"Why should care workers be any different from prison workers?" A qualitative study of second-hand smoke exposure during home-care visits and potential measures to eliminate exposure.

INTRODUCTION: Despite world-leading measures in place to protect employees from second-hand smoke exposure in workplaces in the United Kingdom, workers who deliver health and social care in private homes remain unprotected legally in this setting from second-hand smoke exposure (SHS). METHODS: Fourteen individuals took part in either an in-depth telephone interview (n = 11) or an online focus group discussion (n = 3), including home-care workers (n = 5) and managers (n = 5) based in Lanarkshire (Scotland) and local/national policy makers (n = 4). Participants were asked about the extent to which exposure to SHS is an issue during home visits and possible additional measures that could be put in place to eliminate exposure. RESULTS: Participants highlighted the difficulties in balancing the provision of care in a person's own home with the right of workers to be able to breathe clean air and be protected from SHS. Current strategies to reduce staff exposure to SHS during home visits were often reported as inadequate with SHS not a hazard considered by managers beyond protecting pregnant staff or those with pre-existing respiratory conditions such as asthma. Simple respiratory protective equipment (as used during the COVID-19 pandemic) was rightly identified as being ineffective. Methods such as nicotine replacement therapy and e-cigarettes were identified as potential ways to help people who smoke achieve temporary asbstinence prior to a home visit. CONCLUSION: Implementing appropriate and proportionate measures to protect home-care workers from the harms posed by SHS should be a priority to help protect the health of this often overlooked occupational group.

Reducing alcohol harms whilst minimising impact on hospitality businesses: 'Sweetspot' policy options.

BACKGROUND: During COVID-19, hospitality businesses (e.g. bars, restaurants) were closed/restricted whilst off-sales of alcohol increased, with health consequences. Post-covid, governments face lobbying to support such businesses, but many health services remain under pressure. We appraised 'sweetspot' policy options: those with potential to benefit public services and health, whilst avoiding or minimising negative impact on the hospitality sector. METHODS: We conducted rapid non-systematic evidence reviews using index papers, citation searches and team knowledge to summarise the literature relating to four possible 'sweetspot' policy areas: pricing interventions (9 systematic reviews (SR); 14 papers/reports); regulation of online sales (1 SR; 1 paper); place-shaping (2 SRs; 18 papers/reports); and violence reduction initiatives (9 SRs; 24 papers/reports); and led two expert workshops (n = 11). RESULTS: Interventions that raise the price of cheaper shop-bought alcohol appear promising as 'sweetspot' policies; any impact on hospitality is likely small and potentially positive. Restrictions on online sales such as speed or timing of delivery may reduce harm and diversion of consumption from on-trade to home settings. Place-shaping is not well-supported by evidence and experts were sceptical. Reduced late-night trading hours likely reduce violence; evidence of impact on hospitality is scant. Other violence reduction initiatives may modestly reduce harms whilst supporting hospitality, but require resources to deliver multiple measures simultaneously in partnership. CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence and expert views point to regulation of pricing and online sales as having greatest potential as 'sweetspot' alcohol policies, reducing alcohol harm whilst minimising negative impact on hospitality businesses.

Alcohol's contribution to climate change and other environmental degradation: a call for research.

Climate change is the single biggest health threat facing humanity. The production, distribution and consumption of many fast-moving consumer goods contribute substantially to climate change, principally through releasing greenhouse gas emissions. Here we consider just some of the ways that alcohol-already a key contributor to an array of health, social and economic burdens-exacerbates environmental harms and climate change. We explore current evidence on alcohol production as a resource- and energy-intensive process, contributing to significant environmental degradation through water usage and other carbon emission costs. We argue that the impacts of alcohol production on climate change have been minimally explored by researchers. Yet the extent of the unfolding catastrophe beholds us to consider all available ways to mitigate unnecessary emissions, including from products such as alcohol. We then turn to suggestions for a research agenda on this topic, including investigations of commercial determinants, inequalities and product advice to help consumers choose lower-carbon options. We conclude by arguing that public health researchers already have an array of methodological expertise and experience that is well placed to produce the evidence needed to inform regulation and efforts by alcohol producers and consumers to minimize their contributions to environmental harms.

Factors influencing public health engagement in alcohol licensing in England and Scotland including legal and structural differences: comparative interview analysis.

Background: Greater availability of alcohol is associated with higher consumption and harms. The legal systems, by which premises are licensed to sell alcohol in England and Scotland, differ in several ways. The 'Exploring the impact of alcohol licensing in England and Scotland' study measured public health team activity regarding alcohol licensing from 2012 to 2019 and identified seven differences between England and Scotland in the timing and type of activities undertaken. Objectives: To qualitatively describe the seven previously identified differences between Scotland and England in public health approaches to alcohol licensing, and to examine, from the perspective of public health professionals, what factors may explain these differences. Methods: Ninety-four interviews were conducted with 52 professionals from 14 English and 6 Scottish public health teams selected for diversity who had been actively engaging with alcohol licensing. Interviews focused primarily on the nature of their engagement (n = 66) and their rationale for the approaches taken (n = 28). Interview data were analysed thematically using NVivo. Findings were constructed by discussion across the research team, to describe and explain the differences in practice found. Findings: Diverse legal, practical and other factors appeared to explain the seven differences. (1) Earlier engagement in licensing by Scottish public health teams in 2012-3 may have arisen from differences in the timing of legislative changes giving public health a statutory role and support from Alcohol Focus Scotland. (2) Public Health England provided significant support from 2014 in England, contributing to an increase in activity from that point. (3) Renewals of statements of licensing policy were required more frequently in Scotland and at the same time for all Licensing Boards, probably explaining greater focus on policy in Scotland. (4) Organisational structures in Scotland, with public health stakeholders spread across several organisations, likely explained greater involvement of senior leaders there. (5) Without a public health objective for licensing, English public health teams felt less confident about making objections to licence applications without other stakeholders such as the police, and instead commonly negotiated conditions on licences with applicants. In contrast, Scottish public health teams felt any direct contact with applicants was inappropriate due to conflicts of interest. (6) With the public health objective in Scotland, public health teams there were more active in making independent objections to licence applications. Further in Scotland, licensing committee meetings are held to consider all new applications regardless of whether objections have been submitted; unlike in England where there was a greater incentive to resolve objections, because then a meeting was not required. (7) Finally, Scottish public health teams involved the public more in licensing process, partly because of statutory licensing forums there. Conclusions: The alcohol premises licensing systems in England and Scotland differ in important ways including and beyond the lack of a public health objective for licensing in England. These and other differences, including support of national and local bodies, have shaped opportunities for, and the nature of, public health engagement. Further research could examine the relative success of the approaches taken by public health teams and how temporary increases in availability are handled in the two licensing systems. Funding: This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Reseacrh programme as award number 15/129/11.

When alcohol becomes more widely available, harms tend to increase. In England and Scotland, this availability is controlled by local councils. They 'licence' shops, bars and other venues to allow them to sell alcohol. Local health teams, including doctors, often advise councils on licensing. In earlier work, we found seven differences in what Scottish and English health teams do on licensing. In this study, we explore these seven differences and why they came about. To do this, we interviewed 94 professionals working in public health across both countries. Scottish health teams got involved in licensing earlier than in England. This was partly because of when certain laws changed. Also, they were helped earlier by national organisations that try to reduce harm from alcohol. Scottish teams were more involved in local policies on licensing. This was probably because these policies changed more often in the Scottish system. Scottish teams involved the public more. This was partly because Scottish councils must set up 'local licensing forums'. Scottish teams also objected more often to licence applications. They generally felt that they could be more actively involved, because of a law in Scotland that says licensing must protect public health. This law does not apply in England. In England, health teams were more likely to talk to businesses that wanted licences. They were less likely to try to block applications. When they agreed changes to applications with businesses instead of objecting, fewer formal licensing meetings were needed. This was not the case in Scotland. Also, Scottish teams did not feel it was okay for them to talk to businesses. In summary, there are important differences in licensing law between Scotland and England. These matter for how health teams in the two countries engage with local councils, businesses and the public on licensing matters.

Public health engagement in alcohol licensing in England and Scotland: the ExILEnS mixed-method, natural experiment evaluation.

Background: International systematic reviews suggest an association between alcohol availability and increased alcohol-related harms. Alcohol availability is regulated through separate locally administered licensing systems in England and Scotland, in which local public health teams have a statutory role. The system in Scotland includes a public health objective for licensing. Public health teams engage to varying degrees in licensing matters but no previous study has sought to objectively characterise and measure their activity, examine their effectiveness, or compare practices between Scotland and England. Aim: To critically assess the impact and mechanisms of impact of public health team engagement in alcohol premises licensing on alcohol-related harms in England and Scotland. Methods: We recruited 39 diverse public health teams in England (n = 27) and Scotland (n = 12). Public health teams more active in licensing were recruited first and then matched to lower-activity public health teams. Using structured interviews (n = 66), documentation analysis, and expert consultation, we developed and applied the Public Health Engagement In Alcohol Licensing (PHIAL) measure to quantify six-monthly activity levels from 2012 to 2019. Time series of PHIAL scores, and health and crime outcomes for each area, were analysed using multivariable negative binomial mixed-effects models to assess correlations between outcome and exposure, with 18-month average PHIAL score as the primary exposure metric. In-depth interviews (n = 53) and a workshop (n = 10) explored public health team approaches and potential mechanisms of impact of alcohol availability interventions with public health team members and licensing stakeholders (local authority licensing officers, managers and lawyers/clerks, police staff with a licensing remit, local elected representatives). Findings: Nineteen public health team activity types were assessed in six categories: (1) staffing; (2) reviewing and (3) responding to licence applications; (4) data usage; (5) influencing licensing stakeholders/policy; and (6) public involvement. Usage and intensity of activities and overall approaches varied within and between areas over time, including between Scotland and England. The latter variation could be explained by legal, structural and philosophical differences, including Scotland's public health objective. This objective was felt to legitimise public health considerations and the use of public health data within licensing. Quantitative analysis showed no clear evidence of association between level of public health team activity and the health or crime outcomes examined, using the primary exposure or other metrics (neither change in, nor cumulative, PHIAL scores). Qualitative data suggested that public health team input was valued by many licensing stakeholders, and that alcohol availability may lead to harms by affecting the accessibility, visibility and norms of alcohol consumption, but that the licensing systems have limited power to act in the interests of public health. Conclusions: This study provides no evidence that public health team engagement in local licensing matters was associated with measurable downstream reductions in crime or health harms, in the short term, or over a 7-year follow-up period. The extensive qualitative data suggest that public health team engagement is valued and appears to be slowly reorienting the licensing system to better address health (and other) harms, especially in Scotland, but this will take time. A rise in home drinking, alcohol deliveries, and the inherent inability of the licensing system to reduce - or in the case of online sales, to contain - availability, may explain the null findings and will continue to limit the potential of these licensing systems to address alcohol-related harms. Future work: Further analysis could consider the relative success of different public health team approaches in terms of changing alcohol availability and retailing. A key gap relates to the nature and impact of online availability on alcohol consumption, harms and inequalities, alongside development and study of relevant policy options. A national approach to licensing data and oversight would greatly facilitate future studies and public health input to licensing. Limitations: Our interview data and therefore PHIAL scores may be limited by recall bias where documentary evidence of public health activity was not available, and by possible variability in grading of such activity, though steps were taken to minimise both. The analyses would have benefited from additional data on licensing policies and environmental changes that might have affected availability or harms in the study areas. Study registration: The study was registered with the Research Registry (researchregistry6162) on 26 October 2020. The study protocol was published in BMC Medical Research Methodology on 6 November 2018. Funding: This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme as award number 15/129/11.

Research finds that when alcohol is more easily available, because more places sell alcohol or have longer opening hours, people tend to drink more and harms tend to increase. In England and Scotland, 'Licensing Committees' in local governments have power over which venues are given a licence to sell alcohol legally. They make decisions based on local policy and on licensing goals set out in law. Licensing laws are slightly different in both nations, and health representatives are often involved in trying to influence local licensing decisions and policies, to reduce alcohol-related harms. We aimed to find out what public health teams have done to influence alcohol licensing and whether their actions have affected alcohol-related harms. We recruited 39 public health teams (Scotland: 12; England: 27) and measured how active they were on licensing matters. We gathered detailed information (from interviews and papers) about their actions from 2012 to 2019, and asked them and others involved in licensing (including police, and local authority licensing teams and lawyers) about how their efforts might make a difference to harms. We gathered local data on alcohol-related health harms and crimes during 2009­19. We analysed whether any changes in these harms were related to the level of public health team activity, and explored differences between Scotland and England. Public health teams across Scotland and England took varied approaches to engaging in alcohol licensing, and their work was often welcomed by others working in the licensing system. However, we found no clear relationship between the level of licensing-related activity that public health teams engaged in and the levels of alcohol-related health harms or crime. This may be because their actions make only a modest difference to licensing decisions, or because it may take longer than the study period for them to have a sizeable impact. Reducing alcohol-related harms through licensing may require strengthening national licensing laws and the powers of public health teams, including by addressing online sales and home deliveries.

Understanding the patient's experience of coeliac disease diagnosis: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Coeliac disease (CD) presents with non-specific symptoms, and delays to diagnosis are common. The traditional diagnostic pathway involves serological testing followed by endoscopic biopsy; however, the evidence is increasing about the effectiveness of a diagnosis without the need for a biopsy. AIM: To understand the patient's experience of being diagnosed with CD. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative study was conducted, which involved semi-structured interviews with adults diagnosed with CD living in the UK. METHOD: Participants (n = 20) were purposefully sampled from 200 adults who had completed a diagnostic confidence survey. Interviews were conducted via video-conferencing software (Zoom), recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Interviewees faced pre-diagnostic uncertainty, presenting with non-specific symptoms that many experienced for several years and may have normalised. GPs often attributed their symptoms to alternative diagnoses, commonly, irritable bowel syndrome or anaemia. Investigations caused further uncertainty, with half of the interviewees unaware that their initial serology included a test for CD, and reporting long waits for endoscopy and challenges managing their diet around the procedure. Their uncertainty reduced once they received their biopsy results. Endoscopy was presented as the 'gold standard' for diagnosis and most interviewees believed that the procedure was necessary for diagnostic confidence and conviction in a lifelong gluten-free diet. CONCLUSION: Patients experience uncertainty on the pathway to a diagnosis of CD. GPs could improve their experiences by being mindful of the possibility of CD and sharing information about serological testing. Policy and guidance should address the time to endoscopy and diet during diagnosis. If diagnosis without biopsy is adopted, then consideration should be given to clinical pathway implementation and communication approaches to reduce patient uncertainty.

Identifying the Optimum Strategy for Identifying Adults and Children With Celiac Disease: A Cost-Effectiveness and Value of Information Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Celiac disease (CD) is thought to affect around 1% of people in the United Kingdom, but only approximately 30% are diagnosed. The aim of this work was to assess the cost-effectiveness of strategies for identifying adults and children with CD in terms of who to test and which tests to use. METHODS: A decision tree and Markov model were used to describe testing strategies and model long-term consequences of CD. The analysis compared a selection of pre-test probabilities of CD above which patients should be screened, as well as the use of different serological tests, with or without genetic testing. Value of information analysis was used to prioritize parameters for future research. RESULTS: Using serological testing alone in adults, immunoglobulin A (IgA) tissue transglutaminase (tTG) at a 1% pre-test probability (equivalent to population screening) was most cost-effective. If combining serological testing with genetic testing, human leukocyte antigen combined with IgA tTG at a 5% pre-test probability was most cost-effective. In children, the most cost-effective strategy was a 10% pre-test probability with human leukocyte antigen plus IgA tTG. Value of information analysis highlighted the probability of late diagnosis of CD and the accuracy of serological tests as important parameters. The analysis also suggested prioritizing research in adult women over adult men or children. CONCLUSIONS: For adults, these cost-effectiveness results suggest UK National Screening Committee Criteria for population-based screening for CD should be explored. Substantial uncertainty in the results indicate a high value in conducting further research.

Use of nicotine replacement therapy to reduce children's exposure to second-hand smoke in the home: a qualitative pilot study involving local community pharmacies.

BACKGROUND: In Scotland, and in several other countries, most second-hand smoke exposure now occurs in low-income households, where housing constraints and sole parenting often make it harder to create a smoke-free home. This pilot study provided people who smoke with a free 12-week supply of nicotine replacement therapy through local community pharmacies to reduce smoking indoors. METHODS: Twenty-five parents/caregivers who smoked in the home and cared for children at least weekly were recruited via Facebook during the COVID-19 pandemic. Air quality (PM2.5) was monitored in participant homes for seven days before their first pharmacy visit and 12 weeks later. Qualitative interviews (N = 14) were conducted with 13 participants who completed the study and one who withdrew part-way through. The interviews explored views/experiences of using nicotine replacement therapy to help create a smoke-free home. Another participant took part in a shorter telephone discussion at their request, with detailed notes taken by the interviewer, because of their speech disorder. RESULTS: Three participants reported smoking outdoors only, one of whom subsequently quit smoking. Six participants reported reduced cigarette consumption by 50% in the home, four reported no (sustained) reduction and one reported increased smoking indoors. Self-reported outcomes were not always consistent with PM2.5 readings. Participants' experiences of accessing nicotine replacement therapy through community pharmacies varied. Some suggested ongoing support to use nicotine replacement products could better assist behavioural change, and that access could be streamlined by posting products to the home. Several suggested that focusing on changing home smoking behaviours using nicotine replacement therapy might facilitate a future quit attempt. CONCLUSION: Access to free nicotine replacement therapy for temporary use indoors may support some people who smoke to reduce children's exposure to second-hand smoke. Our findings confirm the need to modify the intervention before undertaking a definitive trial to assess the effectiveness of this approach. This work is now underway.