Background: Competence in delirium care begins with pre-registration education for health care professionals. Although a common complication for hospitalised patients, delirium is avoidable and reversible. Delirium requires early recognition in person-centred care. Students need to learn how to identify and effectively care for ‘at risk’ patients.Aim: To identify and examine literature on how pre-registration health care professional students are prepared to recognise, assess, and deliver interventions to prevent delirium in practice, using digital/web based educational interventions.Method: Mixed methods systematic review with narrative synthesis. A protocol was registered with PROSPERO. The review questions and search strategy were guided by the Population, Phenomena of Interest, Context (PICo) framework. The PRISMA framework guided the screening, data extraction and analysis. Database searches (MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO & Scopus) were undertaken in April 2023 for publications from 2012 to 2023. Covidence software [30] was used to extract and manage the data. Quality appraisal was guided by the Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool (CCAT) [31].Findings: Ten papers were included: mixed methods (2), qualitative (1) and quantitative (7). Medical students were the most studied group (n = 5), followed by student nurses (n = 4) and mixed nursing and medical students (n = 1). Length of learning experience varied from 12 min virtual reality (VR) to a two-week ‘geriatrics’ elective. Learning was enhanced by player autonomy, engagement, safety, applicability, choices, multiple perspectives and moral reasoning opportunities.Discussion: Digital programmes should be visually appealing, interactive with opportunities for practice and timely appropriate feedback.

Background: Delirium is a common symptom of acute illness which is potentially avoidable with early recognition and intervention. Despite being a growing concern globally, delirium remains underdiagnosed and poorly reported, with limited understanding of effective delirium education for undergraduate health profession students. Digital resources could be an effective approach to improving professional knowledge of delirium, but studies utilising these with more than one profession are limited, and no evidence-based, interdisciplinary, digital delirium education resources are reported. This study aims to co-design and evaluate a digital resource for undergraduate health profession students across the island of Ireland to improve their ability to prevent, recognise, and manage delirium alongside interdisciplinary colleagues. Methods: Utilising a logic model, three workstreams have been identified. Workstream 1 will comprise three phases: (1) a systematic review identifying the format, methods, and content of existing digital delirium education interventions for health profession students, and their effect on knowledge, self-efficacy, and behavioural change; (2) focus groups with health profession students to determine awareness and experiences of delirium care; and (3) a Delphi survey informed by findings from the systematic review, focus groups, and input from the research team and expert reference group to identify resource priorities. Workstream 2 will involve the co-design of the digital resource through workshops (n = 4) with key stakeholders, including health profession students, professionals, and individuals with lived experience of delirium. Lastly, Workstream 3 will involve a mixed methods evaluation of the digital resource. Outcomes include changes to delirium knowledge and self-efficacy towards delirium care, and health profession students experience of using the resource. Discussion: Given the dearth of interdisciplinary educational resources on delirium for health profession students, a co-designed, interprofessional, digital education resource will be well-positioned to shape undergraduate delirium education. This research may enhance delirium education and the self-efficacy of future health professionals in providing delirium care, thereby improving practice and patients’ experiences and outcomes. Trial registration: Not applicable.

Background/Objectives: Pancreatic cancer remains highly fatal, often diagnosed late with poor prognoses and worse psychological quality of life compared to other cancers. Globally, it is the twelfth most common cancer but the sixth leading cause of cancer-related deaths, with actual 5-year survival rates below 5%. Northern Ireland’s outcomes are among the worst, yet research on people’s experiences across the illness trajectory is scarce. Consequently, the unique needs of people with pancreatic cancer are poorly understood. It is crucial we develop deeper understanding of the entire pancreatic cancer journey to address this. This study aims to explore the lived experiences of people diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in Northern Ireland and generate a theory that explains their journeys, from pre-diagnosis through to survivorship or end of life. Methods: This study will adopt a grounded theory approach, incorporating multiple qualitative data generation methods: semi-structured interviews with patients and care partners, and focus groups with professionals. An optional photovoice (participatory photography) method will be offered to participants. Theoretical sampling principles and constant comparative analysis will guide recruitment, data collection, and analysis to ensure the explanatory theory is rooted in participants’ lived experiences. Conclusions: Establishing a holistic, in-depth understanding of people’s pancreatic cancer journeys will enable us to better comprehend, anticipate, and meet their needs. A theory grounded in empirical data about lived experiences can inform priorities for future care, support services, policy, and research, and contribute to the development of support interventions that help people to maintain the best possible quality of life, whether during a short-term, terminal illness; treatment journey; long-term symptom management; or survivorship.

Background: Delirium is frequently unrecognised, and healthcare professionals lack knowledge and confidence in recognition and management of the condition. Increased delirium education within pre-registration healthcare profession curricula may help to address this. A modified Delphi approach was utilised to develop a set of education priorities associated with delirium education for healthcare profession students. Methods: An initial list of 72 education priorities were identified from a literature review, stakeholder focus groups, and a review of available clinical guidelines. Priorities were grouped into eight domains ‘assessment and diagnosis’, ‘aetiology and risk factors’, ‘pathophysiology’, ‘treatment of delirium’, ‘prevention’, ‘delirium and dementia’, ‘impact on people with delirium, informal caregivers and family’ and ‘health promotion and public education’. Academic experts and healthcare professionals were invited to rank each priority and each domain across two rounds. Round one consisted of a survey including the list of 72 potential education priorities which participants were asked to rank from one (not a priority) to five (essential priority). Items which did not reach consensus criteria following round one were re-distributed as round two of the survey and participants were asked to repeat this exercise for the shorter list of items. Additionally, in round two, participants were asked to rank the eight domains from most important to least important. Results: Eighty participants completed round one of the Delphi survey and 55 (68.75%) also completed round two. Following round one, 41 priorities were considered highly relevant and therefore met the criteria to be included in the final set of education priorities. An additional four items reached these criteria following round two and so the final set consists of 45 items. Priorities related to prevention, diagnosis, and treatment were consistently ranked highly whereas priorities related to pathophysiology and health promotion were consistently ranked lowest. Discussion: This Delphi study identified areas of education viewed as the highest priorities for healthcare profession students’ delirium education, drawn from a range of academics and healthcare professionals. The final set may help to inform the development of delirium education reflecting these priorities.

Background: Delirium is a complex neuropsychiatric syndrome characterised by an acute state of confusion, with a substantial impact on medical inpatients. Despite its growing recognition as a global healthcare concern, delirium remains underdiagnosed, partly due to a lack of awareness among healthcare professionals. The aim of this study was to explore how healthcare professional students experience caring for individuals experiencing delirium, the influence of their current pre-registration healthcare education, and importance of interprofessional teamwork in their role. Methods: This qualitative study used a focus group approach to collect data from 40 healthcare professional students, including nursing, pharmacy, and medical students, across two universities in Ireland. The focus groups explored participants’ experiences of caring for people with delirium, their delirium education, and their collaboration with interdisciplinary teams. The data were analysed using a reflexive thematic analysis approach. Results: Following thematic analysis, three themes are reported. The first is “The Upside Down,” revealing student perceptions of caring for people with delirium who are facing distressing situations. The second team reported is, “Teamwork Makes the Dream Work,” emphasising the critical role of interprofessional collaboration in delirium management and patient outcomes. Finally, the theme of “A Little Is Not Enough,” highlighted students’ critiques of current delirium education in their pre-registration training. Collectively, these themes illuminate challenges in delirium care, advocate for teamwork in healthcare settings, and call for improvements in educational preparation for future healthcare professionals. Conclusions: This study contributes to the existing literature by providing insights into the perspectives of healthcare professional students on delirium care. The findings also highlight the challenging nature of caring for individuals with delirium and the need for improved delirium education and interdisciplinary collaboration.

Background: As the incidence of dementia grows globally, so does the number of individuals providing informal care. The highest care burden will likely be experienced by those living in low-resource settings, where need exceeds current service availability. The aim of this review was to explore the effects of interventions to support informal caregivers of people with dementia in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) with respect to psychosocial outcome measures. Methods: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched 17 Global Databases and Resources, 12 Regional Databases and Resources, two Global Registers, six Regional Journals and two Global Dementia Organisations, from inception to July 2025. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs) delivered to informal caregivers of adults affected by dementia in LMICs were included. Exclusions were made for studies lacking a focus on dementia or informal caregivers, conducted in non-LMICs, focused on needs/attitudes rather than interventions or were reviews (relevant reviews were hand-searched). The primary outcome was caregiver burden, and secondary outcomes included caregiver distress and depression. Where possible, results were synthesised using meta-analysis, and remaining results were reported in a narrative synthesis. Risk of bias was completed using Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias V.2.0 tool. Findings: Of 2369 records screened, 35 papers representing 32 RCTs from 13 LMICs were included, of these 24 contributed to the meta-analysis. NPIs in LMICs have a significant improvement post intervention on caregiver burden (MD 8·7, 95% CI 4·1 to 13·3; I ² =89·9%), distress (MD 4·3, 95% CI 0·5 to 8·2; I ² =66·5%) and depression (MD 5·9, 95% CI 1·7 to 10·1; I ² =67·0%). Interventions were delivered in person (10 studies; MD 6.4, 95% CI 1.4 to 11.5; I² = 88.7%), remotely (two studies; MD 8.0, 95% CI 1.9 to 14.1; I² = 37.5%) or as a hybrid of both (two studies; MD 20.9, 95% CI 5.8 to 36.0; I² = 90.1%), with all showing improvement in caregiver burden except for two studies. Narrative synthesis revealed variation in effects on health and well-being; quality of life; anxiety/distress; depression; stress and self-efficacy and factors potentially influencing implementation. Interpretation: Overall, NPIs for informal dementia carers are effective in LMICs. Due to the heterogeneity of design and delivery, it is impossible to state an optimal component combination. A pragmatic approach is needed to adapt and implement these interventions culturally and contextually. Limitations include inaccessibility of some databases and journals, difficulty in analysing multicomponent interventions and heterogeneity across studies. Nonetheless, consistency in direction of effect was observed, and sensitivity analyses excluding high-risk-of-bias studies did not alter the overall findings. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021283611.