Search

Objectives: To explore whether: (i) people with severe mental illness (SMI) experience worse oral health than the general population, and (ii) the risk factors for poor oral health in people with SMI. Methods: Cross-sectional data were extracted from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1999–2016), including on self-rated oral health, oral pain, tooth loss, periodontitis stage, and number of decayed, missing, and filled teeth. Candidate risk factors for poor oral health included demographic characteristics, lifestyle factors, physical health comorbidities, and dental hygiene behaviours. Ordinal logistic regression and zero-inflated negative binomial models were used to explore predictors of oral health outcomes. Results: There were 53,348 cases included in the analysis, including 718 people with SMI. In the fully adjusted model, people with SMI were more likely to suffer from tooth loss (OR 1.60, 95% CI: 1.34–1.92). In people with SMI, risk factors identified for poor oral health outcomes were older age, white ethnicity, lower income, smoking history, and diabetes. Engaging in physical activity and daily use of dental floss were associated with better oral health outcomes. Conclusions: People with SMI experience higher rates of tooth loss than the general population, and certain subgroups are particularly at risk. Performing regular physical exercise and flossing may lower the risk of poor oral health, while smoking and diabetes may increase the risk. These findings suggest opportunities for targeted prevention and early intervention strategies to mitigate adverse oral health outcomes in people with SMI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Deaths in the first year of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in England and Wales were unevenly distributed socioeconomically and geographically. However, the full scale of inequalities may have been underestimated to date, as most measures of excess mortality do not adequately account for varying age profiles of deaths between social groups. We measured years of life lost (YLL) attributable to the pandemic, directly or indirectly, comparing mortality across geographic and socioeconomic groups. Methods and findings We used national mortality registers in England and Wales, from 27 December 2014 until 25 December 2020, covering 3,265,937 deaths. YLLs (main outcome) were calculated using 2019 single year sex-specific life tables for England and Wales. Interrupted time-series analyses, with panel time-series models, were used to estimate expected YLL by sex, geographical region, and deprivation quintile between 7 March 2020 and 25 December 2020 by cause: direct deaths (COVID-19 and other respiratory diseases), cardiovascular disease and diabetes, cancer, and other indirect deaths (all other causes). Excess YLL during the pandemic period were calculated by subtracting observed from expected values. Additional analyses focused on excess deaths for region and deprivation strata, by age-group. Between 7 March 2020 and 25 December 2020, there were an estimated 763,550 (95% CI: 696,826 to 830,273) excess YLL in England and Wales, equivalent to a 15% (95% CI: 14 to 16) increase in YLL compared to the equivalent time period in 2019. There was a strong deprivation gradient in all-cause excess YLL, with rates per 100,000 population ranging from 916 (95% CI: 820 to 1,012) for the least deprived quintile to 1,645 (95% CI: 1,472 to 1,819) for the most deprived. The differences in excess YLL between deprivation quintiles were greatest in younger age groups; for all-cause deaths, a mean of 9.1 years per death (95% CI: 8.2 to 10.0) were lost in the least deprived quintile, compared to 10.8 (95% CI: 10.0 to 11.6) in the most deprived; for COVID-19 and other respiratory deaths, a mean of 8.9 years per death (95% CI: 8.7 to 9.1) were lost in the least deprived quintile, compared to 11.2 (95% CI: 11.0 to 11.5) in the most deprived. For all-cause mortality, estimated deaths in the most deprived compared to the most affluent areas were much higher in younger age groups, but similar for those aged 85 or over. There was marked variability in both all-cause and direct excess YLL by region, with the highest rates in the North West. Limitations include the quasi-experimental nature of the research design and the requirement for accurate and timely recording. Conclusions In this study, we observed strong socioeconomic and geographical health inequalities in YLL, during the first calendar year of the COVID-19 pandemic. These were in line with long-standing existing inequalities in England and Wales, with the most deprived areas reporting the largest numbers in potential YLL., Author(s): Evangelos Kontopantelis 1,2,3,*, Mamas A. Mamas 1,4,5, Roger T. Webb 6,7, Ana Castro 8, Martin K. Rutter 9,10, Chris P. Gale 11,12,13, Darren M. Ashcroft 2,7,14, Matthias Pierce 15, [...]

A largely unexplored part of the financial incentive for physicians to participate in preventive care is the degree to which they are the residual claimant from any resulting cost savings. We examine the impact of two preventive activities for people with serious mental illness (care plans and annual reviews of physical health) by English primary care practices on costs in these practices and in secondary care. Using panel two‐part models to analyze patient‐level data linked across primary and secondary care, we find that these preventive activities in the previous year are associated with cost reductions in the current quarter both in primary and secondary care. We estimate that there are large beneficial externalities for which the primary care physician is not the residual claimant: the cost savings in secondary care are 4.7 times larger than the cost savings in primary care. These activities are incentivized in the English National Health Service but the total financial incentives for primary care physicians to participate were considerably smaller than the total cost savings produced. This suggests that changes to the design of incentives to increase the marginal reward for conducting these preventive activities among patients with serious mental illness could have further increased welfare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Approximately 60 000 people in England have coexisting type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and severe mental illness (SMI). They are more likely to have poorer health outcomes and require more complex care pathways compared with those with T2DM alone. Despite increasing prevalence, little is known about the healthcare resource use and costs for people with both conditions.Aims: To assess the impact of SMI on healthcare resource use and service costs for adults with T2DM, and explore the predictors of healthcare costs and lifetime costs for people with both conditions.Method: This was a matched-cohort study using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to Hospital Episode Statistics for 1620 people with comorbid SMI and T2DM and 4763 people with T2DM alone. Generalised linear models and the Bang and Tsiatis method were used to explore cost predictors and mean lifetime costs respectively.Results: There were higher average annual costs for people with T2DM and SMI (£1930 higher) than people with T2DM alone, driven primarily by mental health and non-mental health-related hospital admissions. Key predictors of higher total costs were older age, comorbid hypertension, use of antidepressants, use of first-generation antipsychotics, and increased duration of living with both conditions. Expected lifetime costs were approximately £35 000 per person with both SMI and T2DM. Extrapolating nationally, this would generate total annual costs to the National Health Service of around £250 m per year.Conclusions: Our estimates of resource use and costs for people with both T2DM and SMI will aid policymakers and commissioners in service planning and resource allocation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: People in disadvantaged areas are more likely to have an avoidable emergency hospital admission. Socio-economic inequality in avoidable emergency hospital admissions is monitored in England. Our aim was to inform local health care purchasing and planning by identifying recent health care system changes (or other factors), as reported by local health system leaders, that might explain narrowing or widening trends. Methods: Case studies were undertaken in one pilot and at five geographically distinct local health care systems (Clinical Commissioning Groups, CCGs), identified as having consistently increasing or decreasing inequality. Local settings were explored through discussions with CCG officials and stakeholders to identify potential local determinants. Data were analysed using a realist evaluation approach to generate context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations. Results: Of the five geographically distinct CCGs, two had narrowing inequality, two widening, and one narrowing inequality, which widened during the project. None of the CCGs had designed a large-scale package of service changes with the explicit aim of reducing socio-economic inequality in avoidable emergency admissions, and local decision makers were unfamiliar with their own trends. Potential primary and community care determinants included: workforce, case finding and exclusion, proactive care co-ordination for patients with complex needs, and access and quality. Potential commissioning determinants included: data use and incentives, and targeting of services. Other potential determinants included changes in care home services, national A&E targets, and wider issues - such as public services financial constraints, residential gentrification, and health care expectations. Conclusions: We did not find any bespoke initiatives that explained the inequality trends. The trends were more likely due to an interplay of multiple health care and wider system factors. Local decision makers need greater awareness, understanding and support to interpret, use and act upon inequality indicators. They are unlikely to find simple, cheap interventions to reduce inequalities in avoidable emergency admissions. Rather, long-term multifaceted interventions are required that embed inequality considerations into mainstream decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To explore the acceptability and feasibility of detection of atrial fibrillation (AF) by emergency medical services (EMS) and identify potential barriers and facilitators to implementing a formal pathway to facilitate follow-up in primary care, which could reduce the risk of AF-related stroke., Design: Qualitative study using focus groups and one-to-one interviews guided by a semistructured topic guide., Setting: North East England., Participants: Focus groups with 18 members of the public and one-to-one online interviews with 11 healthcare and service providers (six paramedics and five experts representing cardiology, general practice (GP), public health, research, policy and commissioning)., Results: All participant groups were supportive of a role of EMS in identifying AF as part of routine assessment and formalising the response to AF detection. However, this should not create delays for EMS since rate-controlled AF is non-urgent and alternative community mechanisms exist to manage it. Public participants were concerned about communication of the AF diagnosis and whether this should be 'on scene' or in a subsequent GP appointment. Paramedics reported frequent incidental identification of AF, but it is not always clear 'on scene' that this is a new diagnosis, and there is variation in practice regarding whether (and how) this is communicated to the GP. Paramedics also focused on ensuring the safety of non-conveyed patients and a perceived need for an 'active' reporting process, so that a finding of AF was actioned. Field experts felt that a formal pathway would be useful and favoured a simple intervention without adding to time pressures unnecessarily., Conclusions: There is support for the development of a formal pathway to ensure follow-up for people with AF that is incidentally detected by EMS. This has the potential to improve anticoagulation rates and reduce the risk of stroke., Competing Interests: Competing interests: CW has previously held an unrestricted research grant from Bristol-Myers-Squibb, unrelated to this work. The other coauthors have nothing to declare., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To test the hypotheses that: (1) Prevalence of periodontal disease would be higher in people with a history of psychosis when compared to the general population and (2) Demographic, life-style related factors and co-morbid medical conditions would predict periodontal disease in people experiencing psychosis., Methods: The authors performed cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from the UK Biobank study (2007-2010), identifying cases with psychosis using clinical diagnosis, antipsychotic medication, and self-report. Demographic (age, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status), lifestyle-related(BMI, blood pressure, smoking and alcohol intake, physical activity) and physical co-morbidities (cancer, cardiovascular, respiratory, inflammatory disease and metabolic conditions) were included as potential risk factors for periodontal disease among people with a history of psychosis using logistic regression analyses. The analysis sample included 502,505 participants., Results: Risk of periodontal disease was higher in people with psychosis, regardless of how cases were identified. Patients with a clinical diagnosis had the highest proportion of periodontal disease compared to the general population (21.3% vs. 14.8%, prevalence ratio 1.40, 95% CI: 1.26-1.56). Older and female cases were more likely to experience periodontal disease. Lifestyle factors (smoking) and comorbidities (cardiovascular, cancer or respiratory disease) were associated with periodontal disease among people with a history of psychosis., Conclusions: The findings suggest that periodontal disease is more common in people with a history of psychosis, compared to the general population. Prevention and early diagnosis of periodontal disease should be a priority for oral health promotion programmes, which should also address modifiable risk factors like smoking which also contribute to co-morbid systemic disease., (© 2022 The Authors. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)