Risk factors for the progression to multimorbidity among UK urban working-age adults. A community cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The progression of long-term conditions (LTCs) from zero-to-one (initiation), and from one-to-many (progression)are common trajectories that impact a person's quality of life including their ability to work. This study aimed to explore the demographic, socioeconomic, psychosocial, and health-related determinants of LTC initiation and progression, with a focus on work participation. METHODS: Data from 622 working-age adults who had completed two waves (baseline and follow-up) of the South-East London Community Health survey were analysed. Chi square tests and multinomial logistic regression were used to describe the associations between self-reported demographic, socioeconomic, psychosocial, and health-related variables, and the progression of LTCs. RESULTS: Small social networks, an increased number of stressful life events, low self-rated health, functional impairment, and increased somatic symptom severity were all associated with both the progression from zero-to-one LTC and from one LTC to multimorbidity (two or more LTCs). Renting accommodation (RRR 1.73 [95% CI 1.03-2.90]), smoking (RRR 1.91 [95% CI 1.16-3.14]) and being overweight (RRR 1.88 [95% CL 1.12-3.16]) were unique risk factors of developing initial LTCs, whereas low income (RRR 2.53 [95% CI 1.11-5.80]), working part-time (RRR 2.82 ([95% CL 1.12-7.10]), being unemployed (RRR 4.83 [95% CI 1.69-13.84]), and making an early work exit (RRR 16.86 [95% CI 3.99-71.30]) all increased the risk of progressing from one LTC to multimorbidity compared to being employed full-time. At follow-up, depression was the most prevalent LTC in the unemployed group whereas musculoskeletal conditions were the most prevalent in those working. CONCLUSIONS: The journey to multimorbidity is complex, with both common and unique risk factors. Non-full-time employment was associated with an increased risk of progression to multimorbidity. Future research should explore the risk and benefit pathways between employment and progression of LTCs. Interventions to prevent progression of LTCs should include mitigation of modifiable risk factors such as social isolation.

Anomalies in the review process and interpretation of the evidence in the NICE guideline for chronic fatigue syndrome and myalgic encephalomyelitis.

Chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) is a disabling long-term condition of unknown cause. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published a guideline in 2021 that highlighted the seriousness of the condition, but also recommended that graded exercise therapy (GET) should not be used and cognitive-behavioural therapy should only be used to manage symptoms and reduce distress, not to aid recovery. This U-turn in recommendations from the previous 2007 guideline is controversial.We suggest that the controversy stems from anomalies in both processing and interpretation of the evidence by the NICE committee. The committee: (1) created a new definition of CFS/ME, which 'downgraded' the certainty of trial evidence; (2) omitted data from standard trial end points used to assess efficacy; (3) discounted trial data when assessing treatment harm in favour of lower quality surveys and qualitative studies; (4) minimised the importance of fatigue as an outcome; (5) did not use accepted practices to synthesise trial evidence adequately using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations trial evidence); (6) interpreted GET as mandating fixed increments of change when trials defined it as collaborative, negotiated and symptom dependent; (7) deviated from NICE recommendations of rehabilitation for related conditions, such as chronic primary pain and (8) recommended an energy management approach in the absence of supportive research evidence.We conclude that the dissonance between this and the previous guideline was the result of deviating from usual scientific standards of the NICE process. The consequences of this are that patients may be denied helpful treatments and therefore risk persistent ill health and disability.

Attitudes and practices of ophthalmology doctors in London (UK) on the importance of discussing work as a clinical outcome with patients during consultations: A cross sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Limited research suggests that non-occupational health doctors rarely discuss occupation with their patients. There is a gap in research regarding the attitudes and practices of doctors towards discussing patient occupation and return to work. The aim of this work was to explore the attitudes of ophthalmology doctors towards work as a clinical outcome and assess the need for occupational health training among participants (doctors). METHODS: A cross-sectional survey among doctors working in ophthalmology in two London teaching hospitals. The survey focused on the attitudes of doctors towards 'work' as a clinical outcome, their practices of asking patients about occupation, their perceived level of competency in this area of clinical practice and the level of training doctors had received in this field. Descriptive data analysis was undertaken and results presented as frequencies and proportions. RESULTS: The response rate was 30/72 (42%). Approximately a quarter (8/30;27%) of doctors 'always' discussed return to work during care planning whilst the majority (25/30;87%) of doctors agreed or strongly agreed that this should always be the case. Over half of the doctors had received no formal OH training on how to discuss or assess the impact of health on work and only 17/30 (57%) considered themselves competent in discussing these work outcomes with patients. Over half agreed that additional training would be useful, with the majority believing that it would be most useful at all stages of medical training. CONCLUSION: We found the majority of ophthalmology doctors regard 'return to work' as an important clinical outcome yet most do not routinely discuss work outcomes with patients to inform care planning. Majority of doctors lack training in how to discuss issues relating to work and would benefit from additional OH training.

Changing patterns of sickness absence among healthcare workers in England during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Patterns of sickness absence shed useful light on disease occurrence and illness-related behaviours in working populations. METHODS: We analysed prospectively collected, pseudonymized data on 959 356 employees who were continuously employed by National Health Service trusts in England from 1 January 2019 to 31 July 2020, comparing the frequency of new sickness absence in 2020 with that at corresponding times in 2019. RESULTS: After exclusion of episodes directly related to COVID-19, the overall incidence of sickness absence during the initial 10 weeks of the pandemic (March-May 2020) was more than 20% lower than in corresponding weeks of 2019. Trends for specific categories of illness varied substantially, with a fall by 24% for cancer, but an increase for mental illness. A doubling of new absences for pregnancy-related disorders during May-July of 2020 was limited to women with earlier COVID-19 sickness absence. CONCLUSIONS: Various factors will have contributed to the large and divergent changes that were observed. The findings reinforce concerns regarding delays in diagnosis and treatment of cancers and support a need to plan for a large backlog of treatment for many other diseases. Further research should explore the rise in absence for pregnancy-related disorders among women with earlier COVID-19 sickness absence.