Search

Background: The annual health check (AHC) programme, as part of a Directed Enhanced Service, offers an incentive to general practitioners in England to conduct health checks for people with intellectual disabilities (IDs). The aim of this analysis was to estimate the impact on health care costs of AHCs in primary care to the National Health Service in England by comparing adults with ID who did or did not have AHCs using data obtained from The Health Improvement Network. Methods: Two hundred eight records of people with ID from The Health Improvement Network database were analysed. Baseline health care resource use was captured at the time the first AHC was recorded (i.e. index date), or the earliest date after 1 April 2008 for those without an AHC. We examined the volume of resource use and associated costs that occurred at the time AHCs were performed, as well as before and after the index date. We then estimated the impact of AHCs on health care costs. Results: The average cost of AHC was estimated at £142.57 (95%CI £135.41 to £149.74). Primary, community and secondary health care costs increased significantly after the index date in the no AHC group owing to higher increase in resource utilisation. Regression analysis showed that the expected health care cost for those who have an AHC is 56% higher than for those who did not have an AHC. Age and gender were also associated with increase in expected health care cost. Conclusion: The level of resource utilisation increased in both (AHC and no AHC) groups after the index date. Although the level of resource use before index date was lower in the no AHC group, it increased after the index date up to almost reaching the level of resource utilisation in the AHC group. Further research is needed to explore if the AHCs are effective in reducing health inequalities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic children and young people (CYP) were socially restricted during a stage of life crucial to development, potentially putting an already vulnerable population at higher risk of loneliness, social isolation, and poorer wellbeing. The objectives of this study are to conduct an exploratory analysis into loneliness before and during the pandemic, and determine which self-reported factors are associated with loneliness., Methods and Findings: Participants from The Children with Long COVID (CLoCk) national study were invited to take part via an online survey, with a total of 31,017 participants taking part, 31,016 of which reported on their experience of loneliness. Participants retrospectively answered questions on demographics, lifestyle, physical health and mental health and loneliness before the pandemic and at the time of answering the survey. Before the pandemic 6.5% (2,006/31,016) of participants reported experiencing loneliness "Often/Always" and at the time of survey completion 17.4% (5,395/31,016) reported feeling lonelier. There was an association between meeting the research definition of long COVID and loneliness [3.49 OR, 95%CI 3.28-3.72]. CYP who reported feeling lonelier at the time of the survey than before the pandemic were assigned female at birth, older CYP, those from Black/African/Caribbean/Black British or other ethnicity groups, those that had 3-4 siblings and lived in more deprived areas., Conclusions: We demonstrate associations between multiple factors and experiences of loneliness during the pandemic. There is a need for a multi-faceted integrated approach when developing interventions targeted at loneliness. It is important to follow up the CYP involved at regular intervals to investigate the progression of their experience of loneliness over time., Competing Interests: TS is Chair of the Health Research Authority and therefore recused himself from the Research Ethics Application. TC is a member of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence committee for long COVID. She has written self-help books on chronic fatigue and has done workshops on chronic fatigue and post infectious syndromes. TC also has a grant looking at long COVID in adults. MGS reports grants from MRC and Health Protection Research Unit in Emerging & Zoonotic Infections, University of Liverpool. He also reports a role as Independent external and non-remunerated member of Pfizer’s External Data Monitoring Committee for their mRNA vaccine program. He is Chair of Infectious Disease Scientific Advisory Board for Integrum Scientific LLC, Greensboro, NC, USA and director of MedEx Solutions Ltd. He reports minority stock ownership for Integrum Scientific LLC, Greensboro, NC, USA and majority stock ownership for MedEx Solutions Ltd. He also reports a gift from Chiesi Farmaceutici SPA to his institution of a clinical trial investigational medicinal product without encumbrance and distribution of same to trial sites. He is also a non-remunerated independent member of HMG UK Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE, COVID-19 Response) and HMG UK New Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (NERVTAG). All remaining authors have no conflicts of interest. Data cannot be shared publicly due to ethical and legal considerations. All requests for data will be reviewed by the Children & young people with Long Covid (CLoCk) study team, to verify whether the request is subject to any intellectual property or confidentiality obligations. Requests for access to the participant-level data from this study can be submitted via email to Clock@ukhsa.gov.uk with detailed proposals for approval. A signed data access agreement with the CLoCk team is required before accessing shared data. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.", (Copyright: © 2023 McOwat et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Purpose: This study describes long COVID symptomatology in a national sample of 18- to 20-year-olds with Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)-confirmed Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‑CoV‑2) and matched test-negative controls in England. Symptoms in 18- to 20-year-olds were compared to symptoms in younger adolescents (aged 11-17 years) and all adults (18+)., Methods: A national database was used to identify SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive 18- to 20-year-olds and test-negative controls matched by time of test, age, gender, and geographical region. Participants were invited to complete a questionnaire about their health retrospectively at time of test and also when completing the questionnaire. Comparison cohorts included children and young people with long COVID and REal-time Assessment of Community Transmission studies., Results: Of 14,986 people invited, 1,001 were included in the analysis (562 test-positive; 440 test-negative). At testing, 46.5% of test-positives and 16.4% of test-negatives reported at least one symptom. At the time of questionnaire completion (median 7 months post-testing), 61.5% of test-positives and 47.5% of test-negatives reported one or more symptoms. The most common symptoms were similar amongst test-positives and test-negatives and included tiredness (44.0%; 35.7%), shortness of breath (28.8%; 16.3%), and headaches (13.7%; 12.0%). Prevalence rates were similar to those reported by 11-17-year-olds (66.5%) and higher than those reported in all adults (37.7%). For 18- to 20-year-olds, there was no significant difference in health-related quality of life and well-being (p > .05). However, test-positives reported being significantly more tired than test-negatives (p = .04)., Discussion: Seven months after PCR test, a high proportion of test-positive and test-negative 18- to 20-year-olds reported similar symptoms to each other and to those experienced by younger and older counterparts., (Copyright © 2023 Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This paper reports findings exploring work cultures, contexts and conditions associated with psychological distress in foundation and junior doctors., Design: Qualitative study using in-depth interviews with 21 junior doctor participants. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymised and imported into NVivo V.11 to facilitate data management. Data were analysed using a thematic analysis employing the constant comparative method., Setting: NHS in England., Participants: A purposive sample of 16 female and five male junior doctor junior doctor participants who self-identified as having stress, distress, anxiety, depression and suicidal thoughts, or having attempted to kill themselves., Results: Analysis reported four key themes: (1) workload and working conditions; (2) toxic work cultures-including abuse and bullying, sexism and racism, culture of blaming and shaming; (3) lack of support; (4) stigma and a perceived need to appear invulnerable., Conclusion: This study highlights the need for future solutions and interventions targeted at improving work cultures and conditions. There needs to be greater recognition of the components and cumulative effects of potentially toxic workplaces and stressors intrinsic to the work of junior doctors, such as the stress of managing high workloads and lack of access to clinical and emotional support. A cultural shift is needed within medicine to more supportive and compassionate leadership and work environments, and a zero-tolerance approach to bullying, harassment and discrimination., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: This paper provides an in-depth account of general practitioners' (GPs) experiences of living and working with mental illness and distress, as part of a wider study reporting the barriers and facilitators to help-seeking for mental illness and burn-out, and sources of stress/distress for GP participants., Design: Qualitative study using in-depth interviews with 47 GP participants. The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, anonymised and imported into NVivo V.11 to facilitate data management. Data were analysed using a thematic analysis employing the constant comparative method., Setting: England., Participants: A purposive sample of GP participants who self-identified as: (1) currently living with mental distress, (2) returning to work following treatment, (3) off sick or retired early as a result of mental distress or (4) without experience of mental distress. Interviews were conducted face to face or over the telephone., Results: The findings report GP participants' in-depth experiences of distress and mental illness with many recollecting their distressing experiences and significant psychological and physical symptoms relating to chronic stress, anxiety, depression and/or burn-out, and a quarter articulating thoughts of suicide. Many talked about their shame, humiliation and embarrassment at their perceived inability to cope with the stresses of their job and/or their symptoms of mental illness., Conclusions: These findings paint a concerning picture of the situation affecting primary care doctors, with participants' accounts suggesting there is a considerable degree of mental ill health and reduced well-being among GPs. The solutions are complex and lie in prevention and provision. There needs to be greater recognition of the components and cumulative effect of occupational stressors for doctors, such as the increasing workload and the clinical and emotional demands of the job, as well as the need for a culture shift within medicine to more supportive and compassionate work environments., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)