Level of attendance at the English National Health Service Diabetes Prevention Programme and risk of progression to type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the dose-response relationship between the level of attendance at the English National Health Service Diabetes Prevention Programme (DPP) and risk of progression to type 2 diabetes amongst individuals participating in the programme. METHODS: We linked data on DPP attendance for 51,803 individuals that were referred to the programme between 1st June 2016 and 31st March 2018 and attended at least one programme session, with primary care records of type 2 diabetes diagnoses from the National Diabetes Audit up to 31st March 2020. Weibull survival regressions were used to estimate the association between the number of programme sessions attended and risk of progression to type 2 diabetes. RESULTS: Risk of developing type 2 diabetes declined significantly for individuals attending seven of the 13 programme sessions and continued to decline further up to 12 sessions. Attending the full 13 sessions was associated with a 45.5% lower risk (HR: 0.545 95% CI: 0.455 to 0.652). Compared to individuals that only partially attended the programme, attendance at 60% or more of the sessions was associated with a 30.7% lower risk of type 2 diabetes (HR: 0.693 95% CI: 0.645 to 0.745). CONCLUSIONS: Reducing the risk of progression to type 2 diabetes through diabetes prevention programmes requires a minimum attendance level at seven of the 13 programme sessions (54%). Retaining participants beyond this minimum level yields further benefits in diabetes risk reduction. Commissioners may wish to consider altering provider payment schedules to incentivise higher retention levels beyond 60% of programme sessions.

How do hospitals respond to payment unbundling for diagnostic imaging of suspected cancer patients?

Payments for some diagnostic scans undertaken in outpatient settings were unbundled from Diagnosis Related Group based payments in England in April 2013 to address under-provision. Unbundled scans attracted additional payments of between £45 and £748 directly following the reform. We examined the effect on utilization of these scans for patients with suspected cancer. We also explored whether any detected effects represented real increases in use of scans or better coding of activity. We applied difference-in-differences regression to patient-level data from Hospital Episodes Statistics for 180 NHS hospital Trusts in England, between April 2010 and March 2018. We also explored heterogeneity in recorded use of scans before and after the unbundling at hospital Trust-level. Use of scans increased by 0.137 scans per patient following unbundling, a 134% relative increase. This increased annual national provider payments by £79.2 million. Over 15% of scans recorded after the unbundling were at providers that previously recorded no scans, suggesting some of the observed increase in activity reflected previous under-coding. Hospitals recorded substantial increases in diagnostic imaging for suspected cancer in response to payment unbundling. Results suggest that the reform also encouraged improvements in recording, so the real increase in testing is likely lower than detected.

Age- and deprivation-related inequalities in identification of people at high risk of type 2 diabetes in England.

BACKGROUND: Early detection of intermediate hyperglycaemia, otherwise known as non-diabetic hyperglycaemia (NDH) is crucial to identify people at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who could benefit from preventative interventions. Failure to identify NDH may also increase the risks of T2DM-related complications at the time of T2DM diagnosis. We investigate sociodemographic inequalities in identification of NDH in England. METHODS: We used nationwide data from the English National Health Service (NHS) National Diabetes Audit, which includes all people who were newly identified with NDH (N = 469,910) or diagnosed with T2DM (N = 222,795) between 1st April 2019 and 31st March 2020. We used regression models to explore inequalities in the under identification of NDH by area-level deprivation and age group. RESULTS: Of those with a new T2DM diagnosis, 67.3% had no previous record of NDH. The odds of no previous NDH being recorded were higher amongst people living in more deprived areas (Odds ratio (OR) 1.15 (95% confidence intervals (CI) [1.12, 1.19]) most deprived (Q1) compared to least deprived (Q5) quintile) and younger individuals (OR 4.02 (95% CI [3.79, 4.27] under 35s compared to age 75-84)). Deprivation-related inequalities persisted after stratification by age group, with the largest inequalities amongst middle and older age groups. People living in more deprived areas and younger people also had shorter recorded NDH duration before progression to T2DM, and higher T2DM severity at the time of diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: There is under identification of NDH relative to diagnosis of T2DM amongst people living in more deprived areas and particularly amongst younger people, resulting in missed opportunities for targeted T2DM prevention efforts and potentially contributing to inequalities in T2DM prevalence and severity. More active NDH case-finding amongst these groups may be an important first step in helping to reduce inequalities in T2DM.

Association between regulator inspection and ratings on primary care prescribing: an observational study in England 2014 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare regulators in many countries undertake inspections of healthcare providers and publish inspection outcomes with the intention of improving quality of care. Comprehensive inspections of general practices in England by the Care Quality Commission began for the first time in 2014. It is assumed that inspection and rating will raise standards and improve care, but the presence and extent of any improvements is unknown. We aim to determine if practice inspection ratings are associated with past performance on prescribing indicators and if prescribing behaviour changes following inspection. METHODS: Longitudinal study using a dataset of 6771 general practices in England. Practice inspection date and score was linked with monthly practice-level data on prescribing indicators relating to antibiotics, hypnotics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The sample covers practices receiving their first inspection between September 2014 and December 2018. Regression analysis and the differential timing of inspections is used to identify the impact on prescribing. RESULTS: Better-rated practices had better prescribing in the period before inspections began. In the six months following inspections, no overall change in prescribing was observed. However, the differences between the best and worse rated practices were reduced but not fully. The same is also true when taking a longer-term view. There is little evidence that practices responded in anticipation of inspection or reacted differently once the ratings were made public. CONCLUSION: While some of the observed historic variation in prescribing behaviour has been lessened by the process of inspection and ratings, we find this change is small and appears to come from both improvements among lower-rated practices and deteriorations among higher-rated practices. While inspection and rating no doubt had other impacts, these prescribing indicators were largely unchanged.

Evaluating socioeconomic inequalities in influenza vaccine uptake during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cohort study in Greater Manchester, England.

BACKGROUND: There are known socioeconomic inequalities in annual seasonal influenza (flu) vaccine uptake. The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic was associated with multiple factors that may have affected flu vaccine uptake, including widespread disruption to healthcare services, changes to flu vaccination eligibility and delivery, and increased public awareness and debate about vaccination due to high-profile COVID-19 vaccination campaigns. However, to the best of our knowledge, no existing studies have investigated the consequences for inequalities in flu vaccine uptake, so we aimed to investigate whether socioeconomic inequalities in flu vaccine uptake have widened since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used deidentified data from electronic health records for a large city region (Greater Manchester, population 2.8 million), focusing on 3 age groups eligible for National Health Service (NHS) flu vaccination: preschool children (age 2 to 3 years), primary school children (age 4 to 9 years), and older adults (age 65 years plus). The sample population varied between 418,790 (2015/16) and 758,483 (2021/22) across each vaccination season. We estimated age-adjusted neighbourhood-level income deprivation-related inequalities in flu vaccine uptake using Cox proportional hazards models and the slope index of inequality (SII), comparing 7 flu vaccination seasons (2015/16 to 2021/22). Among older adults, the SII (i.e., the gap in uptake between the least and most income-deprived areas) doubled over the 7 seasons from 8.48 (95% CI [7.91,9.04]) percentage points to 16.91 (95% CI [16.46,17.36]) percentage points, with approximately 80% of this increase occurring during the pandemic. Before the pandemic, income-related uptake gaps were wider among children, ranging from 15.59 (95% CI [14.52,16.67]) percentage points to 20.07 (95% CI [18.94,21.20]) percentage points across age groups and vaccination seasons. Among preschool children, the uptake gap increased in 2020/21 to 25.25 (95% CI [24.04,26.45]) percentage points, before decreasing to 20.86 (95% CI [19.65,22.05]) percentage points in 2021/22. Among primary school children, inequalities increased in both pandemic years to reach 30.27 (95% CI [29.58,30.95]) percentage points in 2021/22. Although vaccine uptake increased during the pandemic, disproportionately larger increases in uptake in less deprived areas created wider inequalities in all age groups. The main limitation of our approach is the use of a local dataset, which may limit generalisability to other geographical settings. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic led to increased inequalities in flu vaccine uptake, likely due to changes in demand for vaccination, new delivery models, and disruptions to healthcare and schooling. It will be important to investigate the causes of these increased inequalities and to examine whether these increased inequalities also occurred in the uptake of other routine vaccinations. These new wider inequalities in flu vaccine uptake may exacerbate inequalities in flu-related morbidity and mortality.

Referral to the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme and conversion from nondiabetic hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes mellitus in England: A matched cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: The NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme (NDPP) is a behaviour change programme for adults who are at risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM): people with raised blood glucose levels, but not in the diabetic range, diagnosed with nondiabetic hyperglycaemia (NDH). We examined the association between referral to the programme and reducing conversion of NDH to T2DM. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Cohort study of patients attending primary care in England using clinical Practice Research Datalink data from 1 April 2016 (NDPP introduction) to 31 March 2020 was used. To minimise confounding, we matched patients referred to the programme in referring practices to patients in nonreferring practices. Patients were matched based on age (≥3 years), sex, and ≥365 days of NDH diagnosis. Random-effects parametric survival models evaluated the intervention, controlling for numerous covariates. Our primary analysis was selected a priori: complete case analysis, 1-to-1 practice matching, up to 5 controls sampled with replacement. Various sensitivity analyses were conducted, including multiple imputation approaches. Analysis was adjusted for age (at index date), sex, time from NDH diagnosis to index date, BMI, HbA1c, total serum cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, prescription of metformin, smoking status, socioeconomic status, a diagnosis of depression, and comorbidities. A total of 18,470 patients referred to NDPP were matched to 51,331 patients not referred to NDPP in the main analysis. Mean follow-up from referral was 482.0 (SD = 317.3) and 472.4 (SD = 309.1) days, for referred to NDPP and not referred to NDPP, respectively. Baseline characteristics in the 2 groups were similar, except referred to NDPP were more likely to have higher BMI and be ever-smokers. The adjusted HR for referred to NDPP, compared to not referred to NDPP, was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.73 to 0.87) (p < 0.001). The probability of not converting to T2DM at 36 months since referral was 87.3% (95% CI: 86.5% to 88.2%) for referred to NDPP and 84.6% (95% CI: 83.9% to 85.4%) for not referred to NDPP. Associations were broadly consistent in the sensitivity analyses, but often smaller in magnitude. As this is an observational study, we cannot conclusively address causality. Other limitations include the inclusion of controls from the other 3 UK countries, data not allowing the evaluation of the association between attendance (rather than referral) and conversion. CONCLUSIONS: The NDPP was associated with reduced conversion rates from NDH to T2DM. Although we observed smaller associations with risk reduction, compared to what has been observed in RCTs, this is unsurprising since we examined the impact of referral, rather than attendance or completion of the intervention.

Diabetes prevention at scale: Narrative review of findings and lessons from the DIPLOMA evaluation of the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme in England.

AIMS: The NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme (NHS DPP) is a large-scale, England-wide behaviour change programme for people at high risk of progressing to type 2 diabetes. We summarise the findings of our six-year DIPLOMA evaluation of its implementation and impact and highlight insights for future programmes. METHODS: Using qualitative interviews, document analysis, observation, surveys and large dataset analysis, eight interlinked work packages considered: equity of access; implementation; service delivery and fidelity; programme outcomes; comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in reducing diabetes incidence; and patient decision making and experience. RESULTS: Delivery of the NHS DPP encountered barriers across many aspects of the programme, and we identified inequalities in terms of the areas, organisations and patient populations most likely to engage with the programme. There was some loss of fidelity at all stages from commissioning to participant understanding. Despite these challenges, there was evidence of significant reductions in diabetes incidence at individual and population levels. The programme was cost-effective even within a short time period. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the challenge of translating research evidence into routine NHS delivery at scale, our findings suggest that an individual-level approach to the prevention of type 2 diabetes in a 'high-risk' population was more effective than usual care. By embedding evaluation with programme delivery and working closely with the NHS DPP team, we provided actionable insights for improving communications with potential participants, supporting primary care referral, honing the delivery model with better provider relationships and more patient choice, increasing understanding of behaviour change techniques, and enriching the educational and health coaching content.

Estimating the heterogeneous health and well-being returns to social participation.

Social participation is defined as an individual's involvement in activities that provide connections with others in society. Past research has demonstrated links between social participation, improved health and well-being, and reduced social isolation, but has been restricted to older people and has not investigated heterogeneity. Using cross-sectional data from the UK's Community Life Survey (2013-2019; N = 50,006), we estimated returns to social participation in the adult population. We included availability of community assets as instruments in a marginal treatment effects model, which allows treatment effects to be heterogeneous and examines whether the effects vary by propensity to participate. Social participation was linked to reduced loneliness and improved health (-0.96 and 0.40 points respectively on 1-5 scales) and increased life satisfaction and happiness (2.17 and 2.03 points respectively on 0-10 scales). These effects were larger for those on low income, with lower education attainment, and who live alone or with no children. We also found negative selection, indicating those less likely to participate have higher health and well-being returns. Future interventions could focus on increasing community asset infrastructure and encouraging social participation for those with lower socio-economic status.

Informal caregiving, time use and experienced wellbeing.

Informal carers report lower evaluative wellbeing than non-carers. In contrast to this literature and our own analysis of evaluative wellbeing, we find carers have a small but higher level of experienced wellbeing than non-carers do. To investigate why, we use decomposition analysis which separates explanatory factors into how time is used and how those uses of time are experienced. We analyze activities and associated experienced wellbeing measured in ten-minute intervals over two days by 4817 adults from the 2014/15 UK Time Use Survey. We use entropy balancing to compare carers with a re-weighted counterfactual non-carer group and then apply Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition. The experienced wellbeing gap of 0.066 is the net result of several substantial competing effects of time use. Carers experienced wellbeing would be higher by 0.188 if they had the same patterns and returns to time use as non-carers which is driven by sleep, time stress and alternative characteristics of time use. However, leisure and non-market activities serve to dampen this increase in experienced wellbeing. Initiatives to improve and assess carer wellbeing should pay close attention to how carers spend their time.

Emergency department outcomes for patients experiencing homelessness in England: retrospective cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Emergency departments (EDs) are an important point of access to health care for people experiencing homelessness. Evidence suggests that ED attendances by homeless people are more likely to result in leaving the ED without treatment, or dying in the ED. We investigate which diagnoses and patterns of health care use are associated with these (and other) discharge destinations and re-attendance within 7 days among homeless patients. METHODS: We used national hospital data to analyze attendances of all 109 254 people experiencing homelessness who presented at any Type 1 ED in England over 2013-18. We used logistic regression to estimate the association of each outcome with primary diagnosis and patterns of healthcare use. RESULTS: Compared with patients with no past ED use, patients with a high frequency of past ED use were more likely to leave without treatment and re-attend within 7 days. Patients not registered at a general practice were likelier to leave without treatment or die in the ED and had lower odds of unplanned re-attendance. A primary diagnosis of 'social problems' was associated with being discharged without follow-up. Patients with a psychiatric primary diagnosis were disproportionately likely to be referred to another health care professional/provider or an outpatient clinic. CONCLUSIONS: Further research is needed to understand why some homeless patients leave the ED without treatment and whether their healthcare needs are being met. Some patients may be attending the ED frequently due to poor access to other services, such as primary care and social welfare.

Correction: Ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake and comparison to seasonal influenza vaccine uptake in Greater Manchester, UK: A cohort study.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003932.].

Ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake and comparison to seasonal influenza vaccine uptake in Greater Manchester, UK: A cohort study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccine uptake is lower amongst most minority ethnic groups compared to the White British group in England, despite higher COVID-19 mortality rates. Here, we add to existing evidence by estimating inequalities for 16 minority ethnic groups, examining ethnic inequalities within population subgroups, and comparing the magnitudes of ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake to those for routine seasonal influenza vaccine uptake. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Greater Manchester Care Record, which contains de-identified electronic health record data for the population of Greater Manchester, England. We used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate ethnic inequalities in time to COVID-19 vaccination amongst people eligible for vaccination on health or age (50+ years) criteria between 1 December 2020 and 18 April 2021 (138 days of follow-up). We included vaccination with any approved COVID-19 vaccine, and analysed first-dose vaccination only. We compared inequalities between COVID-19 and influenza vaccine uptake adjusting by age group and clinical risk, and used subgroup analysis to identify populations where inequalities were widest. The majority of individuals (871,231; 79.24%) were White British. The largest minority ethnic groups were Pakistani (50,268; 4.75%), 'other White background' (43,195; 3.93%), 'other ethnic group' (34,568; 3.14%), and Black African (18,802; 1.71%). In total, 83.64% (919,636/1,099,503) of eligible individuals received a COVID-19 vaccine. Uptake was lower compared to the White British group for 15 of 16 minority ethnic groups, with particularly wide inequalities amongst the groups 'other Black background' (hazard ratio [HR] 0.42, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.44), Black African (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.44), Arab (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.48), and Black Caribbean (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.45). In total, 55.71% (419,314/752,715) of eligible individuals took up influenza vaccination. Compared to the White British group, inequalities in influenza vaccine uptake were widest amongst the groups 'White and Black Caribbean' (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.68) and 'White and Black African' (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.72). In contrast, uptake was slightly higher than the White British group amongst the groups 'other ethnic group' (HR 1.11, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.12) and Bangladeshi (HR 1.08, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.11). Overall, ethnic inequalities in vaccine uptake were wider for COVID-19 than influenza vaccination for 15 of 16 minority ethnic groups. COVID-19 vaccine uptake inequalities also existed amongst individuals who previously took up influenza vaccination. Ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake were concentrated amongst older and extremely clinically vulnerable adults, and the most income-deprived. A limitation of this study is the focus on uptake of the first dose of COVID-19 vaccination, rather than full COVID-19 vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake exceeded those for influenza vaccine uptake, existed amongst those recently vaccinated against influenza, and were widest amongst those with greatest COVID-19 risk. This suggests the COVID-19 vaccination programme has created additional and different inequalities beyond pre-existing health inequalities. We suggest that further research and policy action is needed to understand and remove barriers to vaccine uptake, and to build trust and confidence amongst minority ethnic communities.

Excess years of life lost to COVID-19 and other causes of death by sex, neighbourhood deprivation, and region in England and Wales during 2020: A registry-based study.

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.

'Finishing the race' - a cohort study of weight and blood glucose change among the first 36,000 patients in a large-scale diabetes prevention programme.

BACKGROUND: The NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme for England, "Healthier You", encourages behaviour change regarding healthy eating and physical exercise among people identified to be at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes. The aim of this research was to examine change, and factors associated with change, in measures of HbA1c and weight in participants and completers of the programme between 2016 and 2019. METHODS: Participant-level data collected by programme service providers on referrals prior to March 2018 was analysed. Changes from baseline to both 6 months and completion in HbA1c and weight were examined using mixed effects linear regression, adjusting for patient characteristics, service provider and site. RESULTS: Completers had average improvements in HbA1c of 2.1 mmol/mol [95% CI: - 2.2, - 2.0] (0.19% [95% CI: - 0.20, - 0.18]) and reductions of 3.6 kg [95% CI: - 3.6, - 3.5] in weight, in absolute terms. Variation across the four providers was observed at both time points: two providers had significantly smaller average reductions in HbA1c and one provider had a significantly smaller average reduction in weight compared to the other providers. At both time points, ex- or current smokers had smaller reductions in HbA1c than non-smokers and those from minority ethnic groups lost less weight than White participants. For both outcomes, associations with other factors were small or null and variation across sites remained after adjustment for provider and case mix. CONCLUSIONS: Participants who completed the programme, on average, experienced improvements in weight and HbA1c. There was substantial variation in HbA1c change and smaller variation in weight loss between providers and across different sites. Aside from an association between HbA1c change and smoking, and between weight loss and ethnicity, results were broadly similar regardless of patient characteristics.

The effects of multi-disciplinary integrated care on healthcare utilization: Evidence from a natural experiment in the UK.

Better integration is a priority for most international health systems. However, multiple interventions are often implemented simultaneously, making evaluation difficult and providing limited evidence for policy makers about specific interventions. We evaluate a common integrated care intervention, multi-disciplinary group (MDG) meetings for discussion of high-risk patients, introduced in one socio-economically deprived area in the UK in spring 2015. Using data from multiple waves of the national GP Patient Survey and Hospital Episode Statistics, we estimate its effects on primary and secondary care utilization and costs, health status and patient experience. We use triple differences, exploiting the targeting at people aged 65 years and over, parsing effects from other population-level interventions implemented simultaneously. The intervention reduced the probability of visiting a primary care nurse by three percentage points and decreased length of stay by 1 day following emergency care admission. However, since planned care use increased, overall costs were unaffected. MDG meetings are presumably fulfilling public health objectives by decreasing length of stay and detecting previously unmet needs. However, the effect of MDGs on health system cost is uncertain and health remains unchanged. Evaluations of specific integrated care interventions may be more useful to public decision makers facing budget constraints.

A cluster randomised controlled trial of a ward-based intervention to improve access to psychologically-informed care and psychological therapy for mental health in-patients.

BACKGROUND: There is good evidence that psychological interventions improve patient well-being and independent living, but patients on acute mental health wards often do not have access to evidence-based psychological therapies which are strongly advised by NICE guidance for severe mental health problems. The overall aim of this programme of work is to increase patient access to psychological therapies on acute mental health inpatient wards. Stage one of the programme (which is complete) aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to delivering therapy in these settings through a large qualitative study. The key output of stage one was an intervention protocol that is designed to be delivered on acute wards to increase patient access to psychologically-informed care and therapy. Stage two of the programme aims to test the effects of the intervention on patient wellbeing and serious incidents on the ward (primary outcomes), patient social functioning and symptoms, staff burnout, ward atmosphere from staff and patient perspectives and cost effectiveness of the intervention (secondary outcomes). METHODS: The study is a single blind, pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial and will recruit thirty-four wards across England that will be randomised to receive the new intervention plus treatment as usual, or treatment as usual only. Primary and secondary outcomes will be assessed at baseline and 6-month and 9-month follow-ups, with serious incidents on the ward collected at an additional 3-month follow-up. DISCUSSION: The key output will be a potentially effective and cost-effective ward-based psychological intervention that increases patient access to psychological therapy in inpatient settings, is feasible to deliver in inpatient settings and is acceptable to patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03950388. Registered 15th May 2019. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03950388.

Multimorbidity combinations, costs of hospital care and potentially preventable emergency admissions in England: A cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with multimorbidities have the greatest healthcare needs and generate the highest expenditure in the health system. There is an increasing focus on identifying specific disease combinations for addressing poor outcomes. Existing research has identified a small number of prevalent "clusters" in the general population, but the limited number examined might oversimplify the problem and these may not be the ones associated with important outcomes. Combinations with the highest (potentially preventable) secondary care costs may reveal priority targets for intervention or prevention. We aimed to examine the potential of defining multimorbidity clusters for impacting secondary care costs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used national, Hospital Episode Statistics, data from all hospital admissions in England from 2017/2018 (cohort of over 8 million patients) and defined multimorbidity based on ICD-10 codes for 28 chronic conditions (we backfilled conditions from 2009/2010 to address potential undercoding). We identified the combinations of multimorbidity which contributed to the highest total current and previous 5-year costs of secondary care and costs of potentially preventable emergency hospital admissions in aggregate and per patient. We examined the distribution of costs across unique disease combinations to test the potential of the cluster approach for targeting interventions at high costs. We then estimated the overlap between the unique combinations to test potential of the cluster approach for targeting prevention of accumulated disease. We examined variability in the ranks and distributions across age (over/under 65) and deprivation (area level, deciles) subgroups and sensitivity to considering a smaller number of diseases. There were 8,440,133 unique patients in our sample, over 4 million (53.1%) were female, and over 3 million (37.7%) were aged over 65 years. No clear "high cost" combinations of multimorbidity emerged as possible targets for intervention. Over 2 million (31.6%) patients had 63,124 unique combinations of multimorbidity, each contributing a small fraction (maximum 3.2%) to current-year or 5-year secondary care costs. Highest total cost combinations tended to have fewer conditions (dyads/triads, most including hypertension) affecting a relatively large population. This contrasted with the combinations that generated the highest cost for individual patients, which were complex sets of many (6+) conditions affecting fewer persons. However, all combinations containing chronic kidney disease and hypertension, or diabetes and hypertension, made up a significant proportion of total secondary care costs, and all combinations containing chronic heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and hypertension had the highest proportion of preventable emergency admission costs, which might offer priority targets for prevention of disease accumulation. The results varied little between age and deprivation subgroups and sensitivity analyses. Key limitations include availability of data only from hospitals and reliance on hospital coding of health conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that there are no clear multimorbidity combinations for a cluster-targeted intervention approach to reduce secondary care costs. The role of risk-stratification and focus on individual high-cost patients with interventions is particularly questionable for this aim. However, if aetiology is favourable for preventing further disease, the cluster approach might be useful for targeting disease prevention efforts with potential for cost-savings in secondary care.

Effects of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine on COVID-19 infection and hospitalisation amongst older people: matched case control study for England.

BACKGROUND: The BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine has been shown to be effective at preventing serious COVID-19 events in clinical trials. There is less evidence on effectiveness in real-world settings, especially for older people. Here, we aimed to estimate vaccine effectiveness in the context of the rapid NHS mass-vaccination programme in England, exploiting age-based vaccination eligibility thresholds to minimise and correct for selection bias. METHODS: We studied 170,226 individuals between the ages of 80 and 83 years from community settings outside care homes who received one dose of BNT162b2 mRNA between the 15 and 20 December 2020 and were scheduled a second dose 21 days later. We matched these vaccine recipients to slightly younger (aged 76-79 years) persons not yet eligible to receive the vaccine on gender, area of residence, area deprivation, health status, living arrangements, acute illness, and history of seasonal flu vaccination. We compared their rates of COVID-19 positivity and hospitalisation in the subsequent 45 days. We adjusted for the increasing concentration of COVID-19 positivity in the control population caused by the requirement to have no COVID-19 symptoms prior to vaccination. RESULTS: Emergency hospital admissions were 51.0% (95% confidence interval 19.9 to 69.5%) lower and positive COVID-19 tests were 55.2% (40.8 to 66.8%) lower for vaccinated individuals compared to matched controls 21 to 27 days after first vaccination. Emergency admissions were 75.6% (52.8 to 87.6%) lower, and positive COVID-19 tests were 70.1% (55.1 to 80.1%) lower 35 to 41 days after first vaccination when 79% of participants had received a second dose within 26 days of their first dose. CONCLUSIONS: Receipt of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine is effective at reducing COVID-19 hospitalisations and infections. The nationwide vaccination of older adults in England with the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine reduced the burden of COVID-19.

The effects of structure, process and outcome incentives on primary care referrals to a national prevention programme.

Despite widespread use, evidence is sparse on whether financial incentives in healthcare should be linked to structure, process or outcome. We examine the impact of different incentive types on the quantity and effectiveness of referrals made by general practices to a new national prevention programme in England. We measured effectiveness by the number of referrals resulting in programme attendance. We surveyed local commissioners about their use of financial incentives and linked this information to numbers of programme referrals and attendances from 5170 general practices between April 2016 and March 2018. We used multivariate probit regressions to identify commissioner characteristics associated with the use of different incentive types and negative binomial regressions to estimate their effect on practice rates of referral and attendance. Financial incentives were offered by commissioners in the majority of areas (89%), with 38% using structure incentives, 69% using process incentives and 22% using outcome incentives. Compared to practices without financial incentives, neither structure nor process incentives were associated with statistically significant increases in referrals or attendances, but outcome incentives were associated with 84% more referrals and 93% more attendances. Outcome incentives were the only form of pay-for-performance to stimulate more participation in this national disease prevention programme.

Comparison of the impact of two national health and social care integration programmes on emergency hospital admissions.

BACKGROUND: Policy-makers expect that integration of health and social care will improve user and carer experience and reduce avoidable hospital use. [We] evaluate the impact on emergency hospital admissions of two large nationally-initiated service integration programmes in England: the Pioneer (November 2013 to March 2018) and Vanguard (January 2015 to March 2018) programmes. The latter had far greater financial and expert support from central agencies. METHODS: Of the 206 Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in England, 51(25%) were involved in the Pioneer programme only, 22(11%) were involved in the Vanguard programme only and 13(6%) were involved in both programmes. We used quasi-experimental methods to compare monthly counts of emergency admissions between four groups of CCGs, before and after the introduction of the two programmes. RESULTS: CCGs involved in the programmes had higher monthly hospital emergency admission rates than non-participants prior to their introduction [7.9 (95% CI:7.8-8.1) versus 7.5 (CI: 7.4-7.6) per 1000 population]. From 2013 to 2018, there was a 12% (95% CI:9.5-13.6%) increase in emergency admissions in CCGs not involved in either programme while emergency admissions in CCGs in the Pioneer and Vanguard programmes increased by 6.4% (95% CI: 3.8-9.0%) and 8.8% (95% CI:4.5-13.1%), respectively. CCGs involved in both initiatives experienced a smaller increase of 3.5% (95% CI:-0.3-7.2%). The slowdown largely occurred in the final year of both programmes. CONCLUSIONS: Health and social care integration programmes can mitigate but not prevent rises in emergency admissions over the longer-term. Greater financial and expert support from national agencies and involvement in multiple integration initiatives can have cumulative effects.