Additional file 1: Appendix 1. of Influences of cancer symptom knowledge, beliefs and barriers on cancer symptom presentation in relation to socioeconomic deprivation: a systematic review

Search terms. (DOCX 13 kb

Additional file 1: of Perceptions about screening for prostate cancer using genetic lifetime risk assessment: a qualitative study

Interview guide used in the study. (PDF 60 kb

Additional file 2: Table S1. of Perceptions about screening for prostate cancer using genetic lifetime risk assessment: a qualitative study

Participant characteristics including age, marital status, education, and number of relatives with PCa. (PDF 325 kb

Additional file 1: of Development of a core outcome set for studies involving patients undergoing major lower limb amputation for peripheral arterial disease: study protocol for a systematic review and identification of a core outcome set using a Delphi survey

Appendix A Search Details. (DOCX 85 kb

DataSheet1_The Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Community Diagnostic Centres: A Rapid Review.docx

Objectives: To examine the effectiveness of community diagnostic centres as a potential solution to increasing capacity and reducing pressure on secondary care in the UK.Methods: A comprehensive search for relevant primary studies was conducted in a range of electronic sources in August 2022. Screening and critical appraisal were undertaken by two independent reviewers. There were no geographical restrictions or limits to year of publication. A narrative synthesis approach was used to analyse data and present findings.Results: Twenty primary studies evaluating twelve individual diagnostic centres were included. Most studies were specific to cancer diagnosis and evaluated diagnostic centres located within hospitals. The evidence of effectiveness appeared mixed. There is evidence to suggest diagnostic centres can reduce various waiting times and reduce pressure on secondary care. However, cost-effectiveness may depend on whether the diagnostic centre is running at full capacity. Most included studies used weak methodologies that may be inadequate to infer effectiveness.Conclusion: Further well-designed, quality research is needed to better understand the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of community diagnostic centres.</p

Additional file 2: of Identifying the unmet information and support needs of women with autoimmune rheumatic diseases during pregnancy planning, pregnancy and early parenting: mixed-methods study

STAR Study Clinician Interview Topic Guides, V1.2, 14.12.16. (DOCX 22 kb

Legislative Documents

Also, variously referred to as: House bills; House documents; House legislative documents; legislative documents; General Court documents

Additional file 1: of Identifying the unmet information and support needs of women with autoimmune rheumatic diseases during pregnancy planning, pregnancy and early parenting: mixed-methods study

Visual timeline template for interviews with women with ARDs. (PDF 198 kb

Developing principles for sharing information about potential trial intervention benefits and harms with patients: report of a modified Delphi survey

Background: The way information about potential harms of trial intervention is shared within participant information leaflets (PILs) varies widely and can cause subjective ‘nocebo’ harms. This study aimed to develop principles to improve the composition of information about potential trial intervention benefits and harms within PILs so that variability and avoidable harms are reduced.  Methods: We conducted a two-round modified online Delphi survey, followed by a consensus meeting. For the first round of the survey, 27 statements were developed based on previous research and relevant guidance from the UK, the USA and the World Health Organization. Participants included members from each of the following stakeholder groups: patient and public representatives, research ethics committee members, industry representatives, medico-legal experts, psychologists and trial managers. Each participant was asked to rate their degree of agreement or disagreement with each statement on a 9-point Likert scale. In the second round, participants were invited to reappraise their ratings after reviewing the results of the first round. Finally, two members from each stakeholder group participated in a meeting to confirm those statements for which there was agreement.  Results: Two hundred and fifty participants completed round 1, and 201 participants completed round 2. In round 1, consensus was reached for 16 statements. In round 2, consensus was reached for an additional three statements. The consensus meeting confirmed the survey results and consolidated the statements. This process resulted in seven principles: (1) all potential harms of a given intervention should be listed, (2) all potential harms should be separated into serious and less serious, (3) it must be made explicit that not all potential harms are known, (4) all potential benefits should be listed, (5) all potential benefits and harms need to be compared with what would happen if the participant did not take part in the trial, (6) suitable visual representations should be added where appropriate and (7) information regarding potential benefits and harms should not be presented apart by one or more pages.  Conclusions: Our modified Delphi process successfully generated seven principles that can and should be used to guide how information is conveyed to patients in information leaflets regarding potential trial benefits and harms.</p

Additional file 6 of Developing principles for sharing information about potential trial intervention benefits and harms with patients: report of a modified Delphi survey

Additional file 6. Consensus meeting statements