The Men's Safer Sex (MenSS) trial: protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial of an interactive digital intervention to increase condom use in men.

INTRODUCTION: Sexually transmitted infections (STI) are a major public health problem. Condoms provide effective protection but there are many barriers to use. Face-to-face health promotion interventions are resource-intensive and show mixed results. Interactive digital interventions may provide a suitable alternative, allowing private access to personally tailored behaviour change support. We have developed an interactive digital intervention (the Men's Safer Sex (MenSS) website) which aims to increase condom use in men. We describe the protocol for a pilot trial to assess the feasibility of a full-scale randomised controlled trial of the MenSS website in addition to usual sexual health clinical care. PARTICIPANTS: Men aged 16 or over who report female sexual partners and recent unprotected sex or suspected acute STI. PARTICIPANTS (N=166) will be enrolled using a tablet computer in clinic waiting rooms. All trial procedures will be online, that is, eligibility checks; study consent; trial registration; automated random allocation; and data submission. At baseline and at 3, 6 and 12 months, an online questionnaire will assess condom use, self-reported STI diagnoses, and mediators of condom use (eg, knowledge, intention). Reminders will be by email and mobile phone. The primary outcome is condom use, measured at 3 months. STI rates will be recorded from sexual health clinic medical records at 12 months. The feasibility of a cost-effectiveness analysis will be assessed, to calculate incremental cost per STI prevented (Chlamydia or Gonorrhoea), from the NHS perspective. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval: City and East NHS Research Ethics Committee (reference number 13 LO 1801). Findings will be made available through publication in peer-reviewed journals, and to participants and members of the public via Twitter and from the University College London eHealth Unit website. Raw data will be made available on request. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Current Controlled Trials. ISRCTN18649610. Registered 15 October 2013 http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN18649610.

Validation of advanced paediatric life support formulas for weight calculation in a multiethnic population.

Introduction. The aims of this study were to validate the new formulas for weight calculation introduced by the advanced life support group (alsg) of the United Kingdom in 2011 and compare their performance to the formula currently used by the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) and other formulas and to check whether performance of formulas for weight calculation is affected by ethnic group and gender. Methods. Prospective audit of weight versus calculated weight comparing alsg formula with ERC, Luscombe, Argall, and Best Guess formulas analysed for gender, age, and ethnic groups. Results. Prospectively 599 children were included: 157 Asian, 268 Caucasian, and 174 children from other origin. In infants there was no difference between actual weight and alsg formula calculated weight. There was a progressively increased underestimation of weight year by year from 1 to 10 years of age using the ERC formula. In the 6-10 year age group the ERC formula underestimated the weight by a mean of 6.5 kg (21.8%, P < 0.001) with the alsg and Luscombe formulas performing best. In 11-12 year old children the alsg formula estimated well. Conclusion. In one- to ten-year-old children, the Luscombe formula provided a better weight estimate than alsg and ERC formulas in a multiethnic population.