Demographic characteristics, long-term health conditions and healthcare experiences of 6333 trans and non-binary adults in England: nationally representative evidence from the 2021 GP Patient Survey.

OBJECTIVE: In order to address the lack of data on the health and healthcare needs of trans and non-binary adults, NHS England includes questions asking about both gender and trans status in its surveys to support quality improvement programmes.We used self-reported data from the GP Patient Survey to answer the research question: what are the demographic characteristics, health conditions and healthcare experiences of trans and non-binary adults in England? DESIGN/SETTING: Nationally representative, population-based cross-sectional survey in England with survey data collection from January to March 2021. PARTICIPANTS: 840 691 survey respondents including 6333 trans and non-binary adults. OUTCOMES: We calculated weighted descriptive statistics, and using logistic regression explored 15 long-term physical and mental health conditions, and 18 patient experience items, covering overall experience, access, communication and continuity. RESULTS: Trans and non-binary adults were younger, more likely to be from Asian, black, mixed or other ethnic groups and more likely to live in more deprived parts of the country. Age-specific patterns of long-term conditions were broadly similar among trans and non-binary adults compared with all other survey respondents, with some variation by condition. Overall, inequalities in long-term health conditions were largest for autism: OR (95% CI), 5.8 (5.0 to 6.6), dementia: 3.1 (2.5 to 3.9), learning disabilities: 2.8 (2.4 to 3.2) and mental health: 2.0 (1.9 to 2.2), with variation by age. In healthcare experience, disparities are much greater for interpersonal communication (OR for reporting a positive experience, range 0.4 to 0.7 across items) than access (OR range 0.8 to 1.2). Additionally, trans and non-binary adults report much higher preference for continuity 1.7 (1.6 to 1.8), with no evidence of any differences in being able to see or speak to a preferred general practitioner. CONCLUSION: This research adds up to date evidence about population demographics, health and healthcare needs to support healthcare improvement for trans and non-binary adults.

Cluster randomised controlled trial of screening for atrial fibrillation in people aged 70 years and over to reduce stroke: protocol for the pilot study for the SAFER trial.

INTRODUCTION: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia associated with 30% of strokes, as well as other cardiovascular disease, dementia and death. AF meets many criteria for screening, but there is limited evidence that AF screening reduces stroke. Consequently, no countries recommend national screening programmes for AF. The Screening for Atrial Fibrillation with ECG to Reduce stroke (SAFER) trial aims to determine whether screening for AF is effective at reducing risk of stroke. The aim of the pilot study is to assess feasibility of the main trial and inform implementation of screening and trial procedures. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: SAFER is planned to be a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT) of over 100 000 participants aged 70 years and over, not on long-term anticoagulation therapy at baseline, with an average follow-up of 5 years. Participants are asked to record four traces every day for 3 weeks on a hand-held single-lead ECG device. Cardiologists remotely confirm episodes of AF identified by the device algorithm, and general practitioners follow-up with anticoagulation as appropriate. The pilot study is a cluster RCT in 36 UK general practices, randomised 2:1 control to intervention, recruiting approximately 12 600 participants. Pilot study outcomes include AF detection rate, anticoagulation uptake and other parameters to incorporate into sample size calculations for the main trial. Questionnaires sent to a sample of participants will assess impact of screening on psychological health. Process evaluation and qualitative studies will underpin implementation of screening during the main trial. An economic evaluation using the pilot data will confirm whether it is plausible that screening might be cost-effective. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The London-Central Research Ethics Committee (19/LO/1597) and Confidentiality Advisory Group (19/CAG/0226) provided ethical approval. Dissemination will be via publications, patient-friendly summaries, reports and engagement with the UK National Screening Committee. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN72104369.