Rates of mental health difficulties among girls and young women in the UK have risen sharply, and disproportionately so for those from marginalised groups. My Story and Me is a new digital public mental health intervention that uses storytelling to reduce stigma, increase awareness and support early help-seeking among girls and young women aged 14–18. The feasibility study aims to determine the acceptability of the intervention and future full trial, including assessing optimal settings and meaningful changes in the primary outcome measure (anxiety and depression).

This is an 18-month mixed-methods, uncontrolled feasibility study conducted in secondary schools, further education colleges and community organisations across the UK. We will recruit 120–180 participants. Quantitative data will be collected at baseline and 7-month follow-up. The primary outcomes are anxiety and depression, and secondary outcomes are social support, mentalising, stigma, quality of life, loneliness, empowerment, intervention acceptability, resource use and randomisation acceptability. Platform-level engagement data will assess adherence and fidelity. Qualitative interviews with young women and staff will explore acceptability, feasibility, mechanisms of change and views on trial procedures, including randomisation in a future full trial. Analysis will be descriptive and exploratory, including comparisons across settings and priority groups (LGBTQIA+, neurodivergent and those experiencing digital poverty). A framework and reflexive thematic analysis approach will be used for qualitative data. Prespecified progression criteria will inform decisions about advancing to a full cluster randomised trial.

The University College London Research Ethics Committee (0692) has approved the My Story and Me protocol. Interested participants will be required to complete an expression of interest and consent form to take part in the study, and young people under 16 years old will be required to obtain parent/carer informed consent. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, lived experience summaries, a policy briefing and academic conference presentations.

ISRCTN12191423.

To determine the use, frequency and factors linked to the use of any electronic point of care resources (ePOC resources) used by early-career general practitioners (GPs in training, otherwise known as GP residents or registrars) during consultations; and the frequency, and factors linked to the use of evidence-based clinical summaries.

Cross-sectional analysis of data collected as part of the Registrar Clinical Encounters in Training (ReCEnT) project from 2018 to 2022. Every 6 months, GP trainees record 60 consecutive consultations, including information about their use of resources.

Australian training general practices.

3024 GP trainees in community-based vocational training.

The primary outcome was the use of ePOC resources, and the secondary outcome was the use of evidence-based ePOC summaries.

A total of 3024 GP trainees accessed electronic resources during patient encounters for 67 651/628 855 (10.8%) of diagnoses/problems. Use of ePOC resources increased 4% per year over the study period. Therapeutic Guidelines was accessed most often (27 435/79 536, 34.7% of all ePOC use) followed by Australian Medicines Handbook (7507, 9.4%) and HealthPathways (6965, 8.7%). Various factors were associated with increased use of ePOC resources, including increasing patient age, diagnosis/problem type, increasing years of experience prior to GP training and stage of training. GP trainees rarely accessed dedicated evidence-based clinical summaries.

Australian GP trainees use a range of resources to answer their clinical questions, mostly from Therapeutic Guidelines and prescribing compendiums, but also system specific resources that are free to access.

Frequency of general practitioners’ (GPs’) antibiotic prescribing for acute, self-limiting respiratory tract infections (aRTIs) is high. The practice environment and culture influence the clinical behaviour, including prescribing behaviour, of GP specialist vocational trainees (registrars). We aimed to assess inter-practice variability in registrars’ antibiotic prescribing.

This was a cross-sectional analysis from the Registrar Clinical Encounters in Training (ReCEnT) cohort study, from 2010 to 2020.

ReCEnT documents registrars’ clinical experiences and behaviours. Before 2016, 5 of 17 Australian training regions participated in ReCEnT. From 2016, three of nine regions (~40% of Australian registrars) participated.

3210 registrars (response rate 91.8%) from 1286 training practices contributed to the analysis.

The outcomes were prescription of an antibiotic for new diagnoses of (1) all aRTIs and (2) acute bronchitis diagnoses specifically. Prescribing percentages were calculated at the training practice level. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to measure the ratio of interpractice variation to total variance. Median ORs (MORs) were also estimated to quantify interpractice variability.

Practice-level antibiotic prescribing percentages ranged from 0% to 100% for both aRTIs and acute bronchitis diagnoses in the primary analysis. ICCs for aRTI prescribing were 0.08 (unadjusted) and 0.02 (adjusted). For acute bronchitis, ICCs were 0.10 (unadjusted) and 0.05 (adjusted). MORs were 1.66 (unadjusted) and 1.32 (adjusted) for aRTIs. MORs for acute bronchitis were 1.80 (unadjusted) and 1.53 (adjusted). This indicates a marked variation in the odds of a patient receiving antibiotics for an aRTI if randomly attending different practices.

There was considerable interpractice variation in registrars’ antibiotic prescribing frequencies. Further research is required to examine the factors accounting for this variation and to develop practice-level interventions to reduce antibiotic prescribing in high-prescribing practices.