By involving stakeholders to identify issues, co-design facilitates the creation of solutions aligned with the community’s unique needs and values. However, genuine co-design with consumers across all stages of nutrition intervention research remain uncommon. The aim of this review was to examine notable examples of interventions to improve diets in rural settings that have been co-designed by rural communities. Six studies were identified reporting on community-based and digital interventions to improve diets in rural settings that have been co-designed by rural communities. The level of co-design used varied, with two interventions describing co-design workshops and focus groups over a period of between 6 and 11 months, and others not reporting details on the co-design process. Collectively, most interventions demonstrated positive impacts on dietary markers, including an increase in purchase of fruit and vegetable, an increase in percentage energy from nutrient dense foods and a decrease in intake of high fat meats. While these interventions show promise for improving diets in these under-served communities, it’s widely recognised that there is a lack of dietary interventions genuinely co-designed with and for rural communities. Future research should build on these studies to co-design dietary interventions that integrate the benefits of both community-based and digital interventions.

Dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is a leading cause of heart failure and the most common indication for a heart transplant. Guidelines are regularly based on studies of adults and applied to the young. Children and adolescents diagnosed with DCM face different lifestyle challenges from individuals diagnosed in adulthood that include medical trauma and are influenced by maturity levels and confidence with advocacy to adults.

Using a UK patient-scientist’s perspective, we reviewed the age-specific challenges faced by the young with DCM, evaluated current guidelines and evidence, and identified areas requiring further recommendations and research. We highlight the importance of (i) the transition clinic from paediatric to adult services, (ii) repeated signposting to mental health services, (iii) standardised guidance on physical activity, (iv) caution surrounding alcohol and smoking, (v) the dangers of illegal drugs, and (vi) reproductive options and health.

Further research is needed to address the many uncertainties in these areas with respect to young age, particularly for physical activity, and such guidance would be welcomed by the young with DCM who must come to terms with being different and more limited amongst healthy peers.

Despite its contested scientific validity, polygraph interviewing is now an established yet opaque practice within criminal justice in England and Wales, with statute law covering polygraph use in the context of probation for released offenders. In this paper, we highlight non-statutory uses of the polygraph by police forces in England and Wales by presenting analysis of responses to freedom of information (FOI) requests. The boundaries around police polygraph use are undefined and potentially elastic. The policies disclosed state that polygraph interviewing is conducted with regard to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and the Human Rights Act 1998; yet it is denied that a polygraph examination is a criminal interview conducted under PACE. Furthermore, there is a significant risk that the common law may not satisfy the quality of law requirement insofar as it is insufficiently clear who will be subject to polygraph testing, why and in what circumstances. Therefore, we argue that the legal basis for the police’s use of the polygraph is inadequate and imprecise. Without openness and scrutiny regarding the extent of this use, it is difficult to see how the key human rights principle of foreseeability can protect citizens from the risk of arbitrariness.

There is an ongoing debate in bioethics regarding the nature of suffering. This conversation revolves around the following question: What kind of thing, exactly, is suffering? Specifically, is suffering a subjective phenomenon—intrinsically linked to personhood, personal values, feelings, and lived experience—or an objective affair, amenable to impersonal criteria and existing as an independent feature of the natural world? Notably, the implications of this determination are politically and ethically significant. This essay attempts to bring clarity to the subjective versus objective debate in suffering scholarship by examining the history of the concept of “objectivity,” and putting that history in conversation with physician Eric Cassell’s famous theory of suffering. It concludes with a novel, albeit tentative, definition of suffering: suffering is the experience of a gap between how things are and how things ought to be.