Updates are available Correction dated 2025-02-24
Click to view Correction: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-025-03949-7
-
Authors
van der Scheer, Jan W.
Komolafe, Victoria
Webster, Kirstin
Iliodromiti, Stamatina
Roehr, Charles C.
Khalil, Asma
Draycott, Tim
Dewick, Louise
Dunn, George
Walsh, Rachel
Steer, Philip
Giusti, Alessandra
Cabling, Mark L.
Fahy, Nick
,
Frémeaux, Alissa E.
Karia, Amar M.
Anderson, Annette
Leigh, Bertie
Gale, Chris
Doherty, Cora
Wolstenholme, Daniel
Walker, James
Gudgeon, Julia
Cowell, Laura
Knight, Marian
Jolly, Matthew C.
Wahedally, Muhammed Ally Hussein
van Hasselt, Tim J.
Harris, Tina
Dixon-Woods, Mary
- License Information
-
More Information
Article History
Received: 13 March 2024
Revised: 23 September 2024
Accepted: 20 November 2024
First Online: 30 January 2025
Change Date: 21 February 2025
Change Type: Update
Change Details: The original online version of this article was revised: In this article the author’s name Stamatina Iliodromiti was incorrectly written as Stamatina Iliodriomiti.
Change Date: 24 February 2025
Change Type: Correction
Change Details: A Correction to this paper has been published:
Change Details: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-025-03949-7
Competing interests
: The authors declare no competing interests.
: Patient consent was not required, as they were not involved in the conduct of this study. The UK’s Health Research Authority decision tool () showed that ethics approval was not required for the multi-professional consultation, as it was classified as a quality improvement activity, in which all of the participants were invited to join the authorship group and to be acknowledged in the project’s outputs. Participants were provided with information about the consultation, had the possibility to ask questions and withdraw their involvement at any time, and gave their written consent to take part and agree to recording of this quality improvement activity (including giving permission to publish anonymised quotes and synthesis of their expressed views).
