Acknowledging equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) in research is not only a moral imperative but also an important step in avoiding bias and ensuring generalisability of results. This protocol describes the development of STAndards for ReporTing EDI (START-EDI) in research, which will provide a set of minimum standards to help researchers improve their consistency, completeness and transparency in EDI reporting. We anticipate that these guidelines will benefit authors, reviewers, editors, funding organisations, healthcare providers, patients and the public.

To create START-EDI reporting guidelines, the following five stages are proposed: (i) establish a diverse, multidisciplinary Steering Committee that will lead and coordinate guideline development; (ii) a systematic review to identify the essential principles and methodological approaches for EDI to generate preliminary checklist items; (iii) conduct an international Delphi process to reach a consensus on the checklist items; (iv) finalise the reporting guidelines and create a separate explanation and elaboration document; and (v) broad dissemination and implementation of START-EDI guidelines. We will work with patient and public involvement representatives and under-served groups in research throughout the project stages.

The study has received ethical approval from the Imperial College London Research Ethics Committee (study ID: 7592283). The reporting guidelines will be published in open access peer-reviewed publications and presented in international conferences, and disseminated through community networks and forums.

The project is pre-registered within the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/8udbq/) and the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research Network.

To co-design a core outcome set with people living with dementia and other stakeholders that can be used to measure the quality of dementia care in home care and residential settings.

Multilevel modified Delphi consensus study. A priori consensus threshold of 70% was used to include or exclude outcomes.

Routine dementia care provided through home care and residential aged care facilities in Australia.

A stakeholder panel comprising people living with dementia, formal and family/informal carers of people living with dementia, advocates, policy experts, allied-health professionals, nurses and professionals working in the aged care industry. Round 1 included 10 panellists; subsequent rounds extended the number of participants to 24.

Seven outcome domains (Death, Physiological and clinical, Functional, Life impact, Resources, Adverse events and Education), encompassing 105 individual outcomes were considered by the panel over four rounds.

The 105 outcomes were distilled to 16 outcomes identified as important in home care and 15 in residential aged care. In both settings, nine outcomes (Dignity, Advanced care planning, Meaningful activities, Feeling safe and secure, Emotional wellbeing, Quality of Life, Resource utilisation, Safety incidents and Dementia-specific qualifications for care staff) were considered important.

Additionally, seven outcomes in the home care setting (Behavioural symptoms of dementia, Diagnosis of dementia, Hygiene, Importance of Relationships, Quality of carer and family lives, Dementia care navigation and Opportunities for unpaid carers) and six outcomes in the residential aged care setting (Neuropsychiatric symptoms of dementia, Pain, Hygiene and comfort, Medication safety, Staff carer morale and Adverse effects) were classified as important.

The outcomes identified during this modified Delphi consensus study provide a promising basis for the development of a meaningful, practical and measurable core outcome set that could be used in dementia care settings to improve the quality of routine care provided to people living with dementia.

Sepsis is a common condition with significant morbidity, mortality and annual costs of care in the billions of dollars. Despite innumerable studies on the causes of, and therapies for, sepsis, the mortality rate has not changed substantially in the last 20 years. Treatments remain generic, with current guidelines recommending the same approach for all patients, regardless of the litany of differences that exist at baseline. Moreover, the blanket administration of 30 cc/kg of intravenous fluid (IVF) to all patients is recognised as being directly harmful to some. Patient-level heterogeneity in prior sepsis trials is recognised as a substantial contributor to all these problems, yet no prior investigation has attempted to identify volume-informed septic phenotypes, a necessary first step towards precision care.

Predicated on prior studies demonstrating detectability of organ-level congestion, we hypothesise that central venous hypertension (1) is deleterious to the function of the lungs, liver, kidneys and vascular endothelium; (2) is worsened by cardiac dysfunction and IVF administration; and (3) contributes to adverse organ-specific and overall outcomes. Beginning in the emergency department, cardiac function will be assessed with echocardiography while congestion in the lungs and kidneys will be assessed using previously validated sonographic markers of congestion. Biomarkers for each organ will be collected concurrently, thereby increasing the fidelity of our phenotypic profiles by pairing indicators of macroscopic and microscopic stress and dysfunction. Data will also be collected at 24 hours and 7 days (or discharge, whichever comes first) after presentation. Classical and machine learning approaches will be used to analyse our large data stream and develop a rule-based system to identify distinct subpopulations of patients with sepsis who have greater risk/likelihood of both organ-specific and overall adverse outcomes.

This project has been approved by the Wayne State University Institutional Review Board, with patient enrolment beginning in April 2024. Findings will be reported and disseminated via conference presentations and open-access publications.

This study examined the relationship between primary care patients’ psychosocial problems, other patient characteristics that are associated with satisfaction with overall care and satisfaction with general practitioner (GP) communication.

A cross-sectional survey was conducted. Patients filled an anonymous two-page questionnaire on various socio-demographic, medical characteristics and their satisfaction with GP communication. Structural equation modelling evaluated associations of various patient characteristics, including psychosocial problems with GP communication.

General practices in Germany.

A total of 813 patients from 12 GP practices participated. The survey was conducted in summer 2020 during a COVID-19 lockdown.

The estimated response rate was 24.1%. The prevalence of psychosocial problems in the sample was 30%. The three most frequent problems were excessive stress at work (19%), financial problems/debts (9%) and loneliness (8%). Most patients agreed that their GP takes their problems seriously (71%), feeling comfortable talking about sensitive things (66%), having enough space in communication (62%) and being asked by their GP about personal strains (53%). Higher social support, preference to solve one’s problem without GP help, higher age and better health status predicted more satisfaction with physician–patient communication, while the number of psychosocial problems, gender, years with physician, chronic stress and depression had no influence. According to the Bentler Comparative Fit Index, the pooled structural equation model had a 97.6% better fit than the corresponding model without covariate effects.

Higher social support, preference to solve one’s problem without GP help, higher age and better health status but not the number of psychosocial problems predicted more satisfaction with physician–patient communication.

GPs should be aware of the high occurrence of patients’ psychosocial problems and actively address patients’ social support and self-management preferences which influence patients’ satisfaction with GP communication.

The General Practice Care-1 study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00022330).