Search

Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess interventions to reduce opioid use for patients with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) versus usual care or active controls in primary care settings. Methods: In this registered study (PROSPERO: CRD42022338458), we searched MEDLINE, Embase PsycInfo, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library from inception to December 28th 2021, and updated on Dec 14th 2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies with no restrictions. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs and Newcastle Ottawa Scale for cohort studies. Primary outcomes included mean reduction in morphine equivalent daily dose (reported as mean differences [MDs] mg/day; 95% confidence intervals [95%CIs]) and/or opioid cessation proportion. Secondary outcomes were mean changes in pain severity (reported as standardized mean difference [SMDs]; 95%CIs) and (serious) adverse events. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models. Results: We identified 3,826 records, of which five RCTs (953 participants) and five cohort studies (901 participants) were included. Overall, opioid dosage was significantly reduced in intervention groups compared to controls (MD: -28.63 mg/day, 95%CI: -39.77 to -17.49; I2 = 31.25%; eight studies). Subgroup analyses revealed significant opioid dose reductions with mindfulness (MD: -29.36 mg/day 95%CI: -40.55 to -18.17; I2 = 0.00%; two trials) and CBT-based multimodalities (MD: -41.68 mg/day; 95%CI: -58.47 to -24.89; I2 = 0.00%; two cohort studies), respectively, compared to usual care. No significant differences were observed in opioid cessation (Odds ratio: 1.10, 95%CI: -0.48 to 2.67, I2 = 58.59%; two trials) or pain severity (SMD: -0.13, 95%CI: -0.37 to 0.11; I2 = 33.51%; three trials). Adverse events were infrequently examined, with withdrawal symptoms commonly reported. Conclusions: The studied interventions were effective in reducing opioid dosage for people with CNCP in primary care. They highlighted the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration. Large-scale RCTs measuring the long-term effects and cost of these interventions are needed before their implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: There have been some concerns about the impact of temporary doctors, otherwise known as locums, on patient safety and the quality of care. Despite these concerns, research has paid little attention to the implications of locum working on patient experience. Methods: A qualitative semi‐structured interview study was conducted with 130 participants including locums, people working with locums and patients with experience of being seen or treated by locums. Analysis was conducted using a reflexive thematic approach and abductive analysis to position themes against wider knowledge. Results: Three main themes were constructed through analysis: (1) Awareness and disclosure; patients were not always aware if their doctor was a locum, and there was some debate about whether patients had a right to know, particularly if locum working presented quality and safety risks. (2) Continuity and accessibility of care; access was regarded as priority for acute conditions, but for long‐term or serious conditions, patients preferred to see a permanent doctor who knew their history, although it was acknowledged that locums could provide fresh perspectives. (3) Communication and practice; locums and patients described how consultations were approached differently when doctors worked as locums. Patients evaluated their interactions based on how safe they felt with practitioners. Conclusion: Patients reported that they were unlikely to have continuity of care with any doctors delivering care, regardless of their contractual status. Locums sometimes provided new perspectives on care which could be beneficial for patient outcomes, but for patients with long‐term, complex or serious conditions continuity of care was important, and these patients may avoid or delay seeking care when locums are the only available option. Patient or Public Contribution: Patients and carers were involved in our study from inception to dissemination. Our Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) forum was involved throughout project design and planning and gave us feedback and guidance on research materials and outputs (e.g., study protocol, participant information sheets, survey tools, interview schedules, emerging findings). Our PPI forum co‐produced our patient interview schedule, two members of our PPI forum led the patient focus groups and all were involved in analysis of patient interviews. Our PPI Chair was involved in the preparation of this manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Numbers of GP locums in the NHS have grown in recent years, yet evidence on the scale and scope of the locum workforce in general practice is sparse.Aim: To identify characteristics, geographical patterns, and drivers of GP locum use.Design and Setting: Observational study of routine data from general practices in England.Method: Descriptive analyses of national GP workforce data between December 2017 and September 2020 were conducted to determine the volume and geographical distribution of locum use and examine the characteristics of locums compared with other GP types. Locum full-time equivalent (FTE) was modelled using negative binomial regression and estimated incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for associations between outcome and characteristics of practices and population.Results: In December 2019, total locum FTE was 1217.9 compared with 33 996.6 for total GP FTE. Locums represented 3.3% of total GP FTE, which was fewer than other GP types. Median locum age was 42 years (interquartile range [IQR] 36 to 51) FTE and the majority were UK qualified (660 of 1034 [63.8%] total locum FTE), were male (642.6 of 1178.9 [54.5%] total locum FTE), and had long-term employment (834.1 of 1127.9 [74.0%]) total locum FTE. Rurality (IRR 1.250 [95% CI = 1.095 to 1.428]), inadequate Care Quality Commission ratings (IRR 2.108 [95% CI = 1.370 to 3.246), and single-handed practice (IRR 4.611 [95% CI = 4.101 to 5.184) were strong predictors of locum use. There was substantial variation in locum use between regions.Conclusion: GP locum use remained stable over time. Compared with other GPs, locums were younger male GPs, a substantial percentage of whom did not qualify in the UK, and those who served underperforming practices in rural areas. This is likely to reflect recruitment or high turnover challenges in these practices/areas and can provide a greater understanding of general practice workforce challenges in England. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We aimed to spatially describe mental illness prevalence in England at small-area geographical level, as measured by prevalence of depression, severe mental illness (SMI) and antidepressant prescription volume in primary care records, and how much of their variation was explained by deprivation, social fragmentation and sociodemographic characteristics. Methods: Information on prevalence of depression and SMI was obtained from the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) administrative dataset for 2015/16 and the national dispensing dataset for 2015/16. Linear regression models were fitted to examine ecological associations between deprivation, social fragmentation, other sociodemographic characteristics and mental illness prevalence. Results: Mental illness prevalence varied within and between regions, with clusters of high prevalence identified across England. Our models explained 33.4–68.2% of variability in prevalence, but substantial variability between regions remained after adjusting for covariates. People in socially cohesive and socially deprived areas were more likely to be diagnosed with depression, while people in more socially fragmented and more socially deprived areas were more likely to be diagnosed with SMI. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that to tackle mental health inequalities, attention needs to be targeted at more socially deprived localities. The role of social fragmentation warrants further investigation, and it is possible that depression remains undiagnosed in more socially fragmented areas. The wealth of routinely collected data can provide robust evidence to aid optimal resource allocation. If comparable data are available in other countries, similar methods could be deployed to identify high prevalence clusters and target funding to areas of greater need. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Social fragmentation is commonly examined in epidemiological studies of mental illness as high levels of social fragmentation are often found in areas with high prevalence of mental illness. In this study, we examine spatial and temporal patterns of social fragmentation and its underlying indicators in England over time. Setting Data for social fragmentation and its underlying indicators were analysed over the decennial Censuses (2001-2011) at a small area geographical level (mean of 1500 people). Degrees of social fragmentation and temporal changes were spatially visualised for the whole of England and its 10 administrative regions. Spatial clustering was quantified using Moran's I; changes in correlations over time were quantified using Spearman's ranking correlation. Results Between 2001 and 2011, we observed a strong persistence for social fragmentation nationally (Spearman's r=0.93). At the regional level, modest changes were observed over time, but marked increases were observed for two of the four social fragmentation underlying indicators, namely single people and those in private renting. Results supported our hypothesis of increasing spatial clustering over time. Moderate regional variability was observed in social fragmentation, its underlying indicators and their clustering over time. Conclusion Patterns of social fragmentation and its underlying indicators persisted in England which seem to be driven by the large increases in single people and those in private renting. Policies to improve social cohesion may have an impact on the lives of persons who experience mental illness. The spatial aspect of social fragmentation can inform the targeting of health and social care interventions, particularly in areas with strong social fragmentation clustering. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]