Emma Norris

Trustworthy pain research is essential for developing a deeper understanding of the phenomena, how it is experienced, its many impacts and how it might be reduced, prevented or managed to improve the lives of those who live with pain. Recognising multiple critical challenges that undermine trust in health research, an international, interdisciplinary network was convened to create an integrated framework for enhancing the trustworthiness of research in pain. The ENTRUST-PE framework was launched in 2024 with a call to action, proposing that trustworthiness in pain research is multidimensional and underpinned by 7 Core Values: Integrity and Governance; Equity, Diversity and Inclusivity; Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement; Methodological Rigour; Openness and Transparency; Balanced Communication and Data Authenticity. The framework includes specific recommendations for a range of interest holders and resources to support those recommendations. In this paper, we summarise the framework, reflect on the response to the framework from the pain research community, consider challenges and opportunities in the evolving research landscape and suggest how we might move towards deeper implementation to enhance the trustworthiness of pain research.

Purpose: Individuals with paraplegia often have high levels of sedentary behaviour, which increases cardiovascular disease risk. This study assessed the acceptability, safety and feasibility of a sedentary behaviour intervention (REACH-SCI) in individuals with paraplegia. Materials and methods: A pre-post feasibility study was conducted in wheelchair-users with paraplegia (n=18) to evaluate an 8-week intervention comprised of a wearable activity tracker, educational booklet, goal setting, motivational support sessions, peer support and activity tools (Trial registration: NCT06957483 ). Acceptability was assessed via semi-structured interviews and questionnaires, safety via adverse events, pain and fatigue, and intervention feasibility via components being delivered as intended. Intervention engagement and preliminary efficacy were also assessed. Results: The intervention and study procedures were acceptable and safe, intervention components were delivered as planned, and the study was feasible in terms of participant recruitment, retention and data completion rates. Engagement with intervention components was generally high, except for peer support. The intervention demonstrated preliminary efficacy for improving sedentary behaviour, physical activity, cardiovascular disease biomarkers and psychosocial outcomes. Conclusions: An intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour in individuals with paraplegia was acceptable, safe and feasible. The effectiveness of REACH-SCI should be evaluated in a definitive trial to inform clinical care and public health guidelines.

Objective: There is a lack of interventions targeting sedentary behaviour in individuals with spinal cord injury. Interventions designed for non-disabled individuals are unlikely to be generalisable to wheelchair-users with paraplegia, necessitating a tailored approach. This study aimed to co-design an intervention targeting sedentary behaviour using the Behaviour Change Wheel for manual wheelchair-users with paraplegia. Design: An iterative co-design workshop approach was employed following the Behaviour Change Wheel. Initial workshops focused on identifying barriers and facilitators to reducing and breaking up sedentary behaviour and possible solutions to address these. These solutions were mapped to intervention functions and behaviour change techniques, leading to the identification of intervention components. The intervention components were then assessed and iterated in follow-up workshops. Data were analysed using the framework method. Setting: Online video calls or in-person at a University campus or hospital setting. Participants: Ten individuals with paraplegia, 13 healthcare professionals and four community caregivers. Results: A multi-component intervention was co-designed and includes (1) a wearable activity tracker to provide sedentary behaviour reminders and feedback on physical activity, (2) an educational booklet about sedentary behaviour, (3) goal setting, (4) one-to-one motivational support sessions, (5) a peer support group, and (6) activity tools, including a hand cycle and exercise bands. Conclusions: A novel intervention targeting sedentary behaviour was developed for individuals with paraplegia, which now requires evaluation. The combination of co-design with the Behaviour Change Wheel likely optimises the intervention's effectiveness and acceptability, and offers a replicable, theory-driven approach for future intervention development.

This mixed methods study investigates international researchers' awareness and use of open research practices and explores variations across regions, disciplines, methodologies and career stages. A total of 3017 researchers across 45 countries and 24 disciplines completed the Brief Open Research Survey, reporting their awareness and use of 11 common open research practices and factors that would support their adoption. Across the sample, respondents reported high awareness of open access publications, preprints and open data, and awareness only fell below 50% for research co-production and registered reports. Use was high for open access publications, but fell below 50% for preprints, open data, open research, open materials, open peer review, open code, preregistration, research co-production, replication and registered reports. Awareness and use varied across the sampled regions (e.g. Europe versus Asia), disciplines (e.g. psychology versus physical sciences), methodologies (e.g. quantitative versus qualitative) and career stages (e.g. PhD students versus professors). Respondents reported that the top five supportive strategies were incentives from funders, institutions and regulators; dedicated funding; recognition in promotion and recruitment criteria; more training; and more information. Qualitative responses provide insight into challenges and opportunities. Estimates of awareness can guide training initiatives, while estimates of use can inform policy development and longitudinal evaluations of behaviour change. Variations between regions, disciplines, methodologies and career stages should be acknowledged.

Introduction: Physical inactivity is highly prevalent in older adults living in deprived communities, with many living with long-term health conditions. Community-based and tailored physical activity behaviour change programmes are needed to support increased physical activity in this population. This project aims to conduct a pragmatic pre-post mixed-methods evaluation of a community-based physical activity intervention (Move Together Buckinghamshire). Methods and analysis: Move Together Buckinghamshire is a 3-year community-based physical activity programme for inactive adults aged over 50 years with at least one long-term health condition living in deprived areas of Buckinghamshire, England. Across the 12-week programme, users will receive: (i) one 45-minute in-person one-to-one consultation with a Physical Activity Referral Specialist (PARS), (ii) three check-in contacts with their allocated PARS taking place by email, phone or text and (iii) access to an online platform to identify and book physical activity opportunities in their local area. The programme’s recruitment target is 3000 service users over the 3-year programme. This pragmatic evaluation will assess the first 18 months of programme delivery using a mixed-methods design. A quantitative outcome evaluation will be conducted for secondary data routinely collected within the programme to assess the primary outcome of physical activity (using the single-item physical activity measure), and secondary outcomes of health-related quality of life, loneliness and confidence to engage in physical activity (assessed at baseline, during and at the end of the 12-week programme and at 6-month and 12-month follow-up). A qualitative process evaluation will use focus groups and interviews with service users and interviews with PARS staff delivering the programme and strategic decision-makers. An economic analysis will be undertaken to estimate the resources and costs required to design, set up and deliver the Move Together Buckinghamshire. Ethics and dissemination: This study has been approved by the College of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences Research Ethics Committee at Brunel University of London. Informed written consent will be obtained from all participants of the evaluation. Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications, scientific conferences, reports, webinars and through local community outlets. Registration details: This study has been preregistered on Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/EV24C

Introduction: Regular physical activity and limiting sedentary behaviour are important aspects in managing multiple sclerosis (MS). Fatigue is a common and disabling symptom in MS, contributing to impairments in activities of daily living and poorer quality of life. This study aims to determine the effectiveness of a physical activity and sedentary behaviour intervention, called iStep-MS, for reducing fatigue in people with MS when delivered across the MS care pathway. Methods and analysis: This is a multicentre, two-arm randomised controlled superiority trial with embedded economic and process evaluations. The study will take place across South-East England in acute and community National Health Service settings and charity-funded MS and neurological therapy centres. Intervention deliverers will include a range of healthcare staff such as physiotherapists, occupational therapists, therapy assistants, nurses and exercise therapists. A target sample size of n=198 participants will be randomised 1:1 to the intervention (iStep-MS behaviour change intervention plus usual care) or control (usual care only) arms. Participants will be adults with any type of MS, experiencing MS-related fatigue, relapse-free for >3 months, with a Self-Reported Disability Status Scale category of ≤3.5 (no disability to moderate disability) or 4–6.5 (significant disability). The iStep-MS intervention includes four one-to-one consultation sessions in-person or online with an intervention deliverer over 3 months, incorporating behaviour change techniques aimed at increasing physical activity and reducing sedentary behaviour. The consultations are supported by a handbook designed to help individuals with MS set goals and achieve behavioural changes and a wearable activity tracker for self-monitoring. Outcomes (assessed at baseline, 3 months and 9 months) include self-reported fatigue, quality of life, MS-impact, walking capability, pain, self-efficacy and waist circumference. Sitting, standing and stepping will be measured over 8 days using the activPAL4 device. A process evaluation will assess intervention acceptability, adherence and fidelity, including questionnaires and focus groups with participants and deliverers. A cost-effectiveness analysis will evaluate the value for money of the intervention against usual care. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval has been granted by the NHS London—Bloomsbury Research Ethics Committee (reference 25/LO/0272). Results will be disseminated in scientific journals, conferences and to the wider public (eg, newsletters and social media). Trial registration number: ISRCTN16944301 .

Objectives: Whilst the need for Open Research practices is well documented, there remains a lack of validated measures to assess their prevalence. We therefore developed the Brief Open Research Survey (BORS) – a brief self-report measure of awareness and use of and support required for Open Research practices. This article outlines the development of the BORS and provides some initial data from researchers across disciplines in the United Kingdom. Methods: The BORS was developed in six steps: 1) a scoping exercise collated previous surveys on Open Research; 2) a brief (<5 minutes) survey was then developed, 3) peer-reviewed; 4) piloted; 5) revised; and 6) the final survey that probed awareness and use of 11 Open Research practices was distributed to researchers across universities in the UK Reproducibility Network. Results: Respondents (n = 1,274) reported being most aware of Open Access Publications (94.1%), Preprints (85.3%), and Open Data (83.4%) and least aware of Registered Reports (38.1%), Study Preregistration (50.8%) and Research Co-production (53.7%). They reported having mostly used Open Access Publications (77.8%), Preprints (56.5%) and Open Data (52.5%) and having least used Registered Reports (8.7%), Replication Studies (16.3%), and Study Preregistration (25.3%). The most commonly reported areas of support required to enable Open Research were incentives (51%), dedicated funding (46.2%), and recognition in promotion and recruitment criteria (39.6%). Conclusion: We developed the Brief Open Research Survey that can be used to assess awareness and use of Open Research practices to inform education and training initiatives in this area.

This article summarises the 2025 roundtable ‘Walking the way through the open door: realising open science infrastructures’ held at the 2025 European Health Psychology Society Annual Conference. The roundtable aimed to identify perceived barriers to open infrastructure within the EHPS community, identify functionalities in closed software that the EHPS community value and how we can implement these in open infrastructure, and explore how we can ensure open infrastructure in health psychology. Our discussions highlighted the important role of institution and policy changes over individual researcher behaviour regarding open infrastructure. We end with recommendations to increase adoption and sustainability of open infrastructure: structured by the Pyramid of Culture Change.

Purpose: There is a lack of sedentary behaviour interventions for individuals with spinal cord injury. Interventions designed for non-disabled individuals are unlikely to be generalisable to wheelchair-users with paraplegia, meaning a tailored approach is needed. Objective: This study aimed to co-design a sedentary behaviour intervention using the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) for manual wheelchair-users with paraplegia. Methods: An iterative co-design approach was employed across workshops with 10 individuals with paraplegia, 13 healthcare professionals and four community caregivers. Initial workshops focused on barriers and facilitators to reducing and breaking up sedentary behaviour, and possible intervention options. This informed initial intervention concepts, which were mapped to BCW constructs and behaviour change techniques. In follow-up workshops, the acceptability, practicability, effectiveness, affordability, safety/side-effects, and equity of each intervention component was assessed to refine concepts and design an intervention protocol. Data was analysed using the framework method via inductive and deductive coding in context of the BCW. Findings: A multi-component intervention was co-designed and includes (1) a wearable activity tracker to facilitate reminders to be active and give feedback on physical activity, (2) an educational booklet to overcome lack of knowledge around sedentary behaviour, (3) goal setting, (4) one-to-one motivational support from a trained individual, (5) a peer support group and (6) activity tools, including a portable hand cycle and exercise bands. Conclusions: A novel intervention targeting sedentary behaviour has been developed for individuals with paraplegia. The combination of co-design with the BCW likely optimises the intervention’s acceptability and effectiveness, which now requires evaluation.

Reducing sedentary behaviour may be an intervention target to improve cardiovascular health in individuals with spinal cord injury. The aim of this study was to systematically review the effects of interventions on sedentary behaviour and cardiovascular disease biomarkers in individuals with paraplegia. Following prospective protocol registration (CRD42023420260), eleven sources were searched to identify articles, which were screened by two reviewers. Eligible articles included participants with paraplegia, interventions targeting physical activity and/or sedentary behaviour and studies that measured sedentary behaviour and cardiovascular disease biomarkers. Quality of evidence was assessed for each outcome. Two interventions targeting sedentary behaviour and six targeting physical activity were included. One intervention targeting sedentary behaviour and one targeting physical activity reduced sedentary behaviour. Two interventions targeting sedentary behaviour and three targeting physical activity improved cardiovascular disease biomarkers. Quality of evidence was very low for sedentary behaviour and moderate for cardiovascular disease biomarker outcomes. Sedentary behaviour was not improved by physical activity interventions but these interventions may improve cardiovascular disease biomarkers in individuals with paraplegia. Interventions targeting sedentary behaviour, although limited, show potential effectiveness for improving cardiovascular disease biomarkers; such interventions require further investigation to inform public health and clinical care guidelines.