Mixed Methods EvAluation of the high-volume low-complexity Surgical hUb pRogrammE (MEASURE): a mixed methods study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The waiting list for elective surgery in England recently reached over 7.8 million people and waiting time targets have been missed since 2010. The high-volume low complexity (HVLC) surgical hubs programme aims to tackle the backlog of patients awaiting elective surgery treatment in England. This study will evaluate the impact of HVLC surgical hubs on productivity, patient care and the workforce. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This 4-year project consists of six interlinked work packages (WPs) and is informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. WP1: Mapping current and future HVLC provision in England through document analysis, quantitative data sets (eg, Hospital Episodes Statistics) and interviews with national service leaders. WP2: Exploring the effects of HVLC hubs on key performance outcomes, primarily the volume of low-complexity patients treated, using quasi-experimental methods. WP3: Exploring the impact and implementation of HVLC hubs on patients, health professionals and the local NHS through approximately nine longitudinal, multimethod qualitative case studies. WP4: Assessing the productivity of HVLC surgical hubs using the Centre for Health Economics NHS productivity measure and Lord Carter's operational productivity measure. WP5: Conducting a mixed-methods appraisal will assess the influence of HVLC surgical hubs on the workforce using: qualitative data (WP3) and quantitative data (eg, National Health Service (NHS) England's workforce statistics and intelligence from WP2). WP6: Analysing the costs and consequences of HVLC surgical hubs will assess their achievements in relation to their resource use to establish value for money. A patient and public involvement group will contribute to the study design and materials. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the East Midlands-Nottingham Research Ethics Committee 23/EM/0231. Participants will provide informed consent for qualitative study components. Dissemination plans include multiple academic and non-academic outputs (eg, Peer-reviewed journals, conferences, social media) and a continuous, feedback-loop of findings to key stakeholders (eg, NHS England) to influence policy development. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Research registry: Researchregistry9364 (https://www.researchregistry.com/browse-the-registry%23home/registrationdetails/64cb6c795cbef8002a46f115/).

The effects of computerised decision support systems on nursing and allied health professional performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review and user contextualisation.

Background: Computerised decision support systems (CDSS) are widely used by nurses and allied health professionals but their effect on clinical performance and patient outcomes is uncertain. Objectives: Evaluate the effects of clinical decision support systems use on nurses', midwives' and allied health professionals' performance and patient outcomes and sense-check the results with developers and users. Eligibility criteria: Comparative studies (randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised trials, controlled before-and-after (CBA) studies, interrupted time series (ITS) and repeated measures studies comparing) of CDSS versus usual care from nurses, midwives or other allied health professionals. Information sources: Nineteen bibliographic databases searched October 2019 and February 2021. Risk of bias: Assessed using structured risk of bias guidelines; almost all included studies were at high risk of bias. Synthesis of results: Heterogeneity between interventions and outcomes necessitated narrative synthesis and grouping by: similarity in focus or CDSS-type, targeted health professionals, patient group, outcomes reported and study design. Included studies: Of 36,106 initial records, 262 studies were assessed for eligibility, with 35 included: 28 RCTs (80%), 3 CBA studies (8.6%), 3 ITS (8.6%) and 1 non-randomised trial, a total of 1318 health professionals and 67,595 patient participants. Few studies were multi-site and most focused on decision-making by nurses (71%) or paramedics (5.7%). Standalone, computer-based CDSS featured in 88.7% of the studies; only 8.6% of the studies involved 'smart' mobile or handheld technology. Care processes - including adherence to guidance - were positively influenced in 47% of the measures adopted. For example, nurses' adherence to hand disinfection guidance, insulin dosing, on-time blood sampling, and documenting care were improved if they used CDSS. Patient care outcomes were statistically - if not always clinically - significantly improved in 40.7% of indicators. For example, lower numbers of falls and pressure ulcers, better glycaemic control, screening of malnutrition and obesity, and accurate triaging were features of professionals using CDSS compared to those who were not. Evidence limitations: Allied health professionals (AHPs) were underrepresented compared to nurses; systems, studies and outcomes were heterogeneous, preventing statistical aggregation; very wide confidence intervals around effects meant clinical significance was questionable; decision and implementation theory that would have helped interpret effects - including null effects - was largely absent; economic data were scant and diverse, preventing estimation of overall cost-effectiveness. Interpretation: CDSS can positively influence selected aspects of nurses', midwives' and AHPs' performance and care outcomes. Comparative research is generally of low quality and outcomes wide ranging and heterogeneous. After more than a decade of synthesised research into CDSS in healthcare professions other than medicine, the effect on processes and outcomes remains uncertain. Higher-quality, theoretically informed, evaluative research that addresses the economics of CDSS development and implementation is still required. Future work: Developing nursing CDSS and primary research evaluation. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; 2023. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Registration: PROSPERO [number: CRD42019147773].

Computerised decision support systems (CDSS) are software or computer-based technologies providing advice to professionals making clinical decisions ­ for example, which patients to treat first in emergency departments. CDSS improve some doctors' decisions and patients' outcomes, but we don't know if they improve nurses', midwives' and therapists' or other staff decisions and patient outcomes. Research into, and health professionals' use of, technology ­ for example, in video consultations ­ has grown since the last relevant systematic review in 2009. We systematically searched electronic databases for research measuring how well nurses, midwifes and other therapists/staff followed CDSS advice, how CDSS influence their decisions, how safe CDSS are, and their financial costs and benefits. We interviewed CDSS users and developers and some patient representatives from a general practice to help understand our findings. Of 35 relevant studies ­ from 36,106 initially found ­ most (71%) focused on nurses. Just over half (57%) involved hospital-based staff, and three-quarters (75%) were from richer countries like the USA or the UK. Research quality had not noticeably improved since 2009 and all studies were at risk of potentially misleading readers. CDSS improved care in just under half (47%) of professional behaviours, such as following hand-disinfection guidance, working out insulin doses, and sampling blood on time. Patient care ­ judged using outcomes like falls, pressure ulcers, diabetes control and triage accuracy ­ was better in 41% of the care measured. There wasn't enough evidence to judge CDSS safety or the financial costs and benefits of systems. CDSS can improve some nursing and therapist decisions and some patient outcomes. Studies mostly measure different behaviours and outcomes, making comparing them hard. Theories explaining or predicting how decision support systems might work are not used enough when designing, implementing or evaluating CDSS. More research into the financial costs and benefits of CDSS and higher-quality evidence of their effects are still needed. Whether decision support for nurses, midwives and other therapists reliably improves decision-making remains uncertain.

Exploring gender differences in uptake of GP partnership roles: a qualitative mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: The unadjusted gender pay gap in general practice is reported to be 33.5%. This reflects partly the differential rate at which women become partners, but evidence exploring gender differences in GPs' career progression is sparse. AIM: To explore factors affecting uptake of partnership roles, focusing particularly on gender differences. DESIGN AND SETTING: Convergent mixed-methods research design using data from UK GPs. METHOD: Secondary analysis of qualitative interviews and social media analysis of UK GPs' Twitter commentaries, which informed the conduct of asynchronous online focus groups. Findings were combined using methodological triangulation. RESULTS: The sample comprised 40 GP interviews, 232 GPs tweeting about GP partnership roles, and seven focus groups with 50 GPs. Factors at individual, organisational, and national levels influence partnership uptake and career decisions of both men and women GPs. Desire for work-family balance (particularly childcare responsibilities) presented the greatest barrier, for both men and women, as well as workload, responsibility, financial investment, and risk. Greater challenges were, however, reported by women, particularly regarding balancing work-family lives, as well as prohibitive working conditions (including maternity and sickness pay) and discriminatory practices perceived to favour men and full-time GPs. CONCLUSION: There are some long-standing gendered barriers that continue to affect the career decisions of women GPs. The relative attractiveness of salaried, locum, or private roles in general practice appears to discourage both men and women from partnerships presently. Promoting positive workplace cultures through strong role models, improved flexibility in roles, and skills training could potentially encourage greater uptake.

General practitioner well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic presented new challenges for general practitioners' (GPs') mental health and well-being, with growing international evidence of its negative impact. While there has been a wide UK commentary on this topic, research evidence from a UK setting is lacking. This study sought to explore the lived experience of UK GPs during COVID-19, and the pandemic's impact on their psychological well-being. DESIGN AND SETTING: In-depth qualitative interviews, conducted remotely by telephone or video call, with UK National Health Service GPs. PARTICIPANTS: GPs were sampled purposively across three career stages (early career, established and late career or retired GPs) with variation in other key demographics. A comprehensive recruitment strategy used multiple channels. Data were analysed thematically using Framework Analysis. RESULTS: We interviewed 40 GPs; most described generally negative sentiment and many displayed signs of psychological distress and burnout. Causes of stress and anxiety related to personal risk, workload, practice changes, public perceptions and leadership, team working and wider collaboration and personal challenges. GPs described potential facilitators of their well-being, including sources of support and plans to reduce clinical hours or change career path, and some described the pandemic as offering a catalyst for positive change. CONCLUSIONS: A range of factors detrimentally affected the well-being of GPs during the pandemic and we highlight the potential impact of this on workforce retention and quality of care. As the pandemic progresses and general practice faces continued challenges, urgent policy measures are now needed.

General practitioners' wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic: Novel methods with social media data.

BACKGROUND: It is difficult to engage busy healthcare professionals in research. Yet during the COVID-19 pandemic, gaining their perspectives has never been more important. OBJECTIVE: To explore social media data for insights into the wellbeing of UK General Practitioners (GPs) during the Covid-19 pandemic. METHODS: We used a combination of search approaches to identify 381 practising UK NHS GPs on Twitter. Using a two stage social media analysis, we firstly searched for key themes from 91,034 retrieved tweets (before and during the pandemic). Following this we used qualitative content analysis to provide in-depth insights from 7145 tweets related to wellbeing. RESULTS: Social media proved a useful tool to identify a cohort of UK GPs; following their tweets longitudinally to explore key themes and trends in issues related to GP wellbeing during the pandemic. These predominately related to support, resources and public perceptions and fluctuations were identified at key timepoints during the pandemic, all achieved without burdening busy GPs. CONCLUSION: Social media data can be searched to identify a cohort of GPs to explore their wellbeing and changes over time.

A Comparative Analysis of Anticancer Drug Appraisals Including Managed Entry Agreements in South Korea and England.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare appraisal decisions about anticancer drugs between the health technology assessment (HTA) agencies in Korea and England, and investigate whether the decisions and supporting evidence are comparable. METHODS: This study identified 49 anticancer drugs listed by the Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare between January 2014 and December 2019. Of those, 46 anticancer drugs for 58 indications were included for analysis. Official appraisal documents from both countries for 58 drug-indication pairs were compared and assessed in terms of clinical and economic evidence. Evidence items and their groups for analysis were predefined. RESULTS: Three-quarters of cases were recommended with managed entry agreements (MEAs) in England and three-fifths in Korea. Finance-based MEA types were most common in both countries. Korean and English authorities made consistent decisions in 48 cases (83%) when classifying decisions as 'recommended' and 'not recommended', while the degree of agreement lowered to 16 cases (28%) when subdividing decisions according to MEA types. When the evidence base was identical, their decisions were more likely to be consistent. Regarding clinical evidence, while the majority of cases referred to the same pivotal studies, differences between the committees' recognized comparators and the appraisal date caused discrepancies in decisions. Economic evidence, including incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) estimates, was identical in only 12 cases (21%), which contributed to discrepancies. CONCLUSION: England relies on economic evaluation, with increasing use of data collection agreements, in contrast with Korea's new procedure exempting companies from providing economic evaluation. While there is possibility for international cooperation in the assessment of clinical evidence, transferability issues exist, particularly with regard to economic evidence.

Do general practitioners working in or alongside the emergency department improve clinical outcomes or experience? A mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of general practitioners (GPs) working in or alongside the emergency department (GPED) on patient outcomes and experience, and the associated impacts of implementation on the workforce. DESIGN: Mixed-methods study: interviews with service leaders and NHS managers; in-depth case studies (n=10) and retrospective observational analysis of routinely collected national data. We used normalisation process theory to map our findings to the theory's four main constructs of coherence, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Data were collected from 64 EDs in England. Case site data included: non-participant observation of 142 clinical encounters; 467 semistructured interviews with policy-makers, service leaders, clinical staff, patients and carers. Retrospective observational analysis used routinely collected Hospital Episode Statistics alongside information on GPED service hours from 40 hospitals for which complete data were available. RESULTS: There was disagreement at individual, stakeholder and organisational levels regarding the purpose and potential impact of GPED (coherence). Participants criticised policy development and implementation, and staff engagement was hindered by tensions between ED and GP staff (cognitive participation). Patient 'streaming' processes, staffing and resource constraints influenced whether GPED became embedded in routine practice. Concerns that GPED may increase ED attendance influenced staff views. Our quantitative analysis showed no detectable impact on attendance (collective action). Stakeholders disagreed whether GPED was successful, due to variations in GPED model, site-specific patient mix and governance arrangements. Following statistical adjustment for multiple testing, we found no impact on: ED reattendances within 7 days, patients discharged within 4 hours of arrival, patients leaving the ED without being seen; inpatient admissions; non-urgent ED attendances and 30-day mortality (reflexive monitoring). CONCLUSIONS: We found a high degree of variability between hospital sites, but no overall evidence that GPED increases the efficient operation of EDs or improves clinical outcomes, patient or staff experience. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISCRTN5178022.

GP wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Doctors' organisations in the UK have reported worrying levels of work-related stress and burnout in the GP workforce for some time, and the COVID-19 pandemic has presented clear new challenges. AIM: To synthesise international evidence exploring the impact of COVID-19 on primary care doctors' mental health and wellbeing, and identify risk factors associated with their psychological wellbeing during this time. DESIGN AND SETTING: Mixed-methods systematic review. METHOD: Six bibliographic databases, Google Scholar, and MedRxiv were searched on 19 November 2020 and 3 June 2021 to identify studies of GP psychological wellbeing during the pandemic. Reference checking was also conducted. Two reviewers selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality of studies using standardised tools. Heterogeneity in outcomes, setting, and design prohibited statistical pooling; studies were combined using a convergent integrated thematic synthesis. RESULTS: Thirty-one studies were included. Multiple sources of stress were identified including changed working practices; risk, exposure, and inadequate personal protective equipment (PPE); information overload; pandemic preparedness; and cohesion across sectors. Studies demonstrated an impact on psychological wellbeing, with some GPs experiencing stress, burnout, anxiety, depression, fear of COVID-19, lower job satisfaction, and physical symptoms. Studies reported gender and age differences: women GPs had poorer psychological outcomes across all domains, and older GPs reported greater stress and burnout. Use of outcome measures and reporting practice varied greatly. CONCLUSION: This review of international evidence demonstrates that the COVID-19 pandemic has adversely affected GPs' wellbeing around the world. Further research could explore gender and age differences, identifying interventions targeted to these groups.

Does the presence of general practitioners in emergency departments affect quality and safety in English NHS hospitals? A retrospective observational study.

OBJECTIVES: Emergency departments (EDs) in NHS hospitals in England have faced considerable increases in demand over recent years. Most hospitals have developed general practitioner services in emergency departments (GPEDs) to treat non-emergency patients, aiming to relieve pressure on other staff and to improve ED efficiency and patient experience. We measured the impact of GPED services on patient flows, health outcomes and ED workload. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. Differences in GPED service availability across EDs and time of day were used to identify the causal effect of GPED, as patients attending the ED at the same hour of the day are quasi-randomly assigned to treatment or control groups based on their local ED's service availability. PARTICIPANTS: Attendances to 40 EDs in English NHS hospitals from April 2018 to March 2019, 4 441 349 observations. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES MEASURED: Outcomes measured were volume of attendances, 'non-urgent' attendances, waiting times over 4 hours, patients leaving without being treated, unplanned reattendances within 7 days, inpatient admissions and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: We found a small, statistically significant reduction in unplanned reattendances within 7 days (OR 0.968, 95% CI 0.948 to 0.989), equivalent to 302 fewer reattendances per year for the average ED. The clinical impact of this was judged to be negligible. There was no detectable impact on any other outcome measure. CONCLUSIONS: We found no adverse effects on patient outcomes; neither did we find any evidence of the hypothesised benefits of placing GPs in emergency settings beyond a marginal reduction in reattendances that was not considered clinically significant.

Effects of computerised clinical decision support systems (CDSS) on nursing and allied health professional performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review of experimental and observational studies.

OBJECTIVE: Computerised clinical decision support systems (CDSS) are an increasingly important part of nurse and allied health professional (AHP) roles in delivering healthcare. The impact of these technologies on these health professionals' performance and patient outcomes has not been systematically reviewed. We aimed to conduct a systematic review to investigate this. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The following bibliographic databases and grey literature sources were searched by an experienced Information Professional for published and unpublished research from inception to February 2021 without language restrictions: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase Classic+Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), HMIC (Ovid), AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine) (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Wiley), Social Sciences Citation Index Expanded (Clarivate), ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Abstracts & Index, ProQuest ASSIA (Applied Social Science Index and Abstract), Clinical Trials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry (ICTRP), Health Services Research Projects in Progress (HSRProj), OpenClinical(www.OpenClinical.org), OpenGrey (www.opengrey.eu), Health.IT.gov, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (www.ahrq.gov). Any comparative research studies comparing CDSS with usual care were eligible for inclusion. RESULTS: A total of 36 106 non-duplicate records were identified. Of 35 included studies: 28 were randomised trials, three controlled-before-and-after studies, three interrupted-time-series and one non-randomised trial. There were ~1318 health professionals and ~67 595 patient participants in the studies. Most studies focused on nurse decision-makers (71%) or paramedics (5.7%). CDSS as a standalone Personal Computer/LAPTOP-technology was a feature of 88.7% of the studies; only 8.6% of the studies involved 'smart' mobile/handheld-technology. DISCUSSION: CDSS impacted 38% of the outcome measures used positively. Care processes were better in 47% of the measures adopted; examples included, nurses' adherence to hand disinfection guidance, insulin dosing, on-time blood sampling and documenting care. Patient care outcomes in 40.7% of indicators were better; examples included, lower numbers of falls and pressure ulcers, better glycaemic control, screening of malnutrition and obesity and triaging appropriateness. CONCLUSION: CDSS may have a positive impact on selected aspects of nurses' and AHPs' performance and care outcomes. However, comparative research is generally low quality, with a wide range of heterogeneous outcomes. After more than 13 years of synthesised research into CDSS in healthcare professions other than medicine, the need for better quality evaluative research remains as pressing.

Support and follow-up needs of patients discharged from intensive care after severe COVID-19: a mixed-methods study of the views of UK general practitioners and intensive care staff during the pandemic's first wave.

OBJECTIVES: To identify follow-up services planned for patients with COVID-19 discharged from intensive care unit (ICU) and to explore the views of ICU staff and general practitioners (GPs) regarding these patients' future needs and care coordination. DESIGN: This is a sequential mixed-methods study using online surveys and semistructured interviews. Interview data were inductively coded and thematically analysed. Survey data were descriptively analysed. SETTING: GP surgeries and acute National Health Service Trusts in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: GPs and clinicians leading care for patients discharged from ICU. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Usual follow-up practice after ICU discharge, changes in follow-up during the pandemic, and GP awareness of follow-up and support needs of patients discharged from ICU. RESULTS: We obtained 170 survey responses and conducted 23 interviews. Over 60% of GPs were unaware of the follow-up services generally provided by their local hospitals and whether or not these were functioning during the pandemic. Eighty per cent of ICUs reported some form of follow-up services, with 25% of these suspending provision during the peak of the pandemic and over half modifying their provision (usually to provide the service remotely). Common themes relating to barriers to provision of follow-up were funding complexities, remit and expertise, and communication between ICU and community services. Discharge documentation was described as poor and lacking key information. Both groups mentioned difficulties accessing services in the community and lack of clarity about who was responsible for referrals and follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic has highlighted long-standing issues of continuity of care and complex funding streams for post-ICU follow-up care. The large cohort of ICU patients admitted due to COVID-19 highlights the need for improved follow-up services and communication between specialists and GPs, not only for patients with COVID-19, but for all those discharged from ICU.

Effect of sugar-sweetened beverages on oral health: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The impact of consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) on health outcomes such as obesity have been studied extensively, but oral health has been relatively neglected. This study aims to assess the association between SSB consumption and dental caries and erosion. METHODS: Systematic review of observational studies. Search strategy applied to Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, SciELO, LILACS, OpenGrey and HMIC. The risk of bias was assessed using the NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cross-Sectional Studies and evidence certainty using Grading of Recommendation Assessment Development and Evaluation. Relationships between SSB consumption and caries and erosion were estimated using random-effects model meta- and dose-response analyses. RESULTS: A total of 38 cross-sectional studies were included, of which 26 were rated as high quality. Comparing moderate-to-low consumption, there was significantly increased risk of both caries [OR = 1.57, 95% CI: 1.28-1.92; decayed, missing and filled teeth weighted mean differences (DMFT WMD) = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.38-1.26] and erosion (OR = 1.43, 95% CI: 1.01-2.03). Comparing high-to-moderate consumption, there was further increased risk of caries (OR = 1.53, 95% CI: 1.17-1.99; DMFT WMD = 1.16, 95% CI: -0.59-2.91) and erosion (OR = 3.09, 95% CI: 1.37-6.97). A dose-response gradient and high certainty of evidence was observed for caries. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing SSB consumption is associated with increased risk of dental caries and erosion. Studies were cross-sectional, hence temporality could not be established, but the positive dose-response suggests this relationship is likely to be causal. These findings illustrate the potential benefits to oral health of policies that reduce SSB consumption, including sugar taxation.

Correction: The impact of public health insurance on health care utilisation, financial protection and health status in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219731.].

The impact of public health insurance on health care utilisation, financial protection and health status in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Expanding public health insurance seeks to attain several desirable objectives, including increasing access to healthcare services, reducing the risk of catastrophic healthcare expenditures, and improving health outcomes. The extent to which these objectives are met in a real-world policy context remains an empirical question of increasing research and policy interest in recent years. METHODS: We reviewed systematically empirical studies published from July 2010 to September 2016 using Medline, Embase, Econlit, CINAHL Plus via EBSCO, and Web of Science and grey literature databases. No language restrictions were applied. Our focus was on both randomised and observational studies, particularly those including explicitly attempts to tackle selection bias in estimating the treatment effect of health insurance. The main outcomes are: (1) utilisation of health services, (2) financial protection for the target population, and (3) changes in health status. FINDINGS: 8755 abstracts and 118 full-text articles were assessed. Sixty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria including six randomised studies, reflecting a substantial increase in the quantity and quality of research output compared to the time period before 2010. Overall, health insurance schemes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have been found to improve access to health care as measured by increased utilisation of health care facilities (32 out of 40 studies). There also appeared to be a favourable effect on financial protection (26 out of 46 studies), although several studies indicated otherwise. There is moderate evidence that health insurance schemes improve the health of the insured (9 out of 12 studies). INTERPRETATION: Increased health insurance coverage generally appears to increase access to health care facilities, improve financial protection and improve health status, although findings are not totally consistent. Understanding the drivers of differences in the outcomes of insurance reforms is critical to inform future implementations of publicly funded health insurance to achieve the broader goal of universal health coverage.

How Do Undiagnosed Symptoms of Maternal Psychological Distress During the Postnatal Period Affect Child Developmental Outcomes?

OBJECTIVES: Evidence suggests that maternal psychological distress is an under-diagnosed condition that can have lasting impacts on child outcomes. Models based solely on maternal outcomes have not found screening to be cost-effective. This research explores the effects of self-reported maternal psychological distress on children's language and behavioural development up to the age of 7. METHODS: Using longitudinal survey data from 10,893 families in the UK Millennium Cohort Study, multilevel models are used to explore the differential effects of maternal diagnosed and treated depression versus untreated maternal psychological distress during the postnatal year on longer-term child outcomes. RESULTS: Both diagnosed and treated depression and self-reported maternal psychological distress have detrimental effects on child behavioural development. Behavioural outcomes up to age 5 were better for children of women who received treatment for depression, compared with children those whose mothers' psychological distress was untreated, but this was not maintained to age 7. Little or no evidence of a difference was found between maternal psychological distress and child language development. CONCLUSIONS FOR PRACTICE: This research highlights the lack of effectiveness of existing treatment for maternal psychological distress both to benefit child development and to provide long-term symptom remediation for women. Future research could aim to identify more effective treatments for both women and children.

Does regulation increase the rate at which doctors leave practice? Analysis of routine hospital data in the English NHS following the introduction of medical revalidation.

BACKGROUND: In 2012, the UK introduced medical revalidation, whereby to retain their licence all doctors are required to show periodically that they are up to date and fit to practise medicine. Early reports suggested that some doctors found the process overly onerous and chose to leave practice. This study investigates the effect of medical revalidation on the rate at which consultants (senior hospital doctors) leave NHS practice, and assesses any differences between the performance of consultants who left or remained in practice before and after the introduction of revalidation. METHODS: We used a retrospective cohort of administrative data from the Hospital Episode Statistics database on all consultants who were working in English NHS hospitals between April 2008 and March 2009 (n = 19,334), followed to March 2015. Proportional hazard models were used to identify the effect of medical revalidation on the time to exit from the NHS workforce, as implied by ceasing NHS clinical activity. The main exposure variable was consultants' time-varying revalidation status, which differentiates between periods when consultants were (a) not subject to revalidation-before the policy was introduced, (b) awaiting a revalidation recommendation and (c) had received a positive recommendation to be revalidated. Difference-in-differences analysis was used to compare the performance of those who left practice with those who remained in practice before and after the introduction of revalidation, as proxied by case-mix-adjusted 30-day mortality rates. RESULTS: After 2012, consultants who had not yet revalidated were at an increased hazard of ceasing NHS clinical practice (HR 2.33, 95% CI 2.12 to 2.57) compared with pre-policy levels. This higher risk remained after a positive recommendation (HR 1.85, 95% CI 1.65 to 2.06) but was statistically significantly reduced (p < 0.001). We found no statistically significant differences in mortality rates between those consultants who ceased practice and those who remained, after adjustment for multiple testing. CONCLUSION: Revalidation appears to have led to greater numbers of doctors ceasing clinical practice, over and above other contemporaneous influences. Those ceasing clinical practice do not appear to have provided lower quality care, as approximated by mortality rates, when compared with those remaining in practice.

The impact of public health insurance on healthcare utilisation in Indonesia: evidence from panel data.

OBJECTIVES: This study is the first rigorous evaluation of the impact of Jaminan Kesehatan Nasional (JKN) on improving access to outpatient and inpatient care, utilising longitudinal data from the Indonesian Family Life Survey. METHODS: Two treatment groups were identified: a contributory group (N = 982), who paid the premium voluntarily, and a subsidised group (N = 2503), paid by government. Each group was compared with the uninsured group (N = 8576). Propensity score matching combined with difference-in-difference approaches was used to estimate the causal effect of the JKN programme. RESULTS: The results found that JKN increased the probability of inpatient admission for the contributory and subsidised groups by 8.2% (95% CI 5.9-10.5%) and 1.8% (95% CI 0.7-2.82%), respectively. The contributory group had an increase in probability of an outpatient visit of 7.9% (95% CI 4.3-11.4%). CONCLUSIONS: The JKN programme has increased the utilisation of outpatient and inpatient care in the contributory group. Those with subsidised insurance have an increase in access to inpatient facilities only, and this is of a smaller magnitude. Hence, while JKN has improved average utilisation, inequity in access to both outpatient and inpatient care may remain.

General practitioners and emergency departments (GPED)-efficient models of care: a mixed-methods study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Pressure continues to grow on emergency departments in the UK and throughout the world, with declining performance and adverse effects on patient outcome, safety and experience. One proposed solution is to locate general practitioners to work in or alongside the emergency department (GPED). Several GPED models have been introduced, however, evidence of effectiveness is weak. This study aims to evaluate the impact of GPED on patient care, the primary care and acute hospital team and the wider urgent care system. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study will be divided into three work packages (WPs). WP-A; Mapping and Taxonomy: mapping, description and classification of current models of GPED in all emergency departments in England and interviews with key informants to examine the hypotheses that underpin GPED. WP-B; Quantitative Analysis of National Data: measurement of the effectiveness, costs and consequences of the GPED models identified in WP-A, compared with a no-GPED model, using retrospective analysis of Hospital Episode Statistics Data. WP-C; Case Studies: detailed case studies of different GPED models using a mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods including: non-participant observation of clinical care, semistructured interviews with staff, patients and carers; workforce surveys with emergency department staff and analysis of available local routinely collected hospital data. Prospective case study sites will be identified by completing telephone interviews with sites awarded capital funding by the UK government to implement GPED initiatives. The study has a strong patient and public involvement group that has contributed to study design and materials, and which will be closely involved in data interpretation and dissemination. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the National Health Service East Midlands-Leicester South Research Ethics Committee: 17/EM/0312. The results of the study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conferences and a planned programme of knowledge mobilisation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN51780222.