What is the best way to evaluate social prescribing? A qualitative feasibility assessment for a national impact evaluation study in England.

OBJECTIVES: Despite significant investment in social prescribing in England over the last decade, we still do not know if it works, or how models of social prescribing fit within wider health and care policy and practice. This study explores current service delivery structures and assesses the feasibility of a national evaluation of the link worker model. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted between May and September 2020, with 25 key informants from across social prescribing services in England. Participants included link workers, voluntary, community and social enterprise staff, and those involved in policy and decision-making for social prescribing services. Interview and workshop transcripts were analysed thematically, adopting a framework approach. RESULTS: We found differences in how services are provided, including by individual link workers, and between organisations and regions. Standards, referral pathways, reporting, and monitoring structures differ or are lacking in voluntary services as compared to clinical services. People can self-refer to a link worker or be referred by a third party, but the lack of standardised processes generated confusion in both public and professional perceptions of the link worker model. We identified challenges in determining the appropriate outcomes and outcome measures needed to assess the impact of the link worker model. CONCLUSIONS: The current varied service delivery structures in England poses major challenges for a national impact evaluation. Any future rigorous evaluation needs to be underpinned with national standardised outcomes and process measures which promote uniform data collection.

Consideration of factors associated with inequalities in interventions that support health-care professionals' interaction with patients to reduce inappropriate antimicrobial use: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Tackling the public health challenge of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) requires promotion of appropriate antimicrobial use by health-care professionals. The objective of this review was to identify interventions that facilitate appropriate antimicrobial behaviours when health-care professionals interact with patients and any considerations for factors associated with health inequalities. METHODS: For this systematic review, we searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and Google Scholar) from Jan 31, 2023, to Feb 8, 2023. We included search terms such as antimicrobial use/prescribing, health-care professionals, and AMR programmes. We included any relevant primary study published from year 2010 and in English. We conducted forward and backward citation searching from included studies on March 27, 2023. We extracted information on the interventions following the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) guideline and examined reports on how the interventions might impact on inequalities. We performed quality assessment using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). We conducted descriptive synthesis. The protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023395642). FINDINGS: After screening 4979 records, we included 59 studies. Most studies were randomised trials (n=25) and qualitative/mixed methods studies (n=16). Included studies covered 16 countries, particularly the UK (n=16) and the USA (n=13). Most studies (n=34) fulfilled at least 80% of the relevant quality criteria, but 12 studies fulfilled less than 50%. Many interventions were established strategies (eg, TARGET: Treat Antibiotics Responsibly, Guidance, Education and Tools). Patient interaction elements of the interventions often involved using education materials (eg, digital/paper leaflets, and videos) and point-of-care testing. While many studies (n=49) included participants from disadvantaged groups, only three examined how outcomes differ between groups. In those studies, antimicrobial prescription was not associated with age, sex, and level of learning disability. Some other studies reported issues with language barriers and potential digital exclusion, especially for older people. INTERPRETATION: We might have missed some relevant studies due to publication year and language restrictions. Notwithstanding, this review showed that the potential impact of factors associated with health inequalities are not routinely considered during the implementation and evaluation of interventions to improve health-care professionals' interaction with patients. Future work should routinely consider this to help mitigate potential inequalities. FUNDING: UK Health Security Agency.

Health inequalities in infectious diseases: a systematic overview of reviews.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic overview of reviews was to synthesise available evidence on inequalities in infectious disease based on three dimensions of inequalities; inclusion health groups, protected characteristics and socioeconomic inequalities. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and OpenGrey databases in November 2021. We included reviews published from the year 2000 which examined inequalities in the incidence, prevalence or consequences of infectious diseases based on the dimensions of interest. Our search focused on tuberculosis, HIV, sexually transmitted infections, hepatitis C, vaccination and antimicrobial resistance. However, we also included eligible reviews of any other infectious diseases. We appraised the quality of reviews using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews V.2 (AMSTAR2) checklist. We conducted a narrative data synthesis. RESULTS: We included 108 reviews in our synthesis covering all the dimensions of inequalities for most of the infectious disease topics of interest, however the quality and volume of review evidence and consistency of their findings varied. The existing literature reviews provide strong evidence that people in inclusion health groups and lower socioeconomic status are consistently at higher risk of infectious diseases, antimicrobial resistance and incomplete/delayed vaccination. In the protected characteristics dimension, ethnicity, and sexual orientation are important factors contributing to inequalities across the various infectious disease topics included in this overview of reviews. CONCLUSION: We identified many reviews that provide evidence of various types of health inequalities in different infectious diseases, vaccination, and antimicrobial resistance. We also highlight areas where reviews may be lacking. The commonalities in the associations and their directions suggest it might be worth targeting interventions for some high risk-groups that may have benefits across multiple infectious disease outcomes rather than operating purely in infectious disease siloes.

Investigating informed choice in screening programmes: a mixed methods analysis.

BACKGROUND: Screening programmes aim to identify individuals at higher risk of developing a disease or condition. While globally, there is agreement that people who attend screening should be fully informed, there is no consensus about how this should be achieved. We conducted a mixed methods study across eight different countries to understand how countries address informed choice across two screening programmes: breast cancer and fetal trisomy anomaly screening. METHODS: Fourteen senior level employees from organisations who produce and deliver decision aids to assist informed choice were interviewed, and their decision aids (n = 15) were evaluated using documentary analysis. RESULTS: We discovered that attempts to achieve informed choice via decision aids generate two key tensions (i) between improving informed choice and increasing uptake and (ii) between improving informed choice and comprehensibility of the information presented. Comprehensibility is fundamentally at tension with an aim of being fully informed. These tensions emerged in both the interviews and documentary analysis. CONCLUSION: We conclude that organisations need to decide whether their overarching aim is ensuring high levels of uptake or maximising informed choice to participate in screening programmes. Consideration must then be given to all levels of development and distribution of information produced to reflect each organisation's aim. The comprehensibility of the DA must also be considered, as this may be reduced when informed choice is prioritised.

Global prevalence and trends in hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus among slum residents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: First, to obtain regional estimates of prevalence of hypertension and type 2 diabetes in urban slums; and second, to compare these with those in urban and rural areas. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies that reported hypertension prevalence using the definition of blood pressure ≥140/90 mm Hg and/or prevalence of type 2 diabetes. INFORMATION SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL and EMBASE from inception to December 2020. RISK OF BIAS: Two authors extracted relevant data and assessed risk of bias independently using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guideline. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: We used random-effects meta-analyses to pool prevalence estimates. We examined time trends in the prevalence estimates using meta-regression regression models with the prevalence estimates as the outcome variable and the calendar year of the publication as the predictor. RESULTS: A total of 62 studies involving 108 110 participants met the inclusion criteria. Prevalence of hypertension and type 2 diabetes in slum populations ranged from 4.2% to 52.5% and 0.9% to 25.0%, respectively. In six studies presenting comparator data, all from the Indian subcontinent, slum residents were 35% more likely to be hypertensive than those living in comparator rural areas and 30% less likely to be hypertensive than those from comparator non-slum urban areas. LIMITATIONS OF EVIDENCE: Of the included studies, only few studies from India compared the slum prevalence estimates with those living in non-slum urban and rural areas; this limits the generalisability of the finding. INTERPRETATION: The burden of hypertension and type 2 diabetes varied widely between countries and regions and, to some degree, also within countries. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017077381.

Equity of national publicly funded health insurance schemes under the universal health coverage agenda: a systematic review of studies conducted in Africa.

BACKGROUND: The implementation of publicly funded health insurance schemes (PFHIS) is the major strategy to drive progress and achievement of universal health coverage (UHC) by 2030. We appraised evidence on the equity of insurance schemes across Africa. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of published studies that assessed equity in health insurance schemes implemented under the UHC agenda in Africa. Seven databases, Web of Science, Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and World Bank eLibrary, were searched; we operationalized the PROGRESS-Plus (place of residence; race/ethnicity/culture/language; occupation; gender/sex religion; education; socioeconomic status; social capital) equity framework to assess equity areas. RESULTS: Forty-five studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the study, in which 90% assessed equity by socioeconomic status. Evidence showed that rural residents, those self-employed or working in the informal sector, men, those with lower educational attainment, and the poor were less likely to be covered by health insurance schemes. Broadly, the insurance schemes, especially, community-based health insurance (CBI) schemes improved utilization by disadvantaged groups, however, the same groups were less likely to benefit from health services. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on equity of PFHIS is mixed, however, CBI schemes seem to offer more equitable coverage and utilization of essential health services in Africa.

Variation in financial protection and its association with health expenditure indicators: an analysis of low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: An insight into variation in financial protection among countries and the underpinning factors associated with the variations observed will help to inform public health policy and practice. METHOD: Secondary datasets from Global Health Expenditure Database and World Bank Development Indicators collected between 2000 and 2016 were used. Financial protection was measured in 75 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) using the sustainable development goals framework. Funnel plot charts were used to explore the variation, and regression models were used to measure associations. RESULT: Fifty-three (67%) countries were within the 99% control limits indicating common-cause variation; 11 countries were above the upper control limit and 15 countries were below the lower control limit. In the fully adjusted model, country, spending on health relative to their economy had the strongest association with the variation in catastrophic spending. Every 1% increase in health spending relative to gross domestic product (GDP) was found to be associated with a reduction of 0.13% in the number of people that incurred catastrophic health spending. CONCLUSION: There is substantial variation in financial protection, as measured by the number of people that incurred catastrophic health spending, in LMICs; a proportion of this could be explained by the difference in GDP and external health expenditure.

Individual and Contextual Factors Associated With Maternal and Child Health Essential Health Services Indicators: A Multilevel Analysis of Universal Health Coverage in 58 Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

BACKGROUND: Universal health coverage (UHC) is part of the global health agenda to tackle the lack of access to essential health services (EHS). This study developed and tested models to examine the individual, neighbourhood and country-level determinants associated with access to coverage of EHS under the UHC agenda in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: We used datasets from the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHSs) of 58 LMICs. Suboptimal and optimal access to EHS were computed using nine indicators. Descriptive and multilevel multinomial regression analyses were performed using R and STATA. RESULTS: The prevalence of suboptimal and optimal access to EHS varies across the countries, the former ranging from 5.55% to 100%, and the latter ranging from 0% to 90.36% both in Honduras and Colombia, respectively. In the fully adjusted model, children of mothers with lower educational attainment (relative risk ratio [RRR] 2.11, 95% credible interval [CrI] 1.92 to 2.32) and those from poor households (RRR 1.79, 95% CrI 1.61 to 2.00) were more likely to have suboptimal access to EHS. Also, those with health insurance (RRR 0.72, 95% CrI 0.59 to 0.85) and access to media (RRR 0.59, 95% CrI 0.51 to 0.67) were at lesser risk of having suboptimal EHS. Similar trends, although in the opposite direction, were observed in the analysis involving optimal access. The intra-neighbourhood and intra-country correlation coefficients were estimated using the intercept component variance; 57.50%% and 27.70% of variances in suboptimal access to EHS are attributable to the neighbourhood and country-level factors. CONCLUSION: Neighbourhood-level poverty, illiteracy, and rurality modify access to EHS coverage in LMICs. Interventions aimed at achieving the 2030 UHC goals should consider integrating socioeconomic and living conditions of people.

Factors associated with attendance at screening for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Attendance at population-based breast cancer (mammographic) screening varies. This comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis assesses all identified patient-level factors associated with routine population breast screening attendance. DESIGN: CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, OVID, PsycINFO and Web of Science were searched for studies of any design, published January 1987-June 2019, and reporting attendance in relation to at least one patient-level factor. DATA SYNTHESIS: Independent reviewers performed screening, data extraction and quality appraisal. OR and 95% CIs were calculated for attendance for each factor and random-effects meta-analysis was undertaken where possible. RESULTS: Of 19 776 studies, 335 were assessed at full text and 66 studies (n=22 150 922) were included. Risk of bias was generally low. In meta-analysis, increased attendance was associated with higher socioeconomic status (SES) (n=11 studies; OR 1.45, 95% CI: 1.20 to 1.75); higher income (n=5 studies; OR 1.96, 95% CI: 1.68 to 2.29); home ownership (n=3 studies; OR 2.16, 95% CI: 2.08 to 2.23); being non-immigrant (n=7 studies; OR 2.23, 95% CI: 2.00 to 2.48); being married/cohabiting (n=7 studies; OR 1.86, 95% CI: 1.58 to 2.19) and medium (vs low) level of education (n=6 studies; OR 1.24, 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.41). Women with previous false-positive results were less likely to reattend (n=6 studies; OR 0.77, 95% CI: 0.68 to 0.88). There were no differences by age group or by rural versus urban residence. CONCLUSIONS: Attendance was lower in women with lower SES, those who were immigrants, non-homeowners and those with previous false-positive results. Variations in service delivery, screening programmes and study populations may influence findings. Our findings are of univariable associations. Underlying causes of lower uptake such as practical, physical, psychological or financial barriers should be investigated. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016051597.

Enabling women to access preferred methods of contraception: a rapid review and behavioural analysis.

BACKGROUND: Many pregnancies in the UK are either unplanned or ambivalent. This review aimed to (i) explore barriers and facilitators to women choosing and accessing a preferred method of contraception in the United Kingdom, and (ii) identify opportunities for behavioural interventions based on examination of interventions that are currently available nationally. METHODS: Three databases were searched, and experts contacted to identify grey literature for studies presenting barriers and facilitators to women choosing and accessing a preferred method of contraception, conducted in the UK and published between 2009 and October 2019. Information on barriers and facilitators were coded into overarching themes, which were then coded into Mechanisms of Actions (MoAs) as listed in the Theory and Techniques Tool. National interventions were identified by consulting stakeholders and coded into the Behaviour Change Wheel. The match between barriers/facilitators and intervention content was assessed using the Behaviour Change Wheel. RESULTS: We included 32 studies and identified 46 barrier and facilitator themes. The most cited MoA was Environmental Context and Resources, which primarily related to the services women had access to and care they received. Social Influences, Beliefs about Consequences (e.g., side effects) and Knowledge were also key. The behavioural analysis highlighted four priority intervention functions (Modelling, Enablement, Education and Environmental Restructuring) that can be targeted to support women to choose and access their preferred method of contraception. Relevant policy categories and behaviour change techniques are also highlighted. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights factors that influence women's choices and access to contraception and recommends opportunities that may be targeted for future interventions in order to support women to access preferred contraception. REGISTRATION: Protocol was registered with PROSPERO (an international database of prospectively registered systematic reviews in health and social care) in December 2019, CRD42019161156 .

Comparing the use of direct observation, standardized patients and exit interviews in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review of methods of assessing quality of primary care.

Clinical records in primary healthcare settings in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) are often lacking or of too poor quality to accurately assess what happens during the patient consultation. We examined the most common methods for assessing healthcare workers' clinical behaviour: direct observation, standardized patients and patient/healthcare worker exit interview. The comparative feasibility, acceptability, reliability, validity and practicalities of using these methods in this setting are unclear. We systematically review and synthesize the evidence to compare and contrast the advantages and disadvantages of each method. We include studies in LMICs where methods have been directly compared and systematic and narrative reviews of each method. We searched several electronic databases and focused on real-life (not educational) primary healthcare encounters. The most recent update to the search for direct comparison studies was November 2019. We updated the search for systematic and narrative reviews on the standardized patient method in March 2020 and expanded it to all methods. Search strategies combined indexed terms and keywords. We searched reference lists of eligible articles and sourced additional references from relevant review articles. Titles and abstracts were independently screened by two reviewers and discrepancies resolved through discussion. Data were iteratively coded according to pre-defined categories and synthesized. We included 12 direct comparison studies and eight systematic and narrative reviews. We found that no method was clearly superior to the others-each has pros and cons and may assess different aspects of quality of care provision by healthcare workers. All methods require careful preparation, though the exact domain of quality assessed and ethics and selection and training of personnel are nuanced and the methods were subject to different biases. The differential strengths suggest that individual methods should be used strategically based on the research question or in combination for comprehensive global assessments of quality.

Publication and related biases in health services research: a systematic review of empirical evidence.

BACKGROUND: Publication and related biases (including publication bias, time-lag bias, outcome reporting bias and p-hacking) have been well documented in clinical research, but relatively little is known about their presence and extent in health services research (HSR). This paper aims to systematically review evidence concerning publication and related bias in quantitative HSR. METHODS: Databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, HMIC, CINAHL, Web of Science, Health Systems Evidence, Cochrane EPOC Review Group and several websites were searched to July 2018. Information was obtained from: (1) Methodological studies that set out to investigate publication and related biases in HSR; (2) Systematic reviews of HSR topics which examined such biases as part of the review process. Relevant information was extracted from included studies by one reviewer and checked by another. Studies were appraised according to commonly accepted scientific principles due to lack of suitable checklists. Data were synthesised narratively. RESULTS: After screening 6155 citations, four methodological studies investigating publication bias in HSR and 184 systematic reviews of HSR topics (including three comparing published with unpublished evidence) were examined. Evidence suggestive of publication bias was reported in some of the methodological studies, but evidence presented was very weak, limited in both quality and scope. Reliable data on outcome reporting bias and p-hacking were scant. HSR systematic reviews in which published literature was compared with unpublished evidence found significant differences in the estimated intervention effects or association in some but not all cases. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological research on publication and related biases in HSR is sparse. Evidence from available literature suggests that such biases may exist in HSR but their scale and impact are difficult to estimate for various reasons discussed in this paper. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2016 CRD42016052333.

Stakeholder views on publication bias in health services research.

OBJECTIVES: While the presence of publication bias in clinical research is well documented, little is known about its role in the reporting of health services research. This paper explores stakeholder perceptions and experiences with regard to the role of publication and related biases in quantitative research relating to the quality, accessibility and organization of health services. METHODS: We present findings from semi-structured interviews with those responsible for the funding, publishing and/or conduct of quantitative health services research, primarily in the UK. Additional data collection includes interviews with health care decision makers as 'end users' of health services research, and a focus group with patient and service user representatives. The final sample comprised 24 interviews and eight focus group participants. RESULTS: Many study participants felt unable to say with any degree of certainty whether publication bias represents a significant problem in quantitative health services research. Participants drew broad contrasts between externally funded and peer reviewed research on the one hand, and end user funded quality improvement projects on the other, with the latter perceived as more vulnerable to selective publication and author over-claiming. Multiple study objectives, and a general acceptance of 'mess and noise' in the data and its interpretation was seen to reduce the importance attached to replicable estimates of effect sizes in health services research. The relative absence of external scrutiny, either from manufacturers of interventions or health system decision makers, added to this general sense of 'low stakes' of health services research. As a result, while many participants advocated study pre-registration and using protocols to pre-identify outcomes, others saw this as an unwarranted imposition. CONCLUSIONS: This study finds that incentives towards publication and related bias are likely to be present, but not to the same degree as in clinical research. In health services research, these were seen as being offset by other forms of 'novelty' bias in the reporting and publishing of research findings.

Assessment of publication bias and outcome reporting bias in systematic reviews of health services and delivery research: A meta-epidemiological study.

Strategies to identify and mitigate publication bias and outcome reporting bias are frequently adopted in systematic reviews of clinical interventions but it is not clear how often these are applied in systematic reviews relating to quantitative health services and delivery research (HSDR). We examined whether these biases are mentioned and/or otherwise assessed in HSDR systematic reviews, and evaluated associating factors to inform future practice. We randomly selected 200 quantitative HSDR systematic reviews published in the English language from 2007-2017 from the Health Systems Evidence database (www.healthsystemsevidence.org). We extracted data on factors that may influence whether or not authors mention and/or assess publication bias or outcome reporting bias. We found that 43% (n = 85) of the reviews mentioned publication bias and 10% (n = 19) formally assessed it. Outcome reporting bias was mentioned and assessed in 17% (n = 34) of all the systematic reviews. Insufficient number of studies, heterogeneity and lack of pre-registered protocols were the most commonly reported impediments to assessing the biases. In multivariable logistic regression models, both mentioning and formal assessment of publication bias were associated with: inclusion of a meta-analysis; being a review of intervention rather than association studies; higher journal impact factor, and; reporting the use of systematic review guidelines. Assessment of outcome reporting bias was associated with: being an intervention review; authors reporting the use of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE), and; inclusion of only controlled trials. Publication bias and outcome reporting bias are infrequently assessed in HSDR systematic reviews. This may reflect the inherent heterogeneity of HSDR evidence and different methodological approaches to synthesising the evidence, lack of awareness of such biases, limits of current tools and lack of pre-registered study protocols for assessing such biases. Strategies to help raise awareness of the biases, and methods to minimise their occurrence and mitigate their impacts on HSDR systematic reviews, are needed.

Inherited predisposition to preeclampsia: Analysis of the Aberdeen intergenerational cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the magnitude of familial risk of preeclampsia and gestational hypertension in women born of a preeclamptic pregnancy and those born of pregnancy complicated by gestational hypertension while accounting for other risk factors. METHODS: An intergenerational dataset was extracted from the Aberdeen Maternity and Neonatal Databank (AMND) which records all pregnancy and delivery details occurring in Aberdeen, Scotland since 1950. The analysis included all nulliparous women whose mothers' records at their births are also recorded in the AMND. Multinomial logistic regression was used to assess the risk of having preeclampsia or gestational hypertension based on maternal history of preeclampsia or gestational hypertension. RESULTS: There were 17302 nulliparous women included, of whom 1057(6.1%) had preeclampsia while 4098(23.7%) had gestational hypertension. Furthermore, 424(2.5%) and 2940(17.0%) had maternal history of preeclampsia and gestational hypertension respectively. The risk of preeclampsia was higher in women who were born of pregnancies complicated by preeclampsia (adjusted RRR 2.55 95% CI 1.87-3.47). This was higher than the risk observed in women whose mothers had gestational hypertension (adjusted RRR 1.44 95% CI 1.23-1.69). Conversely, the risk of gestational hypertension was similar in those who were born of preeclamptic pregnancies (adjusted RRR 1.37 95% CI 1.09-1.71) and those whose mothers had gestational hypertension (adjusted RRR 1.36 95% CI 1.24-1.49). CONCLUSION: There was a dose response effect in the inheritance pattern of preeclampsia with the highest risk in women born of preeclamptic pregnancies. Gestational hypertension showed similar increased risk with maternal gestational hypertension and preeclampsia.

Impact of Moving From a Widespread to Multisite Pain Definition on Other Fibromyalgia Symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether associations between pain and the additional symptoms associated with fibromyalgia are different in persons with chronic widespread pain (CWP) compared to multisite pain (MSP), with or without joint areas. METHODS: Six studies were used: 1958 British birth cohort, Epidemiology of Functional Disorders, Kid Low Back Pain, Managing Unexplained Symptoms (Chronic Widespread Pain) in Primary Care: Involving Traditional and Accessible New Approaches, Study of Health and its Management, and Women's Health Study (WHEST; females). MSP was defined as the presence of pain in ≥8 body sites in adults (≥10 sites in children) indicated on 4-view body manikins, conducted first to include joints (positive joints) and second without (negative joints). The relationship between pain and fatigue, sleep disturbance, somatic symptoms, and mood impairment was assessed using logistic regression. Results are presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). RESULTS: There were 34,818 participants across the study populations (adults age range 42-56 years, male 43-51% [excluding WHEST], and CWP prevalence 12-17%). Among those reporting MSP, the proportion reporting CWP ranged between 62% and 76%. Among those reporting the symptoms associated with fibromyalgia, there was an increased likelihood of reporting pain, the magnitude of which was similar regardless of the definition used. For example, within WHEST, reporting moderate/severe fatigue (Chalder fatigue scale 4-11) was associated with a >5-fold increase in likelihood of reporting pain (CWP OR 5.2 [95% CI 3.9-6.9], MSP-positive joints OR 6.5 [95% CI 5.0-8.6], and MSP-negative joints OR 6.5 [95% CI 4.7-9.0]). CONCLUSION: This large-scale study demonstrates that regardless of the pain definition used, the magnitude of association between pain and other associated symptoms of fibromyalgia is similar. This finding supports the continued collection of both when classifying fibromyalgia, but highlights the fact that pain may not require to follow the definition outlined within the 1990 American College of Rheumatology criteria.