To explore cancer patients’ understanding of Advance Care Planning (ACP) and identify the main barriers hindering its effective implementation in clinical practice.

This qualitative descriptive study included Brazilian women with breast cancer aged 18–75 years, all with preserved functional status, recruited by convenience sampling. Exclusion criteria were difficulty using online calls or significant communication impairment. Data collection involved a sociodemographic questionnaire and a follow-up interview. After receiving an informational brochure, participants were contacted by video call 14 days later and asked, “How do you understand what ACP is?” Interviews were conducted confidentially at home, transcribed, and analyzed according to qualitative research reporting guidelines.

Sixty-one women participated. Most had difficulty understanding ACP; nearly 40% could not define it. Main barriers included cultural resistance to discussing death, reliance on family members or physicians for decision-making, and lack of clear information. Many participants confused ACP with preventive care. A conceptual multilevel model was developed, showing how cultural taboos, family dependence, and systemic inertia interact to sustain barriers through a feedback loop in which cultural avoidance reinforces structural gaps and institutional neglect.

This study provides evidence on how ACP is understood and misinterpreted by cancer patients in a middle-income Latin American setting, an area that remains underrepresented in the literature. By demonstrating that misconceptions, cultural taboos, and systemic barriers operate through a reinforcing multilevel process, the findings offer a conceptual framework that explains why ACP remains marginal in routine oncology care. The model highlights critical points for intervention, including patient education, professional communication, and institutional support, and is directly applicable to similar sociocultural contexts characterized by strong family involvement and biomedical dominance. These results have clear implications, supporting the integration of ACP as a proactive, relational, and value-based process rather than a late end-of-life intervention.

The health of migrants with type 2 diabetes has become a public health concern. Minority populations, including migrants, are often considered ‘hard-to-reach groups’ in clinical research, as researchers face challenges in engaging, accessing and retaining participants. Previous reviews have focused on either recruitment or retention, highlighting the need to gather experiences to obtain a more comprehensive picture for improving participation in research.

To share lessons learned about the challenges of recruiting and implementing an intervention study including migrants with type 2 diabetes.

This was a descriptive study, where researchers recorded experiences in reflective diaries and held discussions with the multi-professional teams involved. Data were analysed using Pawson’s conceptual framework, evaluating four dimensions of context: individual, interpersonal, institutional and infrastructural.

The individual context concerns the time-consuming recruitment process since about half of the prospective participants did not want to participate, often due to illness, lack of time, the need to work, or having travelled abroad. In the interpersonal context, the main challenge was involving several professional groups; the greater the involvement, the less flexibility there was to meet expectations. The priorities in the institutional context were to provide care, with efficiency and productivity taking precedence over research. The infrastructural context was crucial due to a lack of staff available to support recruitment, the healthcare system’s burden caused by the pandemic, and the impact of laws and regulations in healthcare.

Recruiting and implementing clinical research studies among migrant populations is complex. Factors across all contextual levels play a role, but the main challenges are within the institutional and infrastructural contexts. Changes in infrastructure influence institutional priorities, particularly with an already strained staff situation in primary healthcare. While political and social changes are difficult to alter, fostering positive attitudes towards research at the individual and interpersonal levels is important.

A person-centered outcomes-based quality improvement program is lacking within palliative care in Mainland China. The well-established Australian Palliative Care Outcome Collaboration (PCOC) national model improves palliative care quality.

This study aimed to explore the barriers and facilitators perceived by healthcare providers to integrating the PCOC model in a Chinese hospital-based palliative care unit.

A qualitative descriptive study was conducted using semi-structured focus group and individual interviews. A rapid deductive analysis approach was selected for data analysis. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research framework was used to guide the study design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation.

Eighteen healthcare professionals participated in this study, four focus group interviews and five individual interviews were completed. Barriers to the PCOC integration included clinical application and workload concerns (patients in terminal stage, patients’ dialects, workload concerns, and staff shortages); attitudinal barriers (negative attitudes toward PCOC); psychological barriers (numbness to their work) and barriers related to knowledge and self-efficacy (lack of knowledge, capacity, and self-efficacy in palliative care). Facilitators included adapting the program to local contexts, ongoing education and feedback, effective PCOC data use, a supportive work and clinical environment and staff’s perceived advantages of the model across clinical, research and process domains.

The successful integration of the PCOC program hinges on local adaptation, improved data utilization, education, and IT support. In regions with less developed palliative care, enhancing professionals’ knowledge and self-efficacy is crucial. Incorporating assessment and clinical response protocols into technology can accelerate palliative care development and implementation.

Clinical and translational research (CTR) plays a vital role in improving health outcomes, but its success relies heavily on institutional support, infrastructure, and workforce capacity. This study aimed to explore the barriers, needs, and facilitators to conducting CTR in Oklahoma, highlighting both the strengths and gaps within the research ecosystem.

A sequential, descriptive mixed-methods design was employed, combining survey data (n = 164) with four qualitative focus groups (n = 23 total participants). The survey assessed research infrastructure, funding, and workforce needs, while the focus groups explored researchers’ lived experiences and institutional challenges. Mixed-methods meta-inference approaches, such as convergence, complementarity, and explanatory integration, were used to identify overlapping and distinct patterns across data strands.

Key barriers included lack of protected research time (23.9%), limited pilot funding (15.3%), and administrative hurdles such as IRB delays. Researchers expressed a strong need for centralized tools to support networking, scientific writing, and data access. Qualitative findings revealed additional needs, such as bridge funding and mentorship, not fully captured in the survey. Facilitators included Oklahoma Shared Clinical and Translational Resources (OSCTR)-supported professional development and mentoring programs, though participants noted a heavy reliance on OSCTR as the primary support source, with few decentralized alternatives.

While CTR infrastructure in Oklahoma has expanded, critical gaps remain in mentorship, data access, and institutional support. To build a more resilient and inclusive research environment, stakeholders should consider investing in decentralized systems, bridge funding, structured mentorship, and collaborative tools tailored to the state’s rural, tribal, and academic diversity. These findings may inform policy and strategic planning in Oklahoma and other underserved regions aiming to strengthen CTR capacity.

This study aimed to explore health professionals’ use, barriers, confidence, and preferences for technology and smartphone apps to assist clients with self-managing low back pain (LBP).

Prospective observational cross-sectional survey of registered Australian health professionals that managed clients with LBP.

In total, 52 survey responses were included (mean age 43 ±13.8 years). Most did not personally use healthy lifestyle apps (60%) and did not recommend apps due to a lack of knowledge of app effectiveness (93%). The largest barrier to recommending apps was the potential for apps to be misused as a substitute to health professional diagnosis. Fifteen recommended smartphone apps (mean age 36 ±10.6 years) and were at least moderately confident in choosing/recommending apps (94%) and assessing app quality (80%). Those more likely to recommend apps personally used apps for healthy lifestyle behaviours (odds ratio (OR) 5.1 (p = 0.009)) were physiotherapists (OR 0.13 (p = 0.035) c/f chiropractors in their profession for <10 years (OR 8.6 (p = 0.015)) c/f >30 years. Increasing age decreased the odds (OR 0.94 (p = 0.013)) of recommending apps.

Health professionals do not recommend LBP self-management apps due to a lack of knowledge of their effectiveness. Those that do recommend apps are confident with app choice, recommendation, and app quality assessment. Physiotherapists with <10 years’ experience were most likely to recommend apps.

To understand young women’s views of cervical screening, what obstacles they face, and what encourages them when considering attending their cervical screening.

Cervical screening figures have been steadily decreasing in the United Kingdom (UK). There is limited research on this trend, especially around views and knowledge of young women, aged 20–24 years, have before they are eligible for cervical screening.

This qualitative study conducted 15 semi-structured Zoom in-depth interviews to discuss young women’s knowledge and perceptions of cervical screening in 2022. Participants were based in the UK. Thematic analysis was used to systematically manage, analyse, and identify themes including cervical screening knowledge; perceptions of cervical screening; barriers to cervical screening; and facilitators of cervical screening.

The findings demonstrate significant gaps in knowledge and negative perceptions of cervical screening. Barriers to attending cervical screening were perceived pain and embarrassment. Facilitators suggested to promote attendance were ensuring access to appointments, creating pop-up clinics, and utilising incentives. The level of knowledge demonstrated by the participants, their negatively framed perceptions; and the vast number of barriers identified present substantial factors that could affect future attendance to cervical screening. Overall, action needs to be taken to prevent decreasing cervical screening attendance rates and eradicate any barriers women may experience.

Maternity outcomes for women from certain ethnic groups are notably poor, partly owing to their not receiving treatment from services.

To explore barriers to access among Black and south Asian women with perinatal mental health problems who did not access perinatal mental health services and suggestions for improvements, and to map findings on to the perinatal care pathway.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted in 2020 and 2021 in the UK. Data were analysed using the framework method.

Twenty-three women were interviewed, and various barriers were identified, including limited awareness of services, fear of child removal, stigma and unresponsiveness of perinatal mental health services. Whereas most barriers were related to access, fear of child removal, remote appointments and mask-wearing during COVID-19 affected the whole pathway. Recommendations include service promotion, screening and enhanced cultural understanding.

Women in this study, an underrepresented population in published literature, face societal, cultural, organisational and individual barriers that affect different aspects of the perinatal pathway.