Socioeconomic inequalities of Long COVID: a retrospective population-based cohort study in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the risk of Long COVID by socioeconomic deprivation and to further examine the inequality by sex and occupation. DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study using data from the ONS COVID-19 Infection Survey between 26 April 2020 and 31 January 2022. This is the largest nationally representative survey of COVID-19 in the UK with longitudinal data on occupation, COVID-19 exposure and Long COVID. SETTING: Community-based survey in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 201,799 participants aged 16 to 64 years and with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The risk of Long COVID at least 4 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection by index of multiple deprivation (IMD) and the modifying effects of socioeconomic deprivation by sex and occupation. RESULTS: Nearly 10% (n = 19,315) of participants reported having Long COVID. Multivariable logistic regression models, adjusted for a range of variables (demographic, co-morbidity and time), showed that participants in the most deprived decile had a higher risk of Long COVID (11.4% vs. 8.2%; adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.46; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.34, 1.59) compared to the least deprived decile. Significantly higher inequalities (most vs. least deprived decile) in Long COVID existed in healthcare and patient-facing roles (aOR: 1.76; 95% CI: 1.27, 2.44), in the education sector (aOR: 1.68; 95% CI: 1.31, 2.16) and in women (aOR: 1.56; 95% CI: 1.40, 1.73) than men (aOR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.15, 1.51). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insights into the heterogeneous degree of inequality in Long COVID by deprivation, sex and occupation. These findings will help inform public health policies and interventions in incorporating a social justice and health inequality lens.

Do doctors in dispensing practices with a financial conflict of interest prescribe more expensive drugs? A cross-sectional analysis of English primary care prescribing data.

OBJECTIVES: Approximately one in eight practices in primary care in England are 'dispensing practices' with an in-house dispensary providing medication directly to patients. These practices can generate additional income by negotiating lower prices on higher cost drugs, while being reimbursed at a standard rate. They, therefore, have a potential financial conflict of interest around prescribing choices. We aimed to determine whether dispensing practices are more likely to prescribe high-cost options for four commonly prescribed classes of drug where there is no evidence of superiority for high-cost options. DESIGN: A list was generated of drugs with high acquisition costs that were no more clinically effective than those with the lowest acquisition costs, for all four classes of drug examined. Data were obtained prescribing of statins, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and ACE inhibitors (ACEis). Logistic regression was used to calculate ORs for prescribing high-cost options in dispensing practices, adjusting for Index of Multiple Deprivation score, practice list size and the number of doctors at each practice. SETTING: English primary care. PARTICIPANTS: All general practices in England. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean cost per dose was calculated separately for dispensing and non-dispensing practices. Dispensing practices can vary in the number of patients they dispense to; we, therefore, additionally compared practices with no dispensing patients, low, medium and high proportions of dispensing patients. Total cost savings were modelled by applying the mean cost per dose from non-dispensing practices to the number of doses prescribed in dispensing practices. RESULTS: Dispensing practices were more likely to prescribe high-cost drugs across all classes: statins adjusted OR 1.51 (95% CI 1.49 to 1.53, p<0.0001), PPIs OR 1.11 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.13, p<0.0001), ACEi OR 2.58 (95% CI 2.46 to 2.70, p<0.0001), ARB OR 5.11 (95% CI 5.02 to 5.20, p<0.0001). Mean cost per dose in pence was higher in dispensing practices (statins 7.44 vs 6.27, PPIs 5.57 vs 5.46, ACEi 4.30 vs 4.24, ARB 11.09 vs 8.19). For all drug classes, the more dispensing patients a practice had, the more likely it was to issue a prescription for a high-cost option. Total cost savings in England available from all four classes are £628 875 per month or £7 546 502 per year. CONCLUSIONS: Doctors in dispensing practices are more likely to prescribe higher cost drugs. This is the largest study ever conducted on dispensing practices, and the first contemporary research suggesting some UK doctors respond to a financial conflict of interest in treatment decisions. The reimbursement system for dispensing practices may generate unintended consequences. Robust routine audit of practices prescribing higher volumes of unnecessarily expensive drugs may help reduce costs.

Movement through Active Personalised engagement (MAP) - a self-management programme designed to promote physical activity in people with multimorbidity: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity, defined as two or more concurrent chronic diseases within the same individual, is becoming the clinical norm within primary care. Given the burden of multimorbidity on individuals, carers and health care systems, there is a need for effective self-management programmes. Promoting active participation within their clinical care and following a healthy lifestyle will help empower patients and target lifestyle factors that are exacerbating their conditions. The aim of this study is to establish whether a tailored, structured self-management programme can improve levels of physical activity at 12 months, in people with multimorbidity. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is a single-centre randomised controlled trial, with follow-up at 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome is change in objectively assessed average daily physical activity at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include medication adherence, lifestyle behaviours, quality of life, chronic disease self-efficacy and self-efficacy for exercise. Anthropometric and clinical measurements include blood pressure, muscle strength, lipid profile, kidney function and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c). Participants are recruited from primary care. Those between 40 and 85 years of age with multimorbidity, with a good understanding of written and verbal English, who are able to give informed consent, have access to a mobile phone for use in study activities and are able to walk independently will be invited to participate. Multimorbidity is defined as two or more of the chronic conditions listed in the Quality and Outcomes Framework. A total of 338 participants will be randomly assigned, with stratification for gender and ethnicity, to either the control group, receiving usual care, or the intervention group, who are invited to the Movement through Active Personalised engagement programme. This involves attending four group-based self-management sessions aimed at increasing physical activity, mastering emotions, managing treatments and using effective communication. The sessions are delivered by trained facilitators, and regular text messages during the study period provide ongoing support. Changes in primary and secondary outcomes will be assessed, and an economic evaluation of the intervention undertaken. DISCUSSION: This study will provide new evidence on whether physical activity can be promoted alongside other self-management strategies in a multimorbid population and whether this leads to improvements in clinical, biomedical, psychological and quality of life outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN 42791781 . Registered on 14 March 2017.

Stand More AT Work (SMArT Work): using the behaviour change wheel to develop an intervention to reduce sitting time in the workplace.

BACKGROUND: Sitting (sedentary behaviour) is widespread among desk-based office workers and a high level of sedentary behaviour is a risk factor for poor health. Reducing workplace sitting time is therefore an important prevention strategy. Interventions are more likely to be effective if they are theory and evidence-based. The Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) provides a framework for intervention development. This article describes the development of the Stand More AT Work (SMArT Work) intervention, which aims to reduce sitting time among National Health Service (NHS) office-based workers in Leicester, UK. METHODS: We followed the BCW guide and used the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation Behaviour (COM-B) model to conduct focus group discussions with 39 NHS office workers. With these data we used the taxonomy of Behaviour Change Techniques (BCTv1) to identify the most appropriate strategies for facilitating behaviour change in our intervention. To identify the best method for participants to self-monitor their sitting time, a sub-group of participants (n = 31) tested a number of electronic self-monitoring devices. RESULTS: From our BCW steps and the BCT-Taxonomy we identified 10 behaviour change strategies addressing environmental (e.g. provision of height adjustable desks,), organisational (e.g. senior management support, seminar), and individual level (e.g. face-to-face coaching session) barriers. The Darma cushion scored the highest for practicality and acceptability for self-monitoring sitting. CONCLUSION: The BCW guide, COM-B model and BCT-Taxonomy can be applied successfully in the context of designing a workplace intervention for reducing sitting time through standing and moving more. The intervention was developed in collaboration with office workers (a participatory approach) to ensure relevance for them and their work situation. The effectiveness of this intervention is currently being evaluated in a randomised controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN10967042 . Registered on 2 February 2015.

Socio-economic gradients in prevalent tuberculosis in Zambia and the Western Cape of South Africa.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the associations between socio-economic position and prevalent tuberculosis in the 2010 ZAMSTAR Tuberculosis Prevalence Survey, one of the first large tuberculosis prevalence surveys in Southern Africa in the HIV era. METHODS: The main analyses used data on 34 446 individuals in Zambia and 30 017 individuals in South Africa with evaluable tuberculosis culture results. Logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios for prevalent TB by two measures of socio-economic position: household wealth, derived from data on assets using principal components analysis, and individual educational attainment. Mediation analysis was used to evaluate potential mechanisms for the observed social gradients. RESULTS: The quartile with highest household wealth index in Zambia and South Africa had, respectively, 0.55 (95% CI 0.33-0.92) times and 0.70 (95% CI 0.54-0.93) times the adjusted odds of prevalent TB of the bottom quartile. College or university-educated individuals in Zambia and South Africa had, respectively, 0.25 (95% CI 0.12-0.54) and 0.42 (95% CI 0.25-0.70) times the adjusted odds of prevalent TB of individuals who had received only primary education. We found little evidence that these associations were mediated via several key proximal risk factors for TB, including HIV status. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that social determinants of TB remain important even in the context of generalised HIV epidemics.

Rights and the reality of healthcare charging in the United Kingdom.

In 2004, the United Kingdom Government withdrew free access to secondary healthcare for certain groups of overseas visitors, including those asylum seekers whose claims had failed but were still living legally in the UK. We argue, as others have previously, that the implementation of the 2004 National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) (Amendment) Regulations, represents a serious breach of the right to health as envisaged in international law. This placed health care workers in an invidious position of having to identify those entitled to care. We argue that this is not the role of healthcare and that doctors must not allow the denial of healthcare to be used as a tool of immigration policy. We also question the notion that these regulations make economic sense and suggest that they will have a detrimental effect upon public health.