Implementation science (IS) is increasingly recognised as vital in cancer control planning and integrating evidence-based interventions across the cancer care continuum. Contextual differences often cause variability in delivering optimised healthcare, which IS approaches could mitigate. While IS improves planning effectiveness, many programme and policy planners remain unaware of its benefits. To address this, we examined IS theories applied to national cancer control plans (NCCPs)/strategies across five domains: stakeholder engagement, situational analysis, capacity assessment, economic evaluation and impact assessment.

We conducted a scoping review using the Arksey and O’Malley framework to analyse NCCPs and strategies from 16 and 17 countries belonging to low and medium categories of Human Development Index (HDI), focusing on resource-constrained settings. We identified plans through the International Cancer Control Partnership portal, categorised them by WHO region and included only those available in English or French. We extracted data into a Microsoft Excel database and performed thematic analysis across five IS domains. Multiple IS experts, selected purposively based on their familiarity with resource-constrained settings, validated the findings, assessed policy relevance and helped develop a pathway for integrating IS into national cancer control planning. They reviewed structured questions in advance and provided feedback on analyses, practical utility, dissemination and simplifying IS application, which was used to refine the pathway and reach consensus.

While many NCCPs incorporated key IS elements such as stakeholder engagement, situational analysis and impact measurement, these often needed to be more explicit and consistently applied. None of the plans assessed health system capacity to determine readiness for implementing new interventions. Although most plans described stakeholder engagement, it was typically unstructured and incomplete. Four low HDI and nine medium HDI countries included costed plans, generally using an activity-based approach. All plans included impact measures (eg, key performance indicators), but five lacked mechanisms for engaging stakeholders or responsible entities to achieve the targets. These findings informed a proposed pathway to integrate IS principles into cancer control planning.

Integrating IS into national cancer control planning offers a structured framework for achieving equitable and feasible cancer control policies, particularly in resource-constrained settings, by enabling realistic goal setting and benchmarking against regional and global standards.

This study aims to review whether both clinical and Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) of Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty have improved over time using the National Joint Registry (NJR).

This study is a population-based cohort study using the NJR and Hospital Episode Statistics for England.

Publicly funded hospitals and procedures in England from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2021.

All patients that received a reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) in the specified time period. Patients were excluded if they had less than 1 year of follow-up.

Primary outcome was revision at one year. Secondary outcomes were non-revision re-operation and mortality at one year, length of stay (LOS) and mean change in Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) from pre-operatively to 6 months post-operatively.

There were 24 411 RSA cases available for analysis. There was no significant improvement in revision rates over time; however, there was a significant reduction in non-revision re-operations (OR 0.93 (0.86–0.99) p=0.03) and mortality (0.96 (0.92–1.00) p=0.04). LOS over time improved with an average reduction of 0.24 days per year, ranging from a mean of 3.94 days in 2013 to 2.44 days in 2021 (p

Over the 9-year period recorded in the NJR, revision rates were low and remained similar. There has, however, been an improvement in other clinical outcomes such as non-revision reoperation and mortality as well as functional outcomes and reduced LOS, which demonstrates progress in the quality of care provided to shoulder replacement patients and is suggestive of advancements in surgical techniques, perioperative management and rehabilitation strategies.

School environments that encourage children to be physically active can embed lifelong positive health behaviours and contribute towards reducing health inequalities. The Health and Activity of Pupils in the Primary Years (HAPPY) study aims to: (1) explore the extent to which the WHO criteria for creating active school environments are implemented by primary schools and (2) examine associations between active school environments and children’s physical activity, mental health and educational performance.

The HAPPY study is a quasi-experimental study comprising: (1) a survey of state-funded Greater London primary schools to identify implementation of the WHO’s six criteria and (2) a cross-sectional study to examine associations between schools’ active environment score (derived from the school survey) and pupils’ physical activity, mental health and educational performance. For our cross-sectional study, we will recruit up to 1000 year-three children (aged 7–8 years). Our primary outcome is accelerometer (GENEActiv) assessed physical activity, our secondary outcomes are parent-reported child mental health (Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire) and teacher-reported educational performance (age-related expectations). Using multilevel mixed-effects regression models, we will examine associations between the active environment score and physical activity. Physical activity will be included as a measure of acceleration and also different intensities (light, moderate, vigorous). We will repeat this analysis to examine associations between the active environment score and mental health and educational performance. We will adjust for school characteristics and area-level deprivation and include pupil characteristics (eg, sex, ethnic group) as covariates. Clustering at the school level will be included as a random effect.

Ethical approval has been obtained from Imperial College Research Ethics Committee (ref: 6800895). Findings will be disseminated through a summary report to all participating schools, peer-reviewed publications, presentations at national and international conferences and National Institute for Health and Care Research policy briefings.