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]