctors (10), nurse prescribers (3) and prescribing pharmacists (2) working in the English NHS primary care.

The proposed tool generated interest among the participants. Findings included the perception of the tool as user friendly and as a valuable complement to existing clinical guidelines, particularly in a patient population with multiple long-term conditions and polypharmacy, where existing guidelines may be inadequate. Concerns were raised about integration into existing clinical documentation systems, medicolegal aspects, how to interpret findings that were inconsistent with clinical guidelines, and the impact on patient-prescriber relationships. Views differed on whether the tool would aid SDM.

AICDSSs such as the OPTIMAL tool hold potential for optimising pharmaceutical treatment in patients with MLTC. However, specific issues related to the tool need to be addressed and careful implementation into the existing clinical practice is necessary to realise the potential benefits.

The UK Health Security Agency and the National Health Service England (NHSE) led a hepatitis C virus (HCV) patient re-engagement exercise beginning in 2018, which entailed sharing public health surveillance data with NHSE Operational Delivery Networks (ODNs) in England. The ODNs used the data to contact and offer testing and treatment to people historically diagnosed with HCV, but who did not have evidence of successfully clearing the virus. A quantitative evaluation found that of 55 329 individuals whose details were shared with ODNs, around 13% had treatment after the exercise commenced. This qualitative evaluation aims to identify the barriers and facilitators to the re-engagement exercise as reported by ODN staff.

Semistructured interviews. The topic guide and analysis were guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework, using a combined deductive framework and inductive thematic analysis approach.

21 staff from 13 ODNs. The sampling frame was designed to capture participants from all regions of England and with varied outcomes from the re-engagement exercise.

Interviewees reported the most barriers in environmental context and resources (including staffing limitations, interruptions during COVID-19, restricted laboratory access), and social influences (with limited responses from general practitioners and patients). Interviewees discussed whether it was appropriate for ODNs and individual staff to be assigned the data validation work and reported some stress and memory/attention barriers due to the volume of the exercise. They had varied beliefs about the consequences of the exercise, with most believing it was worthwhile due to treatment yield, lessons learnt and confirmation that some people had cleared the virus. Further facilitators included the ODN goals fitting with the exercise, and regional resources such as patient databases. Interviewees also reported adaptations to the exercise that facilitated patient contact, and their ongoing work to re-engage patients emphasised outreach partnerships and peer support.

The evaluation revealed insights into methods for re-engaging patients and of sharing and using public health data to support clinical practice. Government support and funding provision for regionally tailored holistic re-engagement approaches, alongside enhancements to health surveillance data, could enable barriers to re-engagement to be overcome.

Carers of people with non-memory-led dementias such as posterior cortical atrophy (PCA), primary progressive aphasia (PPA) and behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) face unique challenges. Yet, little evidence-based support and guidance are available for this population. To address this gap in services, we have developed a novel, web-based educational programme: the Better Living with Non-memory-led Dementia programme (BELIDE). BELIDE was co-designed with people with lived experience of non-memory-led dementia and a previous pilot study confirmed its feasibility as an online intervention. This protocol outlines the randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of BELIDE.

This is a parallel-group, single-blind, RCT of 238 unpaid caregivers of people diagnosed with PCA, PPA or bvFTD recruited internationally among members of the UK-based organisation Rare Dementia Support. The intervention (BELIDE programme) consists of six structured online educational modules tailored to each phenotype, a virtual onboarding session, real-life practice tasks and up to two follow-up facilitation sessions. The group receiving the intervention will be given access to the programme, while the control group will receive treatment as usual and be placed on a wait-list to receive access to the programme once they complete their participation in the trial. The allocation ratio will be 1:1 stratified by dementia diagnosis and gender. The primary outcome is reduction in caregiver depressive symptoms. Secondary outcomes include stress, anxiety, self-efficacy, quality of life and caregiver-patient relationship quality. Data will be collected online via Qualtrics surveys at baseline, 8 weeks and 6 months post-randomisation. A mixed-method process evaluation with a subgroup of intervention participants will explore barriers and facilitators for engagement. A health economics evaluation will also be conducted to assess cost-effectiveness. If effective, this programme could improve access to caregiver support for non-memory-led dementias by providing scalable, tailored education.

Ethical approval has been granted by University College London Research Ethics Committee (8545/007). The results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, conferences, stakeholder events and open-access resources.

This trial has been registered prospectively on the Clinical Trials registry, first posted on 5 February 2024 under registration number NCT06241287.