BACKGROUND: Ensuring diversity in clinical trials can be a challenge, which may be exacerbated when recruiting vulnerable populations, such as participants with mental health illness. As recruitment continues to be the major cause of trial delays, researchers are turning to online recruitment strategies, e.g. social media, to reach a wider population and reduce recruitment time and costs. There is mixed evidence for the use of online recruitment strategies; therefore, the REcruitment in Mental health trials: broadening the \'net\', opportunities for INclusivity through online methoDs (RE-MIND) study aimed to identify evidence and provide guidance for use of online strategies in recruitment to mental health trials, with a focus on whether online strategies can enhance inclusivity. This commentary, as part of the RE-MIND study, focusses on providing recommendations for recruitment strategy selection in future research with the aim to improve trial efficiency. A mixed-methods approach was employed involving three work packages: (I) an evidence review of a cohort of 97 recently published randomised controlled trials/feasibility or pilot studies in mental health to assess the impact of online versus offline recruitment; (II) a qualitative study investigating the experiences of n = 23 key stakeholders on use of an online recruitment approach in mental health clinical trials; (III) combining the results of WP1 and WP2 to produce recommendations on the use of an online recruitment strategy in mental health clinical trials. The findings from WP1 and 2 have been published elsewhere; this commentary represents the results of the third work package.
CONCLUSIONS: For external validity, clinical trial participants should reflect the populations that will ultimately receive the interventions being tested, if proven effective. To guide researchers on their options for inclusive recruitment strategies, we have developed a list of considerations and practical recommendations on how to maximise the use of online recruitment methods.

BACKGROUND: There are 1.3 billion people with disabilities globally, and they frequently face barriers to accessing healthcare, contributing to their worse health and higher mortality. However, little research has explored patient-reported approaches to improve healthcare for persons with disabilities. Consequently, this study aimed to explore possible solutions and recommendations to address the existing barriers to access to healthcare for persons with disabilities in rural Uganda.
METHODS: We conducted 27 semi-structured interviews with individuals with various disabilities in rural Luuka district, Eastern Uganda, between September and November 2022. The participants included individuals with visual impairment (n = 5), physical impairment (n = 5), hearing impairment (n = 6), multiple impairments (n = 5), intellectual/cognitive impairment (n = 5), and albinism (n = 1). Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analysed. We categorized the solutions using the Missing Billion disability-inclusive health systems framework.
RESULTS: Our findings, framed within the health systems framework, revealed several critical themes. On the demand side, suggested solutions emphasized advocacy and sensitization for persons with disabilities, their communities, and caregivers about healthcare needs. Socio-economic empowerment and community-based health services were also highlighted as essential. On the supply side, participants stressed the importance of training healthcare workers on disability, facilitating dialogue and experience-sharing sessions, and employing health workers with disabilities. Additional recommendations included improving accessibility and reasonable accommodation, organizing inclusive services like special clinic days and outreaches, ensuring representation in health facility management, and establishing comprehensive rehabilitation services with affordable assistive devices.
CONCLUSIONS: The multifaceted solutions proposed by persons with disabilities highlight the complex challenges they face in accessing healthcare services and highlight the necessity for comprehensive, sustainable interventions. The call to action for policymakers and healthcare providers is to prioritise the incorporation of disability-inclusive practices and explore multi-dimensional approaches that foster a more inclusive healthcare environment that adequately meets the needs of persons with disabilities.

BACKGROUND: To facilitate global implementation of lung cancer (LC) screening and early detection in a quality assured and consistent manner, common terminology is needed. Researchers and clinicians within different specialties may use the same terms but with different meanings or different terms for the same intended meanings.
METHODS: The Diagnostics Working Group of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Early Detection and Screening Committee has analyzed and discussed relevant terms used on a regular basis and suggests recommendations for consensus definitions of terminology applicable in this setting. We explored how to reach consensus to define relevant and unambiguous terminology for use by health care providers, researchers, patients, screening participants, and family.
RESULTS: Terms and definitions for epidemiologic and health-economical purposes included the following: standardized incidence and mortality rates, LC-specific survival, long-term survival and cure rates, overdiagnosis, overtreatment, and undertreatment. Terms and definitions for defining screening findings included the following: positive, false-positive, negative, false-negative, and indeterminate findings and additional and incidental findings. Terms and definitions for describing parameters in screening programs included the following: opportunistic versus programmatic screening, screening rounds, interval or interim diagnoses, and invasive and minimally invasive procedures. Terms and definitions for shared decision-making included the following: LC screening-possible harms and risks and LC risk and modifiers prior and posterior to a measure.
CONCLUSIONS: A common set of terminology with standard definitions is recommended for describing clinical LC screening programs, the discussion about effectiveness and outcomes, or the clinical setting. The use of the terms should be clearly defined and explained.

Successful multichannel intraluminal impedance and pH monitoring (MII-pHM) studies rely on constant attendants (CAs) or family members (and sometimes the patients themselves) to assist in the execution and facilitation of the MII-pHM study. While \"pushing buttons\" [corresponding to specific symptoms, body position (upright versus recumbent), and meal start and stop times] on the MII-pHM system recording box is indeed a big part of MII-pHM study execution and facilitation, there are other concerns and duties that are equally as important. This paper outlines some of the important duties of the study facilitator (or patient) during a MII-pHM study. When provided with the proper training, study facilitators invigilating the MII-pHM study will be better able to contribute to the data collection process and ultimately to produce data that when analyzed will lead to better interpretations, clinical recommendations, and good clinical outcomes. When executed properly, MII-pHM studies have the potential to assess diurnal exposure of the esophageal mucosa to gastric/duodenal contents, provide insight regarding the proximal extent of gastroesophageal reflux (GER), provide a measurement of the mean esophageal pH, and assess mucosal integrity and temporal relationship between GER and the symptoms of interest. While several groups have offered recommendations for proper execution of the MII-pHM study, to our knowledge, there have not been publications wherein recommendations were compiled to form a single source document.

BACKGROUND: Large language models show promise for improving radiology workflows, but their performance on structured radiological tasks such as Reporting and Data Systems (RADS) categorization remains unexplored.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate 3 large language model chatbots-Claude-2, GPT-3.5, and GPT-4-on assigning RADS categories to radiology reports and assess the impact of different prompting strategies.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study compared 3 chatbots using 30 radiology reports (10 per RADS criteria), using a 3-level prompting strategy: zero-shot, few-shot, and guideline PDF-informed prompts. The cases were grounded in Liver Imaging Reporting & Data System (LI-RADS) version 2018, Lung CT (computed tomography) Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS) version 2022, and Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting & Data System (O-RADS) magnetic resonance imaging, meticulously prepared by board-certified radiologists. Each report underwent 6 assessments. Two blinded reviewers assessed the chatbots\' response at patient-level RADS categorization and overall ratings. The agreement across repetitions was assessed using Fleiss κ.
RESULTS: Claude-2 achieved the highest accuracy in overall ratings with few-shot prompts and guideline PDFs (prompt-2), attaining 57% (17/30) average accuracy over 6 runs and 50% (15/30) accuracy with k-pass voting. Without prompt engineering, all chatbots performed poorly. The introduction of a structured exemplar prompt (prompt-1) increased the accuracy of overall ratings for all chatbots. Providing prompt-2 further improved Claude-2\'s performance, an enhancement not replicated by GPT-4. The interrun agreement was substantial for Claude-2 (k=0.66 for overall rating and k=0.69 for RADS categorization), fair for GPT-4 (k=0.39 for both), and fair for GPT-3.5 (k=0.21 for overall rating and k=0.39 for RADS categorization). All chatbots showed significantly higher accuracy with LI-RADS version 2018 than with Lung-RADS version 2022 and O-RADS (P<.05); with prompt-2, Claude-2 achieved the highest overall rating accuracy of 75% (45/60) in LI-RADS version 2018.
CONCLUSIONS: When equipped with structured prompts and guideline PDFs, Claude-2 demonstrated potential in assigning RADS categories to radiology cases according to established criteria such as LI-RADS version 2018. However, the current generation of chatbots lags in accurately categorizing cases based on more recent RADS criteria.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic put unprecedented pressure on weight management services. These services were required to adapt to continue to provide care for people living with obesity. This study sought to develop consensus recommendations on the best practice solutions adopted by weight management services in the United Kingdom during the COVID-19 pandemic.
METHODS: This study utilised a semi-structured interview and a modified Delphi methodology to develop a consensus of best practice recommendations identified by specialist weight management services during the pandemic.
RESULTS: Twenty-three healthcare professionals working in weight management service across the United Kingdom participated in the study. Analysis of interview transcripts identified four key thematic domains: outpatient, patient education and support, perioperative care and team working. Of the initial 43 unique recommendations, 30 reached consensus agreement. Outpatient recommendations focused on communication strategies, patient self-monitoring and remote patient tracking. Patient education and support recommendations addressed the development of online educational resources and support groups. Perioperative care recommendations emphasised case prioritisation, waiting list support and postoperative care. Team working recommendations targeted the use of digital collaboration tools and strategies for effective teamwork.
CONCLUSIONS: Developing consensus recommendations on best practice is a critical step for weight management and outpatient services to achieve higher standards of care. These recommendations provide a springboard for departmental discussions, paving the way for improved experiences for individuals living with obesity as they progress along their weight management journey.

UNASSIGNED: In many countries, health care professionals are legally obliged to share information from electronic health records with patients. However, concerns have been raised regarding the sharing of notes with adolescents in mental health care, and health care professionals have called for recommendations to guide this practice.
UNASSIGNED: The aim was to reach a consensus among authors of scientific papers on recommendations for health care professionals\' digital sharing of notes with adolescents in mental health care and to investigate whether staff at child and adolescent specialist mental health care clinics agreed with the recommendations.
UNASSIGNED: A Delphi study was conducted with authors of scientific papers to reach a consensus on recommendations. The process of making the recommendations involved three steps. First, scientific papers meeting the eligibility criteria were identified through a PubMed search where the references were screened. Second, the results from the included papers were coded and transformed into recommendations in an iterative process. Third, the authors of the included papers were asked to provide feedback and consider their agreement with each of the suggested recommendations in two rounds. After the Delphi process, a cross-sectional study was conducted among staff at specialist child and adolescent mental health care clinics to assess whether they agreed with the recommendations that reached a consensus.
UNASSIGNED: Of the 84 invited authors, 27 responded. A consensus was reached on 17 recommendations on areas related to digital sharing of notes with adolescents in mental health care. The recommendations considered how to introduce digital access to notes, write notes, and support health care professionals, and when to withhold notes. Of the 41 staff members at child and adolescent specialist mental health care clinics, 60% or more agreed with the 17 recommendations. No consensus was reached regarding the age at which adolescents should receive digital access to their notes and the timing of digitally sharing notes with parents.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 17 recommendations related to key aspects of health care professionals\' digital sharing of notes with adolescents in mental health care achieved consensus. Health care professionals can use these recommendations to guide their practice of sharing notes with adolescents in mental health care. However, the effects and experiences of following these recommendations should be tested in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Sesamoiditis is a common, and often painful, musculoskeletal pathology frequently encountered by podiatrists. However, there are currently no recommendations to guide podiatrists in the assessment and management of people with sesamoiditis. The aim of this study was to develop consensus-driven clinical recommendations on the assessment and management of people with sesamoiditis.
METHODS: A four-round online Delphi survey was conducted with a panel of New Zealand and Australian podiatrists. In the first round, panellists answered open-ended questions that were used to create statements. In round two, the panellists scored the statements from 1 to 9 (1 = not at all important, 9 = absolutely essential). Consensus was defined using the RAND/University of California Los Angles Disagreement Index. Panellists were asked to reconsider statements that did not achieve consensus in round three. In the final round, content validity and acceptability of the statements for inclusion in clinical recommendations were determined using content validity ratios and the Content Validity Index (CVI).
RESULTS: Eighteen panellists completed round one with 16 (89%) completing all four rounds. A total of 118 statements were generated following round one. Following rounds two and three, 78 statements were accepted by panellists as being important, with 62 statements achieving sufficient content validity for inclusion in clinical recommendations. The CVI for these 62 statements was 0.58. These recommendations provide guidance on subjective assessment (pain characteristics/symptomology, activity/sports/training history and medical history) objective assessment (establishing a diagnosis, identifying contributing biomechanical factors, footwear/orthoses, ruling out differential diagnoses) and management (temporary padding/strapping, education, footwear, foot orthoses and when to consider referral).
CONCLUSIONS: This consensus exercise has provided a set of consensus-based recommendations for the assessment and management of people with sesamoiditis. In the current absence of research-based evidence in this area, these recommendations are intended to support clinicians. The recommendations may also serve as a basis for future clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of conservative interventions for people with sesamoiditis.

Recent evidence suggests that weight bias may be pervasive, even among health professionals specialized in obesity, including healthcare students. Technology-based physical activity interventions are promising for people with obesity, specifically when they are theory-driven (e.g., autonomy-supportive as described by self-determination theory). However, perceptions of these technologies have been understudied among healthcare students and professionals.
The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of a person\'s body size based on body mass index and technology type on healthcare students\' perceptions.
This is a cross-sectional, experimental study.
Five hundred and two healthcare students (360 females, 142 males; mean age = 23.3, SD = 5.0) were randomly exposed to one of four scenarios that manipulated a hypothetical person\'s body mass index (22 kg/m2 vs. 42 kg/m2) and a technology-based physical activity type based on self-determination theory (autonomy-supportive app vs. controlling app). They then completed measures of their perceptions of the person\'s app acceptability and self-efficacy and of their intention to recommend the app. Multivariate and univariate analyses of covariance were performed.
Students exposed to the larger-bodied people (42 kg/m2) versus the smaller-bodied people (22 kg/m2) perceived a lower level of person\'s app acceptability (i.e., higher social influence and less enjoyment in using the app), as well as a lower level of self-efficacy to use the technology. Students exposed to the controlling app were more likely to recommend it compared to those exposed to the autonomy-supportive app.
These results suggest that healthcare students\' attitudes may be negatively influenced by explicit weight bias. Also, in contrast to self-determination theory precepts, a controlling app may be more frequently recommended. Further study of healthcare students\' implicit attitudes toward technology is needed.

Background and Objectives: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common condition in women, with its prevalence increasing with age, and can significantly impact the quality of life (QOL) of many individuals. The objective of this study was to assess the overall improvement, quality of life, and continuation of primary treatment for POP over a 24-month period in a real-world setting. Materials and Methods: This is a prospective, observational, follow-up study of women with symptomatic POP who, as a primary treatment, opted for recommendations (lifestyle changes and pelvic floor muscle training), pessary therapy, or surgery. The primary outcome measure was a subjective improvement at the 24-month follow-up, measured with the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scale. Secondary outcome measures were the continuation rate of the primary treatment method, reason for discontinuation, and the quality of life evaluated with the P-QoL questionnaire. Results: We included 137 women, with 45 women (32.8%) in the recommendations group, 39 (28.5%) in the pessary group, and 53 women (38.7%) in the surgery group. After 24 months, surgery, in comparison with pessary treatment and recommendations, resulted in significantly more women reporting a subjective improvement: 89.6%, 66.7%, and 22.9% (p < 0.001), respectively. Overall, 52% of women from the recommendations group and 36.4% from the pessary group switched to another treatment or discontinued the primary treatment within 24 months. However, women who continued the primary treatment, pessary use, and surgery showed similar subjective improvements (90.5% and 89.6%, respectively) and quality-of-life improvement. Conclusions: The chance of significant improvement was higher following surgery. However, after 24 months, both vaginal pessaries and surgery showed an important quality-of life improvement and can be proposed as primary treatment methods for pelvic organ prolapse.