Search

Introduction: This study characterized the extent to which (1) financial barriers and (2) abortion care-seeking within a person's country of residence were associated with delays in abortion access among those travelling to England and the Netherlands for abortion care from European countries where abortion is legal on broad grounds in the first trimester but where access past the first trimester is limited to specific circumstances. Methodology: We drew on cross-sectional survey data collected at five abortion clinics in England and the Netherlands from 2017 to 2019 (n = 164). We assessed the relationship between difficulty paying for the abortion/travel, acute financial insecurity, and in-country care seeking on delays to abortion using multivariable discrete-time hazards models. Results: Participants who reported facing both difficulty paying for the abortion procedure and/or travel and difficulty covering basic living costs in the last month reported longer delays in accessing care than those who had no financial difficulty (adjusted hazard odds ratio: 0.39 95% CI 0.21–0.74). This group delayed paying other expenses (39%) or sold something of value (13%) to fund their abortion, resulting in ~ 60% of those with financial difficulty reporting it took them over a week to raise the funds needed for their abortion. Having contacted or visited an abortion provider in the country of residence was associated with delays in presenting abroad for an abortion. Discussion: These findings point to inequities in access to timely abortion care based on socioeconomic status. Legal time limits on abortion may intersect with individuals' interactions with the health care system to delay care. Plain Language Summary: This paper explores delays in accessing abortion care associated with financial and medical system barriers. We focus on residents of countries in Europe where abortion is available on broad grounds in the first trimester seeking abortion care outside of their country of residence. This study demonstrates an association between difficulty covering abortion costs for people facing financial insecurity and in-country care seeking and delays in accessing abortion abroad. Policy barriers, medical system barriers, as well as financial barriers may interact to delay access to care for people in European countries with broad grounds for abortion access in the first trimester but restrictions thereafter, especially for people later in pregnancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background During the 1997–2010 Labour government, several policies were implemented to narrow health inequalities as part of a national health inequalities strategy. Many of these policies are likely to have had a disproportionately large impact on people aged 65 and over. We aimed to understand the association between the health inequalities strategy period and inequalities in mortality at age 65–69. Methods We use population at risk and mortality data covering 1991–2019 to calculate mortality rate at age 65–69 at the Local Authority level. We use the 2019 Index of Multiple Deprivation to examine geographical inequalities. We employ segmented linear regression models with marginal spline terms for the strategy period and interact these with an indicator of deprivation to understand how inequalities changed before, during and after the strategy. The reporting of this study adheres to STROBE guidelines. Results Mortality rates in each deprivation quintile improved continuously throughout the period of study. Prior to the programme (1991–9) there was no significant change in absolute inequalities. However, during the strategy (2000–10) there was a significant decrease in absolute inequalities of −9.66 (−17.48 to −1.84). The period following the strategy (2011–19) was associated with a significant increase in absolute inequalities of 12.84 (6.60 to 19.08). Our results were robust to a range of sensitivity tests. Conclusion The English health inequalities strategy was associated with a significant reduction in absolute inequality in mortality age 65–69. Future strategies to address inequalities in ageing populations may benefit from adopting a similar approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Assessing women's perceptions of the care they receive is crucial for evaluating the quality of maternity care. Women's perceptions are influenced by the care received during pregnancy, labour and birth, and the postpartum period, each of which with unique conditions, expectations, and requirements. In England, three Experience of Maternity Care (EMC) scales – Pregnancy, Labour and Birth, and Postnatal – have been developed to assess women's experiences from pregnancy through the postpartum period. This study aimed to validate these scales within the Iranian context. Methods: A methodological cross-sectional study was conducted from December 2022 to August 2023 at selected health centers in Tabriz, Iran. A panel of 16 experts assessed the qualitative and quantitative content validity of the scales and 10 women assessed the face validity. A total of 540 eligible women, 1–6 months postpartum, participated in the study, with data from 216 women being used for exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and 324 women for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and other analyses. The Childbirth Experience Questionnaire-2 was employed to assess the convergent validity of the Labour and Birth Scale, whereas women's age was used to assess the divergent validity of the scales. Test-retest reliability and internal consistency were also examined. Results: All items obtained an impact score above 1.5, with Content Validity Ratio and Content Validity Index exceeding 0.8. EFA demonstrated an excellent fit with the data (all Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measures > 0.80, and all Bartlett's p < 0.001). The Pregnancy Scale exhibited a five-factor structure, the Labour and Birth Scale a two-factor structure, and the Postnatal Scale a three-factor structure, explaining 66%, 57%, and 62% of the cumulative variance, respectively, for each scale. CFA indicated an acceptable fit with RMSEA ≤ 0.08, CFI ≥ 0.92, and NNFI ≥ 0.90. A significant correlation was observed between the Labour and Birth scale and the Childbirth Experience Questionnaire-2 (r = 0.82, P < 0.001). No significant correlation was found between the scales and women's age. All three scales demonstrated good internal consistency (all Cronbach's alpha values > 0.9) and test-retest reliability (all interclass correlation coefficient values > 0.8). Conclusions: The Persian versions of all three EMC scales exhibit robust psychometric properties for evaluating maternity care experiences among urban Iranian women. These scales can be utilized to assess the quality of current care, investigate the impact of different care models in various studies, and contribute to maternal health promotion programs and policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The disproportionate effect of COVID-19 on long term care facility (LTCF) residents has highlighted the need for clear, consistent guidance on the management of pandemics in such settings. As research exploring the experiences of LTCFs during the pandemic and the implications of mass hospital discharge, restricting staff movement, and limiting visitation from relatives are emerging, an in-depth review of policies, guidance and recommendations issued during this time could facilitate wider understanding in this area. Aims: To identify policies, guidance, and recommendations related to LTCF staff and residents, in England issued by the government during the COVID-19 pandemic, developing a timeline of key events and synthesizing the policy aims, recommendations, implementation and intended outcomes. Method: A scoping review of publicly available policy documents, guidance, and recommendations related to COVID-19 in LTCFs in England, identified using systematic searches of UK government websites. The main aims, recommendations, implementation and intended outcomes reported in included documents were extracted. Data was analysed using thematic synthesis following a three-stage approach: coding the text, grouping codes into descriptive themes, and development of analytical themes. Results: Thirty-three key policy documents were included in the review. Six areas of recommendations were identified: infection prevention and control, hospital discharge, testing and vaccination, staffing, visitation and continuing routine care. Seven areas of implementation were identified: funding, collaborative working, monitoring and data collection, reducing workload, decision making and leadership, training and technology, and communication. Discussion: LTCFs remain complex settings, and it is imperative that lessons are learned from the experiences during COVID-19 to ensure that future pandemics are managed appropriately. This review has synthesized the policies issued during this time, however, the extent to which such guidance was communicated to LTCFs, and subsequently implemented, in addition to being effective, requires further research. In particular, understanding the secondary effects of such policies and how they can be introduced within the existing challenges inherent to adult social care, need addressing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There has been a proliferation of frameworks with a common goal of bridging the gap between evidence, policy, and practice, but few aim to specifically guide evaluations of academic-policy engagement. We present the modification of an action framework for the purpose of selecting, developing and evaluating interventions for academic-policy engagement. Methods: We build on the conceptual work of an existing framework known as SPIRIT (Supporting Policy In Health with Research: an Intervention Trial), developed for the evaluation of strategies intended to increase the use of research in health policy. Our aim was to modify SPIRIT, (i) to be applicable beyond health policy contexts, for example encompassing social, environmental, and economic policy impacts and (ii) to address broader dynamics of academic-policy engagement. We used an iterative approach through literature reviews and consultation with multiple stakeholders from Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and policy professionals working at different levels of government and across geographical contexts in England, alongside our evaluation activities in the Capabilities in Academic Policy Engagement (CAPE) programme. Results: Our modifications expand upon Redman et al.'s original framework, for example adding a domain of 'Impacts and Sustainability' to capture continued activities required in the achievement of desirable outcomes. The modified framework fulfils the criteria for a useful action framework, having a clear purpose, being informed by existing understandings, being capable of guiding targeted interventions, and providing a structure to build further knowledge. Conclusion: The modified SPIRIT framework is designed to be meaningful and accessible for people working across varied contexts in the evidence-policy ecosystem. It has potential applications in how academic-policy engagement interventions might be developed, evaluated, facilitated and improved, to ultimately support the use of evidence in decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To establish principles informing a new scoring system for the UK’s Clinical Impact Awards and pilot a system based on those principles. Design: A three-round online Delphi process was used to generate consensus from experts on principles a scoring system should follow. We conducted a shadow scoring exercise of 20 anonymised, historic applications using a new scoring system incorporating those principles. Setting: Assessment of clinical excellence awards for senior doctors and dentists in England and Wales. Participants: The Delphi panel comprised 45 members including clinical excellence award assessors and representatives of professional bodies. The shadow scoring exercise was completed by 24 current clinical excellence award assessors. Main outcome measures: The Delphi panel rated the appropriateness of a series of items. In the shadow scoring exercise, a novel scoring system was used with each of five domains rated on a 0–10 scale. Results: Consensus was achieved around principles that could underpin a future scoring system; in particular, a 0–10 scale with the lowest point on the scale reflecting someone operating below the expectations of their job plan was agreed as appropriate. The shadow scoring exercise showed similar levels of reliability between the novel scoring system and that used historically, but with potentially better distinguishing performance at higher levels of performance. Conclusions: Clinical excellence awards represent substantial public spending and thus far the deployment of these funds has lacked a strong evidence base. We have developed a new scoring system in a robust manner which shows improvements over current arrangements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]