Helping to create a healthier world since 1840

Welcome to our 2026 impact report

The evidence environment is changing rapidly. Open access, the growth of global research, and artificial intelligence (AI) are reshaping how evidence is created, shared and used, making rigorous judgement, strong editorial standards and accountability more important than ever. Since joining BMJ Group in April 2026, I have seen how seriously colleagues take this responsibility.

Research impact often takes time to emerge. This report therefore focuses on influence achieved during the past year, rather than when the underlying research was published, recognising the time needed for evidence to shape policy, clinical guidance and patient care.

The stories in this report show how that impact happens in practice, and the contribution we make at each stage.

Niels Peter Thomas Chief executive officer, BMJ Publishing

Our purpose provides clarity to what we do and the impact we have

BMJ Group is a global healthcare knowledge provider with a vision for a healthier world.

We share knowledge and expertise to improve health outcomes.

We do this by providing a continuum of services:

Delivering quality research

Policy and guidelines influence

Synthesised learning and best practice

Strengthened workforce

Clearer clinical decisions

Improved health outcomes

Which leads to

Better evidence

Patient engagement

Improved research quality and integrity

Faster and wider access to latest evidence

Better decisions

Ability to apply best evidence

Improved knowledge, skills, and career development

Improved practice and patient care

Better systems

High quality policy and guidelines

Open research systems

Improved healthcare provision

This ultimately results in improved health outcomes.

BMJ Group is a top 10 policy influencer

The research we publish is cited in clinical guidelines and health policy at a scale comparable to publishers many times our size.

Ranked 10th worldwide

among academic publishers for total citations in clinical guidelines and health policy documents.¹

500 staff across four global regions

serving an international audience, with offices in the UK, North America, India and China.

Cited nearly 5,000 times in 2025

in new and updated clinical guidelines and health policy documents.¹

Nearly 100,000 submissions in the past year

involving almost 483,000 authors and more than 37,500 peer reviewers.²

The BMJ is one of the world’s top five general medical journals

In the 2026 Journal Citation Reports, The BMJ ranked fifth overall in Medicine, General & Internal, with an impact factor of 55.1.

Impact in action

Better evidence

Over 70% of integrity concerns caught before publication: BMJ Group’s content integrity team helped prevent research with potential integrity issues from entering the scientific record, protecting the reliability of the evidence base.

Five systematic reviews underpin global hand hygiene guidance: Published in BMJ Global Health, the reviews formed the evidence base for WHO and Unicef’s first global guidelines on hand hygiene in community settings.

Four European jurisdictions act on slush ice safety: Research in Archives of Disease in Childhood identified acute glycerol intoxication in children, directly informing updates to food safety guidance in the UK, Ireland, Germany, and at EU level.

Better decisions

One of 2 core resources selected by Google Research: BMJ Best Practice was one of two clinical knowledge resources used to develop and evaluate 100 scenarios for Google’s 2026 AMIE research, grounding healthcare AI in continuously updated, evidence based guidance.

277% of pre-integration page impression levels: Clinicians reported faster access to information, greater confidence in decision making and more consistent practice after Medway NHS Foundation Trust integrated local guidelines with BMJ Best Practice into its electronic patient record.

35k course completions building research capability worldwide: Research to Publication is helping clinicians strengthen research skills, publish their work and support healthcare improvement, with impact demonstrated across Qatar, India and Colombia.

Better systems

25% reduction in postpartum haemorrhage: The BMJ’s Racism in Medicine issue helped catalyse the creation of the NHS Race and Health Observatory, whose improvement programme supported a Lancashire maternity team to reduce postpartum haemorrhage rates from 12% to 9%.

Four Australian states adopt family concern question: A Healthcare Improvement Forum connection helped turn a Monash Health project into a national collaboration, with the approach now used routinely in four states and reflected in the UK through Martha’s Rule.

First licensed NHS treatment for LHON: An independent evidence review by the BMJ Technology Assessment Group informed NICE’s recommendation of idebenone to treat visual impairment in people with Leber’s hereditary optic neuropathy.

Better evidence

Research is the foundation of our business. We work with researchers, clinicians, patients, and partners to strengthen research integrity, improve how evidence is published and shared, and expand rapid access to trusted health information.

Evidence is at its most impactful when people can trust it, find it and use it. Our role is not simply to publish research, but to strengthen the evidence base, and help knowledge improve policy and practice for better health and wellbeing.

Kamran Abbasi, Editor in chief, The BMJ

Protecting the evidence that shapes research, policy and patient care

Content integrity is embedded throughout our publishing lifecycle, and is central to our responsibility as a trusted global healthcare knowledge provider.

Research published in our journals is cited in around 5,000 clinical guidelines and health policy documents each year,³ influencing decisions that affect health and care. That influence makes rigorous scrutiny essential. By identifying concerns before publication, stopping or correcting problematic manuscripts, and using case analysis to strengthen policies and processes, we help protect the integrity of the scientific record.

A dedicated team of clinicians and editors works with reviewers, statisticians and journal teams to identify concerns and investigate complex cases. This model gives journals direct access to specialist clinical, statistical and publication ethics expertise, while keeping editorial decisions independent of commercial publishing.

1,651 content integrity cases were handled in 2025. Of these, 1,192 (72%) arose before publication.

687 cases (42%) involved publication manipulation; 589 were identified through duplicate-submission screening. The screening programme led to 583 duplicate submissions being rejected.

Post-publication investigations resulted in 12 retractions, nine expressions of concern and one correction.⁴

Analysis of these cases led to new guidance on reviewer selection and the use of artificial intelligence, and revisions to consent, de-identification and editorial checks.

Beyond individual cases, the content integrity team develops policy, evaluates new tools, and contributes to international standards, including reporting guidelines. It also contributes to research on publication practice, including peer review, reporting standards and AI governance. Findings from this work directly inform our editorial policies and publishing processes.

We apply the same evidence based principles to publishing that we expect of healthcare: testing, evaluating and improving the systems that underpin trustworthy research.”

Helen Macdonald, Publications ethics and content integrity editor, BMJ Group

Safeguarding the evidence base

Shaping publication ethics since 1997 Nearly 30 years ago, Richard Smith, then editor of The BMJ, helped found the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), establishing our longstanding role in strengthening publication integrity.⁵

Active member of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Contributing to the international recommendations that underpin ethical medical publishing.

A specialist operating model A dedicated clinician and editorial-led content integrity team works alongside editors across every journal.

Independent ethics committee Chaired by Dr Siobhán O’Sullivan, former chief bioethics officer, Department of Health, Ireland, the committee advises on the most complex editorial cases and helps shape policies and processes as new ethical challenges emerge.

Transparent AI, trustworthy publishing

BMJ Group introduced guidance on the responsible use of generative AI in scholarly publishing in 2023. By October that year, only 24 of the world’s 100 largest academic publishers had issued guidance on its use.⁶, ⁷, ⁸, ⁹

Our AI use policy¹⁰ requires authors to disclose whether and where AI was used and to remain accountable for all submitted work; editors may reject content where its use is judged inappropriate or has not been disclosed. Findings from BMJ Group’s subsequent disclosure study are now informing revisions to the policy, submission questions and guidance for editors.

Evidence informing policy

Mandatory AI disclosure questions introduced across 49 BMJ Group journals generated data from more than 25,000 research submissions. The resulting analysis, published in JAMA,¹¹ is now informing the next iteration of BMJ Group’s AI use policy and the submission process used to collect, assess, and report AI disclosures.

The analysis showed that 5.7% of authors disclosed AI use, compared with survey estimates of 28% to 76%. Although not directly comparable, the findings suggest possible underreporting or uncertainty about disclosure requirements, highlighting the need for clearer guidance.¹¹

Examples of journals with well crafted guidelines included BMJ, Physiological Reviews, and PLOS ONE.” 9

BMJ Group AI policy recognised as leading practice

An independent analysis of guidance from the world’s 100 largest academic publishers identified BMJ as one of three examples of “well crafted guidelines”.

The researchers highlighted the policy’s clear disclosure requirements and its insistence that authors remain accountable for work produced using generative AI.

Growing our portfolio to meet tomorrow’s health challenges

BMJ Group publishes more than 80 medical and allied science journals, many of which are among the most influential in their fields.

In 2026, we continued to expand our journal portfolio, launching new titles and strengthening priority specialties. This includes BMJ Connections, a series of journals focused on rapidly evolving areas of biomedical research.

By creating dedicated homes for emerging fields, our new launches connect specialist communities, broaden the evidence base and help research respond to changing health needs.

Expanding our coverage across key areas of health and medicine

New and growing specialties¹²

• Digital health & AI
• Infectious diseases
• Immunology
• Rheumatology
• Surgery
• Stroke & neurointervention
• Women’s health
• Endocrinology, metabolism & diabetes
• Nutrition
• Mental health
• Humanitarian health
• Disability & health

10,500 research and review articles published open access across our portfolio in 2025.¹³

A strong and influential portfolio

81% of indexed journals rank in the top half of their subject category.

52% rank in the top quartile of their subject category.

20%+ rank in the top 10 of their subject category.

Portfolio citation rankings*

10th in clinical medicine and science

9th in public health

8th in health services research

*Position based on total citations across all years, broad research areas. Dimensions, September 2026. Sources: BMJ Group internal data; Clarivate; Scopus; Dimensions, September 2026.

For a complete list of our journals, visit journals.bmj.com

BMJ Journals: Leaders in their specialty

1st — British Journal of Sports Medicine

#1 of 136 in sports sciences for the fifth consecutive year. JIF 15.5 | CiteScore 22.1

2nd — Journal of Medical Ethics

#2 of 22 in medical ethics. JIF 4.4 | CiteScore 6.9

3rd — Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery

#3 of 18 in neuroimaging. JIF 4.4 | CiteScore 9.0

3rd — BMJ Quality & Safety

#3 of 125 in health policy & services. JIF 6.8 | CiteScore 10.8

4th — Family Medicine and Community Health

#4 of 29 in primary health care. JIF 4.5 | CiteScore 6.7

5th — The BMJ

#5 of 336 in general and internal medicine; ranked fourth when excluding review journals. JIF 55.1 | CiteScore 8.9

5th — Gut

#5 of 153 in gastroenterology & hepatology. JIF 24.6 | CiteScore 48.1

5th — BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health

#5 of 66 in family studies. JIF 3.2 | CiteScore 5.3

The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is a widely used measure of average citations and is often seen as a marker of a journal’s influence. But no single metric can capture the whole picture.

As a DORA signatory, BMJ Group offers a more balanced view of research impact. Alongside JIF, we share CiteScore, Altmetric mentions, time to first decision, and more, all available on our journal sites. These metrics help institutions assess quality, reach, and timeliness, and make informed decisions about where to subscribe and publish.

Hand hygiene evidence shapes global guidance

In October 2025, BMJ Global Health published an open access supplement bringing together five systematic reviews on community hand hygiene.¹⁴ The reviews examined behavioural drivers, intervention design, and the infrastructure and materials needed to support effective hand hygiene.

Handwashing with soap and water can reduce diarrhoeal disease by around 30% and acute respiratory infections by approximately 17%.¹⁵

Together, the five systematic reviews published in BMJ Global Health formed the evidence base for the World Health Organization (WHO) and Unicef’s first Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Community Settings.

Launched on Global Handwashing Day in 2025, the guidelines translate the evidence published in BMJ Global Health into actions that governments can adapt and implement worldwide.

The guidelines provide a framework for policy, financing, regulation, monitoring and implementation, helping countries strengthen infection prevention and improve public health.

“If anyone ever asks me within WHO if I have any suggestions for how to do things, BMJ Global Health will be my first recommendation.”

Joanna Esteves Mills, Global public health consultant, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland

Building the evidence base for global hand hygiene policy

Supporting government action The underpinning systematic reviews identified 75 government measures that affect hand hygiene.¹⁶

A practical resource for governments The supplement offers a single open access source that governments can use when developing or adapting hygiene standards.¹⁷

Supporting policy uptake WHO is integrating the guidance into existing commitments across water, health and education, including through the European Protocol on Water and Health.¹⁸

Direct influence on global policy The BMJ Global Health supplement formed the formal evidence base for WHO and Unicef’s first global Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Community Settings

Reframing hand hygiene as a system responsibility The evidence synthesised in the supplement supported a shift in how hand hygiene is understood by policymakers

Enabling real world policy uptake WHO is actively using the BMJ Global Health evidence package in government facing policy processes

FUTURE-AI framework informs international governance

Published in The BMJ in 2025, FUTURE-AI: international consensus guideline for trustworthy and deployable AI in healthcare,¹⁹ brought together 117 interdisciplinary experts from 50 countries to establish six guiding principles and 30 best practice recommendations for trustworthy AI across the healthcare lifecycle.

Less than a year after publication, BMJ Impact Analytics identified citations to FUTURE-AI in guidance, policy reports and publicly funded initiatives across Ireland, Germany, Norway, Japan, and European Commission-funded programmes.

In January 2026, the Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA) used the FUTURE-AI guideline to inform an evidence review supporting the development of Ireland’s national guidance on the responsible and safe use of artificial intelligence in health and social care. The review synthesised 55 sources. FUTURE-AI was one of two included sources that used a multistakeholder consensus method, drawing on a modified Delphi process involving 117 participants.²⁰

HIQA’s national guidance takes a principle-based approach which incorporates evidence based concepts underpinning the responsible and safe use of AI in the health and social care system. These include concepts described in the FUTURE-AI Guideline and other international frameworks, including explainability, fairness, robustness, and traceability.”

Deirdre Hyland, Health information programme manager, Health Information Standards, Health Information and Quality Authority, Dublin, Ireland

Slush safety: exposing glycerol risks for children

Research published in Archives of Disease in Childhood identified a serious and previously underrecognised risk linked to sugar-free slush ice drinks marketed to children.

Following the introduction of sugar-sweetened beverage levies in the UK and Ireland, some manufacturers replaced sugar with glycerol (E422), which helps maintain the slush texture while reducing sugar content.

The study²¹ found that, in young children, rapid consumption of these drinks could cause acute glycerol intoxication, leading to severe illness.

Publishing the research in Archives of Disease in Childhood helped the evidence reach clinicians, toxicologists, food safety authorities, and policymakers.”

Ellen Crushell, Clinical professor, School of Medicine, University College Dublin; consultant paediatrician in inherited metabolic disorders at Children’s Health Ireland (CHI); deputy chief medical officer, Department of Health, Ireland

The research rapidly influenced food safety policy, regulatory discussion, and clinical awareness across Europe, including the UK, Ireland and Germany

The UK Food Standards Agency revised national guidance in 2025,²² advising that children under seven should not consume glycerol-containing slush ice drinks, with Food Standards Scotland issuing updated supporting industry guidance.²³

The Food Safety Authority of Ireland contributed to European discussions and, following EFSA guidance, updated its advice in 2026 to recommend that children aged 10 and under should not consume glycerol-containing slush ice drinks.²⁴

Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) concluded from the study that glycerol levels in slush ice drinks vary widely and may pose a health risk to children.²⁵ Its subsequent FAQ explicitly cited the study, and noted 21 reported UK and Irish cases between 2009 and 2024.²⁶

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) referenced the study in a scientific opinion recommending that the European Commission consider maximum glycerol levels in beverages.²⁷

The findings improved clinical awareness, with glycerol intoxication added to TOXBASE, and generated substantial public engagement, including more than 29,000 full-text downloads within six months.²⁸

Safer schools through stronger allergy evidence

A cohort study²⁹ published in Archives of Disease in Childhood informed a national policy on allergy safety in schools and contributed to progress towards Benedict’s Law, a package of protections designed to improve emergency care for children with severe allergies.

Led by Paul Turner, professor of anaphylaxis, paediatric allergy and clinical immunology at the National Heart & Lung Institute, Imperial College London, a team of researchers examined how schools prepare for anaphylaxis. They found that the current system, based on individual prescriptions for adrenaline auto-injectors, is both inefficient and costly. During the 2023–24 academic year, almost two-thirds of pupils were prescribed more than two devices, contributing to an estimated national cost of more than £9 million.

In the paper, Economic modelling of providing ‘spare’ adrenaline autoinjectors to all schools to improve the management of anaphylaxis, the researchers showed that a centrally funded, school-based supply of emergency adrenaline auto-injectors could provide universal access for around £4.5 million, saving at least £4.6 million annually while improving safety for children.

The findings supported campaigning by the Benedict Blythe Foundation and were cited in the UK parliament during discussions of Benedict’s Law.³⁰ Turner said that the research and advocacy helped shift the debate by showing that allergy safety could be improved without increasing public spending.³¹

The research published in Archives of Disease in Childhood has provided additional gravitas to the evidence that improving safety from anaphylaxis in schoolchildren is achievable without necessarily increasing costs.”

Paul Turner, Professor of anaphylaxis, paediatric allergy and clinical immunology, National Heart & Lung Institute, Imperial College London, UK

1926–2026: Celebrating the centenary of ADC

Archives of Disease in Childhood, the official journal of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, is an international, peer reviewed journal published by BMJ Group.

The journal has a 2025 Journal Impact Factor of 3.4 and is ranked in the first quartile (Q1) – the top 25% of paediatrics journals.

Research informs inquiry into falling vaccination uptake

As childhood vaccination uptake declines in England and vaccine confidence becomes an increasing public health concern, research published in The BMJ is informing parliamentary debate on how governments should respond.³²

The 2024 paper, titled Behavioural considerations for vaccine misinformation and hesitancy on social media,³³ reviewed the evidence on behavioural interventions to address vaccine hesitancy driven by misinformation on social media. It highlights the importance of building trust, engaging credible community voices and improving access to reliable information as promising approaches to addressing vaccine hesitancy.

In April 2026, the paper was cited in written evidence submitted by Professor Sander van der Linden, Kai Ruggeri and colleagues to the UK House of Lords Childhood Vaccinations Committee inquiry, which is examining the causes of declining vaccination uptake and policy options to improve coverage.³⁴

The dream of good academic research is to drive real world decision making. I was excited, obviously, going into The BMJ. I assumed there was a pretty good chance that policymakers would see it. That’s a great thing about The BMJ.”

Kai Ruggeri, Professor of health policy and management, Columbia University, US

BMJ Impact Analytics shows that the paper has also been cited in policy documents from Public Health Scotland, the Welsh Government and other UK public health organisations.³⁵

The paper reached a wide public audience, placing it in the top 5% of all research outputs tracked by Altmetric:³⁶

• 170 news stories from 117 international news outlets
• 157 discussions on the social media platform X
• 112 scholarly citations³⁷
• coverage in six blogs

The diet that rewrote the rules on type 2 diabetes remission

Clinicians have long treated type 2 diabetes as a progressive disease requiring increasing medication. But research from an NHS general practice in Southport challenged that assumption. An eight-year evaluation of a lower-carbohydrate diet with weight loss found that some patients could achieve drug-free remission. Its findings were published in the article, What predicts drug-free type 2 diabetes remission? Insights from an 8-year general practice service evaluation of a lower carbohydrate diet with weight loss,³⁸ which subsequently became the most discussed paper ever published in BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health.

For eight years, GPs and nurses at Norwood Surgery offered routine advice on a low-carbohydrate diet and weight loss to patients with type 2 diabetes, and tracked outcomes for 186 people against the practice’s wider list of 9,800 patients.

Among those who took up the approach, 51% achieved drug-free remission, rising to 77% among people diagnosed within the previous year. Average weight loss reached 10 kg, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) fell from 63 to 46 mmol/mol, and the surgery spent £68,353 less per year on diabetes drugs than the local average.

The paper’s reach quickly outgrew the surgery. Written evidence submitted to the UK Parliament’s Health and Social Care Committee inquiry into prevention cited it directly, quoting the study’s remission rates, prescribing savings and average patient weight loss. It has since been included in a Royal Australian College of General Practitioners clinical handbook on managing type 2 diabetes, and fed into a 2025 update of an RCGP e-learning module on diabetes and glycaemic index, now free to all 50,000 UK GPs.

Audits like ours provide the external validity to answer questions a randomised controlled trial can’t: how will this approach actually do in the NHS?”

David Unwin, General practitioner and senior partner, Norwood Surgery, Southport, UK

Shaping national dietary guidance to prevent hypertension in Japan

In 2016, when researchers from leading Japanese institutions published their study in BMJ Open, they showed that dietary balance, not salt reduction alone, is a significant predictor of stroke, cardiovascular, and all-cause mortality in a national cohort followed over 24 years.

A decade later, the paper, Dietary sodium-to-potassium ratio as a risk factor for stroke, cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality in Japan: the NIPPON DATA80 cohort study,³⁹ remains highly relevant, contributing to the evidence base for the Japanese Society of Hypertension 2024 Consensus Statement on urinary sodium-to-potassium ratio⁴⁰ and the 2025 Japanese Society of Hypertension Guidelines for the management of elevated blood pressure and hypertension.⁴¹

By this paper, potassium intake increase has been emphasised in addition to salt (sodium) reduction for the prevention of hypertension and cardiovascular diseases in Japan.”

Professor Katsuyuki Miura, Co-principal investigator of the NIPPON DATA Research Group; director and professor, NCD Epidemiology Research Center (NERC), Shiga University of Medical Science (SUMS), Seta-Tsukinowa-cho, Otsu, Shiga, Japan

It was also cited alongside two papers in The BMJ⁴² on sodium and blood pressure in the 2026 Japanese Society of Hypertension Guidelines for Blood Pressure Control Using Digital Technologies,⁴³ demonstrating the sustained contribution of BMJ Group evidence to national guidance on hypertension prevention and cardiovascular risk reduction.

BMJ Impact Analytics shows that this influence extends across policy and clinical guidance. The paper is linked to 29 policy and guidance documents across two countries, including 28 from the Government of Japan. The research has informed prevention policy and has been cited in documents on potassium, hypertension, salt, diabetes, pregnancy, body weight, breastfeeding, and lifestyle disease.

Defining remission: a global lupus standard

Before the 2021 DORIS recommendations were published in Lupus Science & Medicine,⁴⁴ researchers used more than 20 different definitions of remission in systemic lupus erythematosus, making studies difficult to compare and treatment outcomes harder to assess.

To solve this, an international task force established a unified, evidence based standard. Since its publication in 2021, the paper has been cited more than 350 times, with 70% of those citations occurring in the past two years, showing its growing influence on the field.⁴⁵

DORIS has been adopted by researchers globally, incorporated into clinical guidelines such as the 2024 Mexican Guidelines,⁴⁶ and its influence extends into drug development. Pharmaceutical companies increasingly include DORIS remission as a key secondary endpoint in lupus clinical trials, reflecting growing acceptance of remission as an important measure of treatment success.⁴⁷ Lead author, Professor van Vollenhoven indicates that DORIS remission is now used routinely as a secondary outcome in company-sponsored lupus trials.

By replacing more than 20 competing definitions with a single internationally agreed standard, DORIS has given patients, clinicians, researchers, regulators, and industry a shared and measurable goal of remission, harmonising lupus research, improving comparison between studies, and shifting care towards achieving sustained disease control.

“The response has been overwhelmingly positive. Many of those who have done studies of remission in lupus since publication have used the DORIS definition.”

Ronald F van Vollenhoven, Professor of rheumatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers; vice-chair and immediate past chair, EULAR research committee; editor in chief, Lupus Science & Medicine, The Netherlands

Lupus Science & Medicine is the official open access journal of the Lupus Foundation of America, owned by the Foundation and published by BMJ Group.

The journal has a 2025 Journal Impact Factor of 4.2 and is ranked in the first quartile (Q1) of rheumatology journals.⁴⁸

Expanding access to trusted research

Open access is making trusted health research available to more people than ever before. By expanding access, supporting authors and partnering with institutions, we’re making trusted health research available to more people in more places.

Our Read and Publish agreements with institutions and consortia help researchers publish and read without barriers, even as the landscape changes.

Through these agreements, article processing charge (APC) waivers, and partnerships with institutions around the world, we’re supporting researchers to publish without financial barriers while supporting a sustainable future for open research.

Making research openly accessible

83% of research articles published in 2025 were open access, enabling research to be read, used and applied without subscription barriers.⁴⁹

Expanding access to open publishing

BMJ Group’s Read and Publish agreements have grown by an average of 27% each year since 2021, now covering 231 institutions worldwide⁵⁰ and making it easier for more researchers to publish open access.

Supporting researchers worldwide

Authors in more than 100 countries benefited from APC waivers, helping to reduce financial barriers to publication.⁵¹

Research from East Africa helps shape the future of global HIV care

A review of health policies across six East African countries has been cited by UNAIDS as it reshapes the global HIV response, contributing to the evidence on how HIV services can be integrated sustainably with wider health systems.

For decades, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) programmes in many low and middle income countries have operated separately from wider health services.

But as people living with HIV live longer and increasingly develop non-communicable diseases, integrating their care has become an important global health priority.

In 2021, BMJ Global Health published the paper, Integration of non-communicable disease and HIV/AIDS management: a review of healthcare policies and plans in East Africa.⁵²

Looking at policies and plans across six East African countries, the authors found that HIV and non-communicable disease services were still not well integrated. They called for more joined-up care, with better monitoring and evaluation of how integration is working.

It can take years for research to influence policy. In 2025, UNAIDS cited the review in its flagship Global AIDS Update,⁵³ as part of the evidence supporting more joined-up HIV and other health services. This has become more important as countries face cuts to international HIV funding and look for more sustainable ways to provide care.

Nearly 95% of LMIC-originated research was published open access in early 2025, up from 56% in 2022.

Greater integration of HIV services with primary health care, wider health systems and other sectors is now embedded in the Global AIDS Strategy 2026–2031,⁵⁴ which sets out 16 global targets for 2030.

In June 2026, UN Member States adopted a new Political Declaration on HIV/AIDS that includes all 16 targets. This brings the Strategy’s targets into a formal UN declaration agreed by Member States.⁵⁵

BMJ Global Health is accessible with a reputation for high quality research. It’s a place that our colleagues go to. For research like this, you want it to also be accessible to the people who can actually use it. Being open access means policymakers and researchers in the countries we were studying can read and share the work without a subscription.”

Anupam (Anu) Garrib, Principal research associate, RESPOND-Africa Partnership, UK

Mapping research influence from publication to policy

BMJ Impact Analytics is a comprehensive tool that enables research organisations and funders to track and share the real world influence of their medical and health research by identifying where it is cited in global health policy, clinical guidelines, and regulatory documents.

An essential tool for research organisations, BMJ Impact Analytics shows not only what they have published, but how their research has influenced wider decision making.

The George Institute for Global Health integrated BMJ Impact Analytics into its institutional impact measurement framework to strengthen how it evidences research impact for funders, partners and policymakers.

BMJ Impact Analytics revealed a substantially broader picture of policy and clinical guideline influence than the Institute’s previous tracking approach. These insights subsequently played a key role in the production of The George Institute’s Impact Report⁵⁶ by providing the policy and guideline citation data to create interactive maps and infographics.

The George Institute’s approach to capturing impact was presented at the 2026 Bibliometrics and Research Impact Community conference⁵⁷ in Canada as an example of connecting research metrics with meaningful evidence of societal impact.

“The data from BMJ Impact Analytics helps us to quantify the take-up of our publications in policy and clinical guidelines, and can also provide insights into the policy landscape around a research topic.”

Deeksha Bhardwaj, Manager – impact and engagement, The George Institute for Global Health, New Delhi, India

BMJ Impact Analytics insights:

Revealed citations of the Institute’s research in nearly 7,200 health policies and clinical guidelines (January 2019–March 2026)

Identified research influence across nearly 100 countries and over 1,000 organisations

Enabled richer impact reporting through interactive maps and infographics

Demonstrated substantially greater policy and guideline reach than previous tracking methods

Better decisions

Research alone is not enough. We help healthcare professionals build their knowledge, apply the latest evidence, and make better clinical decisions through trusted guidance, education, tools, and services.

As patient needs become more complex, health professionals need evidence based support at the point of care.

BMJ Best Practice equips clinicians with the tools to make informed, personalised decisions so they can improve outcomes across every level of care. Integrated into BMJ Best Practice, the Comorbidities Manager is the only tool that offers tailored plans for patients with multiple conditions.

Around 1 in 5 NHS trusts integrate BMJ Best Practice into electronic health records.⁵⁸

50k+ guideline combinations are available through the integrated Comorbidities Manager.

90% of Australia’s public health professionals have access via state health department agreements.

Accredited by over 65 organisations, including the Royal College of Physicians, Royal Australasian College of Physicians, and the Cleveland Clinic.

National access across five countries: England, Scotland, Wales, the Republic of Ireland, and New Zealand (as of July 2026).

Trusted tools for responsible clinical AI

In 2026, Google published its latest evaluation of the Articulate Medical Intelligence Explorer (AMIE),⁵⁹ examining whether AI could safely support longitudinal disease management across multiple patient consultations. Unlike earlier studies focused on diagnosis, this research evaluated AI’s ability to reason about investigations, treatment selection, medication prescribing, disease progression and follow-up care over time.⁶⁰

To develop and evaluate the study, Google selected just two core clinical knowledge resources for evidence based clinical practice guidance: BMJ Best Practice and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance. Together, they informed the development of 100 multivisit clinical scenarios used to assess AI performance against evidence based standards of care.⁶¹

Explaining the decision to include evidence from BMJ Best Practice in the AMIE evaluation, the Google team said they selected “authoritative clinical knowledge sources that are widely accepted and used in clinical practice”, citing the tool’s “international coverage and strong evidence appraisal” as key factors in its inclusion. Google also noted that the evidence based content provided in “both human-readable PDF format and machine-parsable structured formats” was helpful for evaluating how AMIE and clinicians used the content.⁶²

At Google, we believe that working closely with partners that curate trusted clinical content is paramount in our journey of studying AI for clinical tasks in a responsible manner. The international coverage and strong evidence appraisal of guideline content were additional reasons for us to partner with BMJ Best Practice.”

Mike Schaekermann, Staff research scientist and research lead, Google, Toronto, Canada

Making clinical guidance easier to use at the point of care

Medway NHS Foundation Trust integrated local guidelines with BMJ Best Practice into its electronic patient record (EPR) after research with 18 frontline clinicians found that staff wanted faster access to evidence and local protocols during patient care, with mobile access, staff training and digital champions supporting implementation. This created a centrally governed resource that brought local protocols and national evidence together and could be updated consistently across clinical teams.

Clinicians reported faster access to information, greater confidence in decision making and more consistent practice across teams. Richard Pemberton, knowledge and library service strategic manager at Medway NHS Foundation Trust, said that rapid access to local guidance was particularly valuable during the meningitis outbreak in Kent.

“Libraries are here to take the heavy lifting out of accessing information. BMJ Best Practice is an excellent tool for doing that.”

Richard Pemberton, Knowledge and library service strategic manager, Medway NHS Foundation Trust, UK

Average monthly page impressions reached 277% of pre-integration levels following BMJ Best Practice integration into the Trust’s EPR.

Before integration (Sep–Nov): 100 (baseline).

Following integration (Dec–Jun): 277% of pre-integration level.

Average monthly page impressions in the seven months following integration compared with the preceding three months. Medway NHS Foundation Trust internal usage data, September 2025–June 2026.

The initiative, Right Guidance, Right People, Right Time, was shortlisted for Digital Clinical Safety Initiative of the Year at the 2026 HSJ Patient Safety Awards. The nomination recognised Medway’s development of a single source of clinical guidance that staff could access within the EPR.⁶³

Building research capability across three health systems

Research to Publication is an online programme that develops research methodology, scientific writing and publishing skills among doctors and healthcare researchers.

Around the world, clinicians and researchers are using Research to Publication to strengthen research skills, improve publication quality, and support healthcare improvement.

35k individual course completions in 2025

227 articles published in BMJ journals after programme completion

226 users or authors involved in those publications⁶⁴

Qatar

Hamad Medical Corporation’s ambulance service needed to reduce repeat emergency calls from people with diabetes who declined transport to hospital. After completing Research to Publication, Hassan Farhat, operations manager for quality, patient safety and risk management, published a quality improvement study in BMJ Open Quality.

Across four improvement cycles between 2017 and 2021, the team tested interventions to help paramedics provide more consistent diabetes education to patients who declined hospital transport. Callback rates fell during the initial interventions, although the improvement was not sustained. Findings from the project contributed to changes in the ambulance service’s diabetes clinical practice guidance and subsequent training for 477 staff.⁶⁵

The programme improved my methodological approach and how I present it. Understanding the expectations of peer review helped me design studies more rigorously and report findings more clearly.”

Hassan Farhat, Operations manager for quality, patient safety and risk management, Hamad Medical Corporation, Qatar

India

At the SDM College of Medical Sciences and Hospital, associate professor of paediatrics Ashwini Sankannavar wanted to strengthen her scientific writing and publish her clinical research in an international journal. After completing Research to Publication, she published her first BMJ Group article in BMJ Case Reports, describing Kawasaki disease following adenovirus infection.⁶⁶ The publication led to wider academic engagement through discussions with infectious disease researchers about potential collaboration and invitations to review manuscripts.

Colombia

Fundación Valle del Lili hospital produces more than 300 scientific papers each year and wanted to help its researchers communicate clinical evidence more clearly to international audiences. Chief research and innovation officer Sergio Prada used Research to Publication to strengthen the structure and clarity of English-language manuscripts.

Since completing the programme, Dr Prada has published in several BMJ journals, including BMJ Global Health,⁶⁷ BMJ Innovations,⁶⁸ BMJ Open,⁶⁹ BMJ Open Respiratory Research,⁷⁰ and BMJ Paediatrics Open.⁷¹

Using BMJ Learning to lead quality improvement

Foundation year 2 (FY2) doctor Aia Youssef began her NHS career in Northern Ireland, where she used BMJ Learning quality improvement modules⁷² to develop the skills and confidence to undertake her first quality improvement project.

Working alongside consultant physician Darshan Kumar in the Direct Assessment Unit at Antrim Area Hospital, Northern Ireland, Youssef undertook a project examining venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessments and anticoagulation prescribing. Her work involved reviewing acute admissions against hospital policy and national standards.

After completing and presenting a VTE audit to senior colleagues, Youssef used insights gained from BMJ Learning to look beyond data collection and analysis and consider how the findings could support ongoing improvement and shared learning. She subsequently proposed developing the work into a quality improvement project focused on education, measurement and continuous improvement.

Accessing BMJ Learning through her BMA membership, Youssef completed a package of courses covering project selection, improvement methods and implementation. The training helped her develop the confidence to present her findings and identify opportunities for further improvement.

The BMJ Learning quality improvement modules made me ask different questions. They helped me think about what else I could do and what other insights I could gain.”

Aia Youssef, Foundation year 2 doctor, UK

557,367 courses completed*

33% average knowledge improvement* among 37,083 assessed BMJ Learning learners.

4.9/5 average learner rating across all BMJ Learning content.*

*Between January 2025–June 2026

Stroke studies from China shape global guidance

A landmark programme of stroke research published in The BMJ, Stroke and Vascular Neurology, and The New England Journal of Medicine helped establish new approaches to preventing recurrent stroke after minor stroke and transient ischaemic attack (TIA). Analysis from BMJ Impact Analytics demonstrated the extent to which the wider CHANCE* research programme had informed clinical guidance and health policy worldwide.

Stroke affects around 15 million people worldwide each year and remains one of the leading causes of death and long term disability.⁷³ Effective prevention strategies are a global clinical priority.⁷⁴ People who experience a minor stroke or TIA face a heightened risk of a subsequent stroke, making timely and effective secondary prevention critical.

The CHANCE programme of clinical trials,⁷⁵ led by Professor Yongjun Wang, president of Beijing Tiantan Hospital and the Chinese Stroke Association, generated important evidence on how that risk could be reduced. The studies showed that short term dual antiplatelet therapy reduced recurrent stroke risk and later demonstrated how genetic testing could guide more personalised treatment.

The CHANCE programme gave clinicians stronger evidence on when to use short-term dual antiplatelet therapy after minor stroke or TIA, and how genetic testing could support more personalised treatment. BMJ Impact Analytics enabled the researchers to demonstrate how these findings had informed clinical guidance and policy across 62 countries, providing a broader picture than academic citation counts alone.

*Clopidogrel in high-risk patients with acute non-disabling cerebrovascular events (CHANCE)

BMJ Impact Analytics reveals the programme’s global influence:⁷⁶

57 citations in clinical guidelines and health policy documents from CHANCE-related papers collectively

14 years of CHANCE research (2009–2023)

5,000+ patients enrolled at 114 centres in China in the original CHANCE trial⁷⁷

62 countries citing Chinese stroke research in policy and guidance documents

Research was cited by NICE, the WHO, the American Academy of Neurology, and the European Stroke Organisation

The CHANCE programme has made an important contribution to our understanding of how best to prevent recurrent stroke after minor stroke or TIA. Its influence on clinical guidance internationally demonstrates the value of rigorous clinical research, especially large randomised controlled trials, in informing and improving patient care around the world.”

Philip Bath, Professor of stroke medicine and CHANCE-2 investigator, University of Nottingham, UK

Better systems

Better decisions depend on stronger health systems. We use evidence, policy influence, investigations, and advocacy to help shape guidelines, improve transparency, and strengthen health systems and public health.

Tackling racial inequality in healthcare

In February 2020, The BMJ published a special issue dedicated to racism in medicine, examining racial discrimination and health inequalities experienced by patients and doctors.⁷⁸

The special issue helped bring about the establishment of the NHS Race and Health Observatory, which, six years later, continues to provide national leadership and develop global partnerships to reduce ethnic health inequalities through evidence, policy and implementation.⁷⁹

Partnerships and progress

2021–24: Observatory research on racial bias in pulse oximetry leads to updated NHS guidance and contributes to an independent government review of bias in medical devices.⁸⁰, ⁸¹ A 2024 systematic review also identifies gaps in routine DPYD testing for patients of non-European ancestry.⁸²

2025: The Observatory partners with NICE to address ethnic bias in clinical guidance. In September, an additional DPYD variant associated with African ancestry is introduced into routine testing by the North West Genomic Laboratory Hub following the Observatory’s research.⁸³, ⁸⁴, ⁸⁵

2026: NHS England commissions the Observatory to help deliver a national programme tackling racism and discrimination in maternity and neonatal care.⁸⁶ Chief executive Habib Naqvi also chairs the health equity group of the government’s National Maternity and Neonatal Taskforce.⁸⁷

DPYD testing and dosing

A systematic review commissioned by the Observatory identified limitations in routine DPYD testing and an additional variant, c.557A>G, associated with African ancestry.⁸⁵ The North West Genomic Laboratory Hub subsequently introduced the variant into routine testing based on the research findings, enabling clinicians to adjust chemotherapy starting doses for patients at increased risk of severe adverse reactions.⁸⁸, ⁸⁹

Pulse oximetry

The Observatory’s work on racial bias in pulse oximetry also contributed to updated national guidance, an independent government review and further research into equitable medical devices.⁹⁰, ⁹¹, ⁹²

Maternal health

Over the past five years, MBRRACE-UK has reported a reduction in the disparity in maternal mortality, with the relative risk for Black women compared with White women falling from around fivefold to around threefold.⁹³, ⁹⁴ While many organisations contributed to this improvement, Professor Habib Naqvi, chief executive of the NHS Race and Health Observatory, says it demonstrates that evidence based action can begin to reverse longstanding inequalities.

I keep The BMJ Racism in Medicine edition on my desk. It still reminds me how powerful evidence can be in driving change. We are beginning to see credible outcomes because organisations are adopting evidence based interventions that shift the inequity dial.”

Professor Habib Naqvi, Chief executive, NHS Race and Health Observatory, UK

Reducing inequalities in postpartum haemorrhage

NHS Race and Health Observatory: case study

In response to persistent ethnic inequalities in maternal and neonatal outcomes, the NHS Race and Health Observatory, in partnership with the Institute for Healthcare Improvement and supported by the Health Foundation, established a national Maternal and Neonatal Learning and Action Network (LAN) to apply an anti-racism lens to quality improvement across 10 teams from eight Integrated Care Systems in four regions across England.⁹⁵

Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust was one of the participating sites. There, continuous improvement clinical fellow Jennifer Carroll, consultant midwife Jo Goss, and colleagues focused on reducing inequalities in postpartum haemorrhage (PPH).

Baseline data revealed a substantial equity gap. Women and birthing people from Black and ethnic minority groups experienced PPH (≥1000 mL) at more than double the rate of white women (12% versus 5%). To address this disparity, the team combined disaggregated data analysis with service user insight and staff lived experience, applying an explicit anti-racism lens throughout the improvement programme. Nine service user stories and three staff focus groups informed the work, ensuring that changes reflected lived experience as well as clinical evidence.

The team introduced earlier preventive intervention through redesigned “early bird” pathways, enabling screening, risk assessment, and support during the early stages of pregnancy. These changes were supported by strengthened clinical guidance, targeted staff training, and redesigned patient information. Through the national LAN, learning from the project was shared locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally.

The team achieved a sustained reduction in PPH rates from 12% to 9% among the population of focus, representing a 25% relative reduction.

The improvement work also created space for teams to discuss bias and inequality openly and supported psychologically safe learning and improvement.

The work continues, with the team aiming to reduce PPH incidence further to 6% within the population group of focus. An anti-racism and health equity lens is now being embedded into routine practice, not only within maternity services but across the organisation through the Lancashire Improvement Method.

This project demonstrates how applying an anti-racism lens to quality improvement can uncover previously unrecognised inequalities, reduce disparities in outcomes, and embed equity into routine care delivery.

A lot of the work at the start was about getting comfortable going into a really uncomfortable space.

We were selected because of our roles and skills, not our backgrounds, but that meant we had to be very deliberate. We had to create psychologically safe spaces to ask difficult questions, about whether racism exists, and whether it had affected their care.

That meant being prepared to be challenged, both privately and publicly, on how we could lead anti-racism work. But without understanding our own position, listening properly, and being open, we wouldn’t have been able to move forward in a meaningful way.”

Jennifer Carroll, Continuous improvement clinical fellow; specialist physiotherapist, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, UK

Introducing the Healthcare Improvement Forum, brought to you by BMJ Group and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement

For 30 years, the International Forum on Quality and Safety in Healthcare has brought together people working to improve healthcare. In partnership with the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI), we have shared evidence, explored systemic challenges and connected a global improvement community.

To mark its 30th anniversary, the International Forum was renamed the Healthcare Improvement Forum. The new name reflects its broader role in connecting people, sharing learning and supporting improvement beyond the annual event.

Supporting early career voices in improvement work

The Next Generation Advisory Panel brings early career perspectives into the planning and delivery of the Healthcare Improvement Forum, ensuring those closest to day-to-day care help shape improvement conversations, not just implement them.

The panel emerged at the Forum in Copenhagen in 2023 during discussions on multigenerational improvement. Early career clinicians often led change without

influence over management priorities. For Jamie Smyth and Emily Audet, both registrars, this highlighted the need to strengthen participation across career stages.

Working with fellow Forum Fellows, Riddhi Shenoy, Emma Tonner, Victoria O’Brien, Tom Hine-Thomas, and Maja Troj Larsen, and with support from the conference convening bodies, BMJ Group and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI), they formed NGAP from shared experience rather than formal design.

The London Forum 2024 marked the panel’s first formal year, chaired by Audet, with a provocation session bringing early career voices into senior discussions. In Utrecht at the 2025 Forum, the panel was embedded within the programme.

Chaired by Smyth, NGAP has supported early career contributors to present, connect, and return as speakers, strengthening sustainability through multigenerational collaboration.

For the first time, I felt my experience was being treated as expertise, not something I had to wait years to earn.”

Emily Audet, Palliative care specialty registrar, Severn Hospice, UK

Empowering future generations of patients and professionals is essential. Only multigenerational collaboration can address the challenges facing health systems.”

Jamie Smyth, Specialty registrar in public health, Imperial College Healthcare Trust, UK

From one question to system-wide change

A question developed at Monash Health is now used routinely to monitor children’s vital signs in four Australian states. Connections made at the Healthcare Improvement Forum helped the project grow from a local initiative into a national collaboration.

2020 | Starting at Monash Health

Monash Health began working with families and clinicians to improve recognition of deterioration in children. Together, they developed a question to ask routinely when monitoring vital signs:

“Are you worried your child is getting worse?”

Early testing showed strong engagement from families. Further research found that parental concern was associated with critical illness.

2022 | A Forum connection builds momentum

Preliminary findings were presented at the Healthcare Improvement Forum in Sydney. During the Forum, an introduction to the chief paediatrician of New South Wales led to the creation of a national community of practice.

Clinical leaders began sharing evidence and experience, and exploring how the approach could work across Australia.

2022–26 | From local project to statewide adoption

The question is now part of routine monitoring of children’s vital signs in Victoria, New South Wales, Western Australia, and Queensland. Others are also working towards statewide implementation.

The community of practice continues, with representatives from seven of Australia’s eight states and territories.

The approach is also extending to adults. Monash Health has routinely asked adult patients the question for the past two years, with early findings awaiting publication. New South Wales has already introduced the question as part of routine vital sign monitoring for adult patients statewide.

Towards national standards

Australia is updating its National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards, which all Australian health services are expected to implement by 2030.

The current draft includes a requirement for clinicians to “routinely ask patients, families and carers about their concerns, to support early recognition of deterioration.”

The work has also attracted international interest. The International Society for Rapid Response Systems has featured it in its newsletter and at a meeting. In the UK, Martha’s Rule similarly aims to strengthen the role of patients and families in recognising deterioration.

Someone who’d previously done a fellowship at Safer Care Victoria heard me speak [at the Forum] and introduced me at morning tea to the chief paediatrician of New South Wales, and out of that conversation a nationwide community of practice was started.”

Erin Mills, Paediatric emergency physician and quality advisor, Monash Health and clinical lead for Safer Care Victoria’s Safer Care for Kids ViCTOR Project, Australia

Co-designing culturally safer emergency care

Sandra Brownlea, staff specialist in the emergency department at Royal Darwin Hospital in Australia, identified inequitable and culturally unsafe care for frequent emergency department attenders, particularly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients. Social complexity was often addressed through a biomedical lens, leaving patients exposed to stigma and systemic racism. In 2023, attendance at the Healthcare Improvement Forum in Melbourne provided a practical framework to address these challenges. Plenary sessions and case studies on co-design, working with patients and the public, improving equity, and staff wellbeing showed how frontline clinicians can make practical changes to improve care and reduce avoidable emergency visits.

Building on these insights, Brownlea and colleagues secured Medical Research Future Fund support to pilot a culturally informed, patient centred case support programme. Led by an Aboriginal health practitioner and grounded in co-designed care plans, early results were promising: emergency department attendance at Royal Darwin Hospital fell by 50%; total admission bed days dropped from 27 to 9; and discharges against medical advice decreased from nine to one.

“Attending the Healthcare Improvement Forum gave me insight into the value of co-design methodology and involving consumers, and also the value of workforce wellbeing and how all of those things can intersect and improve outcomes.”

Sandra Brownlea, Staff specialist, emergency department, Royal Darwin Hospital, Australia

BMJ-TAG: making meaningful contributions to patient care

The BMJ Technology Assessment Group (BMJ-TAG) provides independent clinical and economic evidence reviews to support NICE appraisals of medicines and health technologies. Since 2011, it has contributed to NICE guidance on more than 100 new medicines.

Assessing AI for earlier bowel cancer detection

Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are increasingly being used to support clinicians during colonoscopy by identifying bowel polyps that may develop into colorectal cancer.

BMJ-TAG assessed the clinical and economic evidence for 10 AI-assisted polyp detection technologies. The review found that most increased polyp detection when used alongside clinician judgement and were likely to represent good value for the NHS, although evidence on longer term outcomes, including colorectal cancer incidence, remained limited.

The assessment informed NICE’s recommendation that six technologies should be introduced into the NHS while further evidence is generated, supporting the responsible adoption of AI in clinical practice.

Improving access to the first licensed treatment for a rare disease

BMJ-TAG also supported NICE’s appraisal of idebenone (Raxone) for Leber’s hereditary optic neuropathy (LHON), an ultra-rare inherited mitochondrial disease that causes rapid and severe vision loss, often in young adults.

Until 2025, there were no medicines routinely available through the NHS for LHON. BMJ-TAG critically assessed the company’s clinical and economic evidence, providing NICE with an independent assessment of the treatment’s benefits and value for money.

NICE recommended idebenone as the first licensed treatment routinely available through NHS England for people with LHON, bringing access into line with Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

Since 2011, BMJ-TAG has contributed to NICE guidance on more than 100 new medicines.

England is now in line with the rest of the United Kingdom with idebenone now available through the NHS. This will come as a great relief to the LHON community in this country, bringing hope to those who have experienced significant visual loss from this mitochondrial genetic disorder.”

Professor Patrick Yu-Wai-Man, NICE committee member and professor of ophthalmology, University of Cambridge, UK

Recruitment research reveals workforce gaps

Since 2005, BMJ Careers has been essential in bringing job seekers and employers together within the healthcare sector.

The team recently analysed nearly 33,000 consultant vacancies with NHS Freedom of Information (FOI) requests and consultant surveys to map NHS consultant recruitment.

The resulting white paper, Consultant doctors: Solutions for a medical recruitment crisis,⁹⁶ found that one in three consultant posts were vacant in some parts of the NHS, negatively affecting staff morale and patient care.

The report argues employers must be more strategic when advertising consultant vacancies, and includes real NHS case studies, such as North Cumbria’s enhanced consultant job plan, which is already reducing vacancies.

The findings were featured in The BMJ⁹⁷ and 17 other publications, and presented at the Civica TRAC user forum.

We knew there was a recruitment crisis. What we didn’t know was that only 4% of consultants were actively looking for work. That changed the conversation.”

Nigel Praities, Head of content, BMJ Careers

Our job boards in numbers (2025)

108,000 applications to healthcare jobs, including nearly 80,000 to medical jobs

2.2 million visits across BMJ Careers and BMJ Health Careers

12.8 million job alert emails sent

Results for new subscribers in 2025

244% increase in job views

291% increase in job applications

80% reduction in cost per job posted

One of our recent successful appointments came directly from a candidate who saw the role advertised through BMJ Careers”

Karen Panesar, Head of medical staffing, Royal Papworth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, UK

BMJ investigation prompts tougher Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) regulation of self-test kits

The UK self-testing market has grown significantly and is projected to generate £660m in revenue by 2030. Now, a range of tests is available directly to consumers without medical involvement.

In light of this, Professor Jon Deeks, Dr Clare Davenport and their team from the University of Birmingham conducted research⁹⁸ on 30 types of direct-to-consumer kits to evaluate their reliability.

Publishing their findings in The BMJ,⁹⁹ they found 60% of these tests to be high risk, with concerns about testing equipment, instructions or interpretation of the results.

Building on this research, The BMJ Investigations Unit revealed many self-testing kits available on the UK high street to be inaccurate and unfit for purpose, questioned regulatory bodies and urged them to implement tighter regulation to protect individuals from misinformation and reduce the burden on healthcare systems.¹⁰⁰

In May 2026, the MHRA published proposed changes to the regulatory requirements for medical devices and in vitro diagnostic devices entering the UK market. The proposals would make it illegal to mislead patients about a test’s purpose, safety or performance.¹⁰¹

The British In Vitro Diagnostics Association, which represents 97% of the national industry manufacturers and distributors for medical diagnostic tests responded to this research on LinkedIn saying: “BIVDA strongly supports the NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre diagnostic team in helping to drive change in medical device law.”

Through our investigative reporting and collaboration with researchers, we’ve helped push for changes in safety policy. The MHRA’s new draft rules are designed to make clinical research more transparent and help rebuild trust in consumer healthcare products.

Now there is an opportunity for consumers and consumer organisations to challenge misleading clinical claims. Whilst manufacturers will still not legally need to share reports of their clinical studies, they will be challenged if they do not.”

Jon Deeks, Professor of biostatistics, University of Birmingham, UK

Transparent reporting for trustworthy healthcare AI

As AI becomes increasingly embedded in healthcare, transparent and reproducible research is essential to ensure AI tools are safe, reliable and equitable.

Published in The BMJ in 2024, the updated TRIPOD+AI reporting guidelines¹⁰² provide an internationally recognised framework for reporting predictive AI studies. They introduce stronger requirements for transparency, open science, fairness and patient involvement.

“Reporting guidelines like this are one step towards making healthcare AI much more trustworthy.”

Gary Collins, Professor of medical statistics, 125th anniversary chair (Department of Applied Health Sciences), University of Birmingham, and statistics editor for The BMJ, UK

Shaping responsible healthcare AI

The guideline sets out clearer standards for transparency, reproducibility, and fairness in AI research, evidence based medicine, and how studies are reported.

Strong and sustained interest

The paper was accessed 12,000 times in June 2026 alone, demonstrating substantial demand for practical standards within the rapidly expanding healthcare AI community.

Contributing to The BMJ’s scholarly influence

Since publication in 2024, TRIPOD+AI has been viewed more than 177,000 times and downloaded more than 55,000 times. It has also been cited in guidance and policy sources from the World Health Organization, the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre, the Publications Office of the European Union, and PubMed Central guidelines, demonstrating international reach and influence.¹⁰³

Publishing the evidence used to track child mortality

In 2026, The BMJ published the latest official estimates of child and adolescent mortality from the United Nations Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation (UN IGME)¹⁰⁴ and causes of death from The Child and Adolescent Causes of Death Estimation (CA-CODE) group.¹⁰⁵

The collection supports monitoring of Sustainable Development Goal 3.2, which aims to end preventable deaths of newborns and children under 5 by 2030.¹⁰⁶

Bringing together four research papers with expert commentary, it provides a common evidence base for assessing progress across countries and identifying where health systems require greater investment and intervention.

The findings show substantial reductions in child and adolescent mortality over the past 25 years, but slower progress since 2015.¹⁰⁷ Without accelerated action, around 60 countries are unlikely to meet the 2030 newborn and child survival targets.¹⁰⁸ By making these estimates widely accessible, The BMJ supports international accountability and evidence informed decisions about policies, services and resources for child survival.

The commitment, care and professionalism that The BMJ team brought to this work made a real difference.”

Danzhen You, Chief of demographics and senior adviser for statistics and monitoring, Unicef, US

Informing progress towards Sustainable Development Goal 3.2 that aims to end preventable deaths of newborns and children under five years old by the year 2030

Published the official UN estimates used to monitor progress towards SDG 3.2.

Brought together four major research papers with expert commentary in a dedicated collection.

Highlighted slowing progress and identified countries at risk of missing the 2030 targets.

Image credit: Unicef / UNI940127 / Kongchan Phiennachit

Strengthening our environmental stewardship

In 2025, BMJ Group achieved ISO 14001 certification, the international standard for environmental management systems.¹⁰⁹

We also measured our carbon footprint, independently verified by NQA Certification Limited, and published an annual carbon reduction plan to track progress and set out how we plan to reduce emissions.¹¹⁰

But our work goes beyond meeting a standard. Sustainability is built into the way BMJ Group is run, with a dedicated head of sustainability and a committee that brings together colleagues from across the organisation. This means we can ask environmental questions earlier, challenge how we do things and keep looking for better options.

As a member of the Professional Publishers Association’s Sustainability Action Group, we acted on 2019 research into the environmental impact of magazine wrapping,¹¹¹ reviewing our approach and moving towards lower-impact alternatives. More recently, our ISO 14001 audit prompted us to review our wider print supply chain, including the paper used for our journals. The review confirmed that our current approach remains the most environmentally responsible option available to us.

All our print journals use paper traceable to responsibly managed forests, while The BMJ is printed on paper made from timber-industry by-products.

Our publishing also supports scrutiny of climate, health and commercial influence. In 2024, an investigation in The BMJ examined fossil fuel industry funding of medical research.¹¹² This formed part of the evidence considered when we introduced restrictions on fossil fuel advertising and funded research.

Our first sustainability report brings this work together and shows how we are continuing to improve. Visit bmj.group/sustainability-report

Sustainable Development Goals: Our operations and publishing contribute to SDGs 1, 3, 8 and 13, where we believe we can make the greatest difference: tackling poverty, improving health and wellbeing, supporting inclusive economic growth, and taking climate action.

Being certified ISO 14001 gives us a clear way to show where we are doing well and where we can improve. But our ambition goes further. Our colleagues were already asking difficult questions, challenging assumptions and looking for better choices. The standard helps us do that in a more consistent and measurable way.”

Muryel Boulay, Head of sustainability, BMJ Group

References

The numbers below correspond to the superscript links throughout the report.

1. BMJ Impact Analytics. Clinical guideline and health policy citation rankings. 2026.
2. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. ScholarOne submissions, author and peer reviewer data, rolling 12 months to 24 August 2026. 2026. Internal data.
3. BMJ Impact Analytics. Clinical guideline and health policy citations. March 2025.
4. BMJ Group. Content integrity team records. 2025. Internal data.
5. Jones J. UK watchdog issues guidelines to combat medical research fraud. BMJ. 1999;319:660. doi:10.1136/bmj.319.7211.660.
6. Macdonald H, Abbasi K. Riding the whirlwind: BMJ’s policy on artificial intelligence in scientific publishing. BMJ. 2023;382:p1923. doi:10.1136/bmj. p1923.
7. Ganjavi C, Eppler MB, Pekcan A, et al. Publishers’ and journals’ instructions to authors on use of generative artificial intelligence in academic and scientific publishing: bibliometric analysis. BMJ. 2024;384:e077192.
8. Macdonald H, Abbasi K. Riding the whirlwind: BMJ’s policy on artificial intelligence in scientific publishing. BMJ. 2023;382:p1923. doi:10.1136/bmj. p1923.
9. Ganjavi C, Eppler MB, Pekcan A, et al. Publishers’ and journals’ instructions to authors on use of generative artificial intelligence in academic and scientific publishing: bibliometric analysis. BMJ. 2024;384:e077192.
10. BMJ Publishing Group. AI use. Available from: https://authors.bmj.com/ policies/ai-use/
11. AlFayyad I, Zeegers MP, Bouter L, Macdonald H, Schroter S. Self-disclosed use of AI in research submissions to BMJ journals. JAMA. 2026;335:719-21. doi:10.1001/jama.2025.25688.
12. BMJ Group. Master Journal Info Grid and 2026 Journal Launch Tracker. September 2026. Internal data.
13. BMJ Group. Published Articles Dashboard (HighWire). 2025. Internal data.
14. BMJ Global Health. Hand hygiene in communities. Available from: https://gh. bmj.com/pages/hand-hygiene-in-communities
15. World Health Organization; Unicef. Guidelines on hand hygiene in community settings. 2025. Available from: https://knowledge.unicef.org/wash/resource/ guidelines-hand-hygiene-community-settings
16. Snyder JS, Canda E, Honeycutt J, O’Brien LA, Rogers HK, Cumming O, et al. Effectiveness of measures taken by governments to support hand hygiene in community settings: a systematic review. BMJ Glob Health. 2025;10:e018929. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2025-018929.
17. World Health Organization; United Nations Children’s Fund. Guidelines on hand hygiene in community settings. 2025. Available from: https://www.who.int/ publications/i/item/9789240116559
18. Esteves Mills J. Interview by Ingrid Bray, BMJ Group. 2026.
19. Lekadir K, Frangi AF, Porras AR, et al. FUTURE-AI: international consensus guideline for trustworthy and deployable artificial intelligence in healthcare. BMJ. 2025;388:e081554. doi:10.1136/bmj-2024-081554.
20. Health Information and Quality Authority. Evidence review to inform the development of National Guidance for the Responsible and Safe Use of Artificial Intelligence in Health and Social Care Services. 2026.
21. Brothwell SL, Fitzsimons PE, Gerrard A, et al. Glycerol intoxication syndrome in young children following the consumption of slush ice drinks. Arch Dis Child. 2025;110:592-6.
22. Food Standards Agency. FSA updates advice on risk to children of glycerol in slush ice drinks. 2025. Available from: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. uk/ukgwa/20250805074144/https://www.food.gov.uk/news-alerts/news/fsa-updates-advice-on-risk-to-children-of-glycerol-in-slush-ice-drinks
23. Food Standards Scotland. Glycerol in slush ice drinks: consumer advice. 2025.
24. Food Safety Authority of Ireland. FSAI updates advice on slush ice drinks for children aged ten and under. 2026.
25. German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment. Glycerol in slush ice drinks can cause undesirable health effects. 2025.
26. German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment. Slush ice drinks with glycerol: refreshments with potential undesired health effects. 2025.
27. European Food Safety Authority. Safety assessment of glycerol (E422) in beverages. EFSA J. 2026;24:e10057.
28. Altmetric. Article metrics for glycerol intoxication study. 2026.
29. Turner PJ, Bright A, Michaelis LJ, et al. Economic modelling of providing ‘spare’ adrenaline autoinjectors to all schools to improve the management of anaphylaxis. Arch Dis Child. 2026;111:245-52.
30. UK Parliament. Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. HC Deb 9 Mar 2026;111.
31. Department for Education. Allergy safety in schools: statutory guidance. 2026.
32. UK Parliament. Childhood Vaccinations Committee: inquiry into childhood vaccination rates. 2026.
33. Ruggeri K, Vanderslott S, Yamada Y, et al. Behavioural interventions to reduce vaccine hesitancy driven by misinformation on social media. BMJ. 2024;384: e076542. doi:10.1136/bmj-2023-076542.
34. van der Linden S, Roozenbeek J, Grimes DR, et al. Written evidence to the House of Lords Childhood Vaccinations Committee inquiry (CVX0016). UK Parliament. 2026.
35. BMJ Impact Analytics. Policy citations report for Behavioural considerations for vaccine misinformation and hesitancy on social media. 2026.
36. Altmetric. Behavioural interventions to reduce vaccine hesitancy driven by misinformation on social media: metrics. 2026.
37. Dimensions. Citation data. 2026.
38. Unwin D, Delon C, Unwin J, Tobin S, Taylor R. What predicts drug-free type 2 diabetes remission? Insights from an 8-year general practice service evaluation of a lower carbohydrate diet with weight loss. BMJ Nutr Prev Health. 2023;6:46-55. doi:10.1136/bmjnph-2022-000544.
39. Okayama A, Okuda N, Miura K, et al. Dietary sodium-to-potassium ratio as a risk factor for stroke, cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality in Japan: the NIPPON DATA80 cohort study. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e011632. doi:10.1136/ bmjopen-2016-011632.
40. Hisamatsu T, Miura K, et al. Practical use and target value of urine sodium-to-potassium ratio in assessment of hypertension risk for Japanese: consensus statement. Hypertens Res. 2024.
41. Ohya Y, Arakawa K, Arata N, et al. The Japanese Society of Hypertension Guidelines for the management of elevated blood pressure and hypertension 2025. Hypertens Res. 2026.
42. Elliott P, Stamler J, Nichols R, et al. Intersalt revisited: further analyses of 24 hour sodium excretion and blood pressure within and across populations. BMJ. 1996;312:1249. doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7041.1249; Huang L, Trieu K, Yoshimura S, et al. Effect of dose and duration of reduction in dietary sodium on blood pressure levels: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. BMJ. 2020;368:m315. doi:10.1136/bmj.m315.
43. Arima H, Itoh H, Ohkubo T, et al. The Japanese Society of Hypertension Guidelines for blood pressure control using digital technologies. Hypertens Res. 2026;49:1087-1123. doi:10.1038/s41440-025-02509-0.
44. van Vollenhoven RF, Bertsias G, Doria A, et al. 2021 DORIS definition of remission in SLE: final recommendations from an international task force. Lupus Sci Med. 2021;8:e000538. doi:10.1136/lupus-2021-000538.
45. BMJ Impact Analytics. Citation data. 2026.
46. Andrade-Ortega L, Xibillé-Friedmann D, Galarza-Delgado DA, et al. Clinical Practice Mexican Guidelines for the Treatment of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: 2024 update. Reumatol Clin. 2024;20:490-510.
47. Parra Sánchez AR, van Vollenhoven RF, Morand EF, et al. Targeting DORIS remission and LLDAS in SLE: a review. Rheumatol Ther. 2023;10:1459-77.
48. Clarivate. Journal Citation Reports 2025: Lupus Science & Medicine. 2025.
49. BMJ Group. Published Articles Dashboard. 2025. Internal data.
50. BMJ Group. Salesforce reporting: Read & Publish agreements, 2021-2026. 2026. Internal data.
51. BMJ Group. Waivers Dashboard. 2025. Internal data.
52. Adeyemi O, Lyons M, Njim T, et al. Integration of non-communicable disease and HIV/AIDS management: a review of healthcare policies and plans in East Africa. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6:e004669. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2020-004669.
53. Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS. AIDS, crisis and the power to transform: Global AIDS Update 2025. 2025.
54. UNAIDS. The Global AIDS Strategy for 2026-2031: United towards ending AIDS. 2026.
55. Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS. The 2026 UN Political Declaration on HIV/AIDS: accelerating progress towards ending AIDS as a public health threat. 2026.
56. The George Institute for Global Health. Impact report 2025. 2025. Available from: https://impact.georgeinstitute.org/2025/
57. BMJ Group. Website abstract of presentation. 2026.
58. BMJ Group. BMJ Best Practice customer records: NHS trust electronic health record integrations. 2026. Internal commercial data.
59. Liévin V, Palepu A, et al. Towards conversational AI for disease management. Nature. 2026.
60. Google. Google advances its AMIE research medical AI from diagnosis to treatment. 2026.
61. Google Research. From diagnosis to treatment: advancing AMIE for longitudinal disease management. 2025.
62. Google Research. Written response to BMJ Group. July 2026.
63. Medway NHS Foundation Trust. Patient safety initiative at Medway Maritime Hospital shortlisted for national award. 2026.
64. BMJ Group. Research to Publication: Q1 update. 20 April 2026. Internal presentation.
65. Farhat H, Alinier G, El Aifa K, et al. Quality improvement tools to manage emergency callbacks from patients with diabetes in a prehospital setting. BMJ Open Qual. 2023;12:e002007. doi:10.1136/bmjoq-2022-002007.
66. Sankannavar A, Puttalinga D, Bagalkot PS. Subsequent development of Kawasaki disease following acute human adenovirus infection among siblings. BMJ Case Rep. 2024;17:e257257. doi:10.1136/bcr-2023-257257.
67. Rodriguez-Lopez M, Botero Jaramillo D, Prada S, et al. Social and geographical inequalities in prenatal care coverage in Colombia: a multilevel analysis of individual heterogeneity and discriminatory accuracy. BMJ Glob Health. 2025;10:e019608. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2025-019608.
68. Quintero OI, Garcia-Garcia MP, Valdés CA, et al. Novel tube and inhaler adaptor for non-invasive ventilation: from design to clinical impact. BMJ Innov. 2025;11:74-9.
69. Prada SI, Toro JJ, Peña-Zárate EE, et al. Impact of a teaching hospital-based multidisciplinary telemedicine programme in Southwestern Colombia: a cross-sectional resource analysis. BMJ Open. 2024;14:e084447. doi:10.1136/ bmjopen-2024-084447.
70. Fernandez-Trujillo L, Sangiovanni S, Castrillon AI, et al. Unveiling the truth: is COVID-19 reimbursement in Colombia a flawed design? A cost-of-illness analysis for moderate, severe and critical infections. BMJ Open Respir Res. 2024;11:e002097. doi:10.1136/bmjresp-2023-002097.
71. Gómez-Casas ÁM, Gempeler A, Montoya D, et al. Effects of a hospital-based food security programme for children with complex diseases in an upper-middle-income country: a before-and-after study. BMJ Paediatr Open. 2024;8:e002690. doi:10.1136/bmjpo-2024-002690.
72. BMJ Learning. Quality improvement. 2026.
73. World Health Organization Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean. Stroke (cerebrovascular accident). Available from: https://www.emro.who.int/ health-topics/stroke-cerebrovascular-accident/
74. Wang Y, Wang Y, Zhao X, et al. Clopidogrel with aspirin in acute minor stroke or transient ischemic attack. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:11-19.
75. Original CHANCE trial: Clopidogrel with aspirin in acute minor stroke or transient ischemic attack. N Engl J Med. 2013; CHANCE-2: Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in CYP2C19 loss-of-function carriers with stroke or TIA. N Engl J Med. 2021; CHANCE-2: rationale and design. Stroke Vasc Neurol. 2021; Colchicine in patients with acute ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack (CHANCE-3). BMJ. 2024.
76. BMJ Impact Analytics. Analysis of CHANCE trial citations in clinical guidance and health policy documents using Overton data. 2025.
77. Wang Y, Wang Y, Zhao X, et al. Clopidogrel with aspirin in acute minor stroke or transient ischemic attack. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:11-19.
78. The BMJ. Racism in medicine [special issue]. 2020. Available from: https:// www.bmj.com/racism-in-medicine
79. Kmietowicz Z. NHS launches Race and Health Observatory after BMJ’s call to end inequalities. BMJ. 2020;369:m2191.
80. NHS Race and Health Observatory. Pulse oximetry and racial bias: recommendations for national healthcare, regulatory and research bodies. 2021.
81. NHS Race and Health Observatory. Statement in response to publication of the Equity in Medical Devices Independent Review. 2024.
82. NHS Race and Health Observatory. Review to explore cancer drug limitations due to ethnic gene variations. 2024.
83. As above.
84. NHS Race and Health Observatory. NHS Genomics Hub tests for new anti-cancer drug variant. 2026.
85. Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust. North West Genomic Hub develops test that can improve cancer treatment for patients with African ancestry. 2026.
86. NHS Race and Health Observatory. Observatory to support delivery of new national programme targeting racism and discrimination in maternity and neonatal care. 2026.
87. As above.
88. NHS Race and Health Observatory. NHS Genomics Hub tests for new anti-cancer drug variant. 2026.
89. Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust. North West Genomic Hub develops test that can improve cancer treatment for patients with African ancestry. 2026.
90. NHS Race and Health Observatory. Pulse oximetry and racial bias: recommendations for national healthcare, regulatory and research bodies. 2021.
91. Department of Health and Social Care. Equity in medical devices: independent review—final report. 2024.
92. Department of Health and Social Care; Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency; NHS England. New action to tackle ethnic and other biases in medical devices. 2024.
93. Knight M, Bunch K, Tuffnell D, et al, editors. Saving Lives, Improving Mothers’ Care: lessons learned to inform maternity care from the UK and Ireland Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths and Morbidity 2015-17. MBRRACE-UK. 2019.
94. MBRRACE-UK. Maternal mortality 2022-2024. 2026.
95. NHS Race and Health Observatory. Maternal and Neonatal Learning and Action Network (LAN). 2025.
96. BMJ Careers. Consultant doctors: solutions for a medical recruitment crisis. 2025.
97. O’Dowd A. Third of consultant posts are lying vacant in some UK areas and costing NHS millions, investigation finds. BMJ. 2025;391:r2273. doi:10.1136/ bmj.r2273.
98. Davenport C, Richter A, Hillier B, et al. Direct-to-consumer self-tests sold in the UK in 2023: cross sectional review of information on intended use, instructions for use, and post-test decision making. BMJ. 2025;390:e085546. doi:10.1136/ bmj-2025-085546.
99. As above.
100. Coombes R, Boytchev H, Iacobucci G. How safe are health tests on UK supermarket shelves? BMJ. 2025;390:r1503. doi:10.1136/bmj.r1503.
101. Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. MHRA invites views on proposed changes to medical device regulation. 11 May 2026. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mhra-invites-views-on-proposed-changes-to-medical-device-regulation
102. Collins GS, Moons KGM, Dhiman P, et al. TRIPOD+AI statement: updated guidance for reporting clinical prediction models that use regression or machine learning methods. BMJ. 2024;385:e078378. doi:10.1136/bmj-2023-078378.
103. BMJ Impact Analytics. Policy and guidance citation data. 2026.
104. United Nations Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation. Child and adolescent mortality estimates collection. BMJ. 2026. Available from: https:// www.bmj.com/collections/child-adolescent-mortality
105. Eilerts-Spinelli H, Villavicencio F, Perin J, et al. Estimates of global causes of death for children and adolescents aged 5-19 in 2000-24: secondary data analysis using Bayesian multinomial logistic regression. BMJ. 2026;393: e088687. doi:10.1136/bmj-2025-088687.
106. United Nations. Sustainable Development Goal 3: ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages. Target 3.2. Available from: https://sdgs. un.org/goals/goal3
107. United Nations Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation. Child and adolescent mortality estimates collection. The BMJ. 2026. Available from: https://www.bmj.com/collections/child-adolescent-mortality
108. Sharrow D, Hug L, Liu Y, et al. Global, regional, and national levels and trends in under 5, infant, and neonatal mortality during 1990-2024 with scenario based projections to 2030: modelling study. BMJ. 2026;393:e088684. doi:10.1136/ bmj-2025-088684.
109. BMJ Group. Sustainability at BMJ Group. 2026.
110. BMJ Group. Sustainability at BMJ Group [Internet]. London: BMJ Group; 2026 [cited 2026 Sep 8]. Available from: https://bmjgroup.com/about-us/ sustainability/#carbon
111. Professional Publishers Association. Magazine plastic wrapping guidelines. London: PPA; 2019. Available from: https://ppa.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/ 2022/08/Magazine_Wrapping_Guidelines_May_2019.pdf
112. Boytchev H, Widmann N, Wörpel S. How much does the fossil fuel industry fund medical research? BMJ. 2024;387:q2589. doi:10.1136/bmj.q2589.

About this report

© BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2026

Registered office: BMA House Tavistock Square London, WC1H 9JR United Kingdom bmjgroup.com

BMJ Group is a wholly owned subsidiary of the British Medical Association.

Registered in England No. 3102371

VAT registered No. GB 674 7384 91

This report was researched, written and reviewed by BMJ Group staff, with valuable contributions and fact checking from authors, editors, researchers, clinicians, policymakers, partners and colleagues featured throughout. AI tools were used selectively to help summarise evidence, analyse data and refine the writing. The report was reviewed and fact checked by BMJ Group staff, in line with our AI principles.

Report lead: Ingrid Bray, Senior Communications Manager, BMJ Group

Design: Ralf Zeigermann

Images: Getty Images and Adobe Stock

This document is the accessible, text-only version of the report. Reference numbers are presented as superscript citations in the text, with the full numbered reference list at the end.