Factors associated with cervical screening coverage: a longitudinal analysis of English general practices from 2013 to 2022.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer remains an important global public health concern. Understanding the factors contributing to a decline in screening uptake in high-income countries is fundamental to improving screening rates. We aimed to identify general practice and patient characteristics related to cervical screening coverage in England between 2013 and 2022. METHODS: We analyzed a panel of 59 271 General Practice (GP)-years from 7881 GP practices. We applied correlated random effects regression to examine the association between cervical screening uptake and a rich set of GP practice workforce, size, quality and patient characteristics. RESULTS: Our results show a decline in overall screening rates from 2013/14 to 2021/22 from 77% to 72%. We find GP workforce and list size characteristics are strongly related to screening rates. An increase in 1 FTE Nurse per 1000 patients is related to a 1.94 percentage point increase in cervical screening rates. GP practices located in more deprived areas have lower screening rates. CONCLUSIONS: GP workforce and patient characteristics need to be considered by decision-makers to increase screening rates. The implementation of self-sampling screening methods could help address some of the current barriers to screening, including lack of healthcare staff and facilities.

Informal caregiving and the allocation of time: implications for opportunity costs and measurement.

Informal care requires a considerable time investment from providers that inherently involves trade-offs against various uses of time. We examine what other uses of time are forgone when individuals provide informal care. We further consider how caregiving is linked to a range of rarely explored time use characteristics relating to multitasking, the fragmentation and the timing of activities. We use data from 5670 adults across 11003 diary days from the 2014/15 UK Time Use Survey. Using a 'doubly robust' approach of entropy balancing and regression adjustment, we find carers spend an additional 49.0 min on non-market work, 2.9 min on personal care, 5.8 min on leisure and 2.9 min on miscellaneous activities on weekdays. They spend 46.1 min less on market work and 14.4 min less on sleep. Carers report more time stress, more multitasking, and more fragmented time. We estimate with attribution factors that 16% and 11% of reported household task activity is due to caregiving on weekday and weekend days, respectively. These findings provide evidence on additional opportunity costs faced by carers and possible channels through which carer labour market and health outcomes are realised. The attribution factors we calculate can be applied to total reported caregiving time to avoid overestimation when this is incorporated into economic evaluations.

Informal caregiving, time use and experienced wellbeing.

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

A Comparison of Methods for Identifying Informal Carers: Self-Declaration Versus a Time Diary.

OBJECTIVES: Two main methods for identifying whether an individual is an informal carer are self-declaration and the use of a time diary. We analysed the level and predictors of agreement between these two methods among co-residential informal carers of adult recipients. METHODS: We used the 2014/15 UK Time Use Survey, which is a large-scale household survey for those aged 8 years old and over. It contains an individual questionnaire for self-declaration and a time diary for activity-based identification that records all activity in 10-min slots for two 24-h periods. Our analysis: (i) assesses the degree of overlap across approaches; (ii) explores the differences in characteristics between carers identified via one approach relative to non-carers using a bivariate probit estimator; and (iii) shows what factors are associated with being identified by both approaches using two independent probit estimators. RESULTS: Out of 6301 individuals, we identified 545 carers (8.6%) by at least one method and only 104 (19.1% of 545 carers) by both methods. We found similar factors predicted caregiving using either method but the magnitudes of the effects of these factors were larger for self-declared carers. Activity-based carers who provided more activities to a dependent adult and spent more time caregiving were more likely to also self-declare. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show low levels of agreement between the two main methods used to identify informal carers. Any assessment of current caregiving research or future means to collect caregiving information should pay particular attention to the identification method as it may only relate to certain carer groups.

Health service costs of treating venous leg ulcers in the UK: evidence from a cross-sectional survey based in the north west of England.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate and examine the direct healthcare costs of treating people with open venous leg ulcers in the UK. DESIGN: Cost-of-illness study. SETTING: A cross-sectional survey of nine National Health Service community locales over 2-week periods in 2015/2016. METHODS: We examined the resource use and prevalence of venous leg ulcer treatment in the community. Examination of variation in these obtained costs was performed by ordinary least squares regression. We used additional resource use information from a randomised control trial and extrapolated costs to the UK for an annual period. RESULTS: The average 2-week per person cost of treating patients where a venous leg ulceration was the primary (most severe) wound was estimated at £166.39 (95% CI £157.78 to £175.00) with community staff time making up over half of this amount. Costs were higher where antimicrobial dressings were used and where wound care was delivered in the home. Among those with any recorded venous leg ulcer (primary and non-primary), we derived a point prevalence of 3.2 per 10 000 population and estimated that the annual prevalence could be no greater than 82.4 per 10 000 population. We estimated that the national cost of treating a venous leg ulcer was £102 million with a per person annual cost at £4787.70. CONCLUSION: Our point prevalence figures are in line with the literature. However, our annual prevalence estimations and costs are far lower than those reported in recent literature which suggests that the costs of treating venous leg ulcers are lower than previously thought. Movement towards routinely collected and useable community care activity would help provide a transparent and deeper understanding of the scale and cost of wound care in the UK.

Do different means of recording sexual orientation affect its relationship with health and wellbeing?

Analyses of an individual's sexual orientation over time are desirable for policy evaluations and in estimating causal effects. We explore whether accounting for those who change sexual orientation over two time points, to create a measure of fluidity, produces substantially different results compared to sexual orientation measured at one time point and extrapolated to subsequent survey waves. We use seven waves of the UK Household Longitudinal Study which asked sexual orientation identity questions at two time points: waves three (2011-2013) and nine (2017-2019). Using the relationship with sexual orientation and various health outcomes as an empirical example, via a correlated random effects estimation approach, we find that the infrequent reporting of sexual orientation could over-estimate the negative impact for lesbian, gay and "other" individuals and under-estimate the negative impact for bisexuals. We further test the feasibility of the fluidity measure by examining attrition by sexual orientation identity and find small but statistically significant probabilities of attrition. Correction for attrition bias through inverse probability weighting makes little difference to the results. These results highlight the importance of accounting for changes in sexual orientation in empirical analysis and that doing so is feasible.

The Challenges of Measuring Informal Care Time: A Review of the Literature.

Economic evaluations increasingly include the value of informal care, for example, in terms of caregiver health effects or time costs. If an economic evaluation uses caregiving time costs, appropriate measurement of caregiving time is an important first step prior to its valuation. There is no comprehensive overview of the measurement challenges for caregiving time. In this literature review, we searched Medline, Embase, Econlit and Scopus to identify measurement issues and associated studies which reported informal care time that addressed them. The search identified 27 studies that addressed nine measurement issues. There is limited evidence on how to address these issues, although some have received relatively more attention, including incremental time (considered in 16 studies), time measurement method comparisons (six studies) and the inclusion of intangible tasks (four studies). Non-response (considered in only one study) and carer and recipient identification (two studies) were the most wide-reaching measurement concerns, as these determine who is identified as carers. There was no evidence on the consequences of these measurement challenges in terms of impacts on cost-effectiveness ratios and on the total cost of health conditions, which would be a crucial next step. Future research on these issues should consider a range of different settings, as informal care is highly heterogeneous. The measurement of informal care is key for its inclusion in economic evaluations but there is little consensus on how to appropriately measure this type of care.

The extent and predictors of discrepancy between provider and recipient reports of informal caregiving.

Informal care research mainly relies upon carers reporting that they provide this type of care. Little is known about whether reports from recipients would produce similar information. We explore whether providers and recipients are in agreement with each other's reports of informal care at the extensive and intensive margin and whether particular characteristics of providers and recipients predict any discrepancies. Using data from the 2015-2017 wave of the UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS), we find that among those who reported receiving informal care a provider confirmed only 37.5% of these. Each additional restriction on activities and instrumental activities of daily living for a recipient increases the probability of agreement by 5.2 and 9.3 percentage points, respectively. When both parties report informal care, providers report on average 10.55 (37%) more hours per week compared to recipients. This represents an annual difference of £12,081 using the replacement monetary valuation method. If we rely on recipient reports, we may be more likely to capture how many in the population are caregivers. However, we may also be less likely to capture the full hours of care for each caregiver. These discrepancies in reported caregiving affect studies of the consequences of caregiving and economic evaluations of interventions that impact on caregiving.

The monetary valuation of informal care to cancer decedents at end-of-life: Evidence from a national census survey.

BACKGROUND: Carers' end-of-life caregiving greatly benefits society but little is known about the monetary value of this care. AIM: Within an end-of-life cancer setting: (1) to assess the feasibility and content validity of a post-bereavement measure of hours of care; and (2) to obtain a monetary value of this informal care and identify variation in this value among sub-groups. DESIGN AND SETTING: A census based cross-sectional survey of all cancer deaths from a 2-week period in England collected detailed data on caregiving activity (10 caregiving tasks and the time spent on each). We descriptively analyse the information carers provided in 'other' tasks to inform content validity. We assigned a monetary value of caregiving via the proxy good method and examined variation in the value via regression analysis. RESULTS: The majority of carers (89.9%) were able to complete the detailed questions about hours and tasks. Only 153 carers reported engaging in 'other' tasks. The monetary value of caregiving at end-of-life was £948.86 per week with social and emotional support and symptom management tasks representing the largest proportion of this monetary valuation. Time of recall did not substantially relate to variation in the monetary value, whereas there was a stronger association for the relationship between the carer and recipient, carer gender and recipient daily living restrictions. CONCLUSION: The monetary valuation we produce for carers' work is substantial, for example the weekly UK Carers' Allowance only amounts to 7% of our estimated value of £948.86 per week. Our research provides further information on subgroup variation, and a valid carer time instrument and method to inform economic evaluation and policy.

Investigating the relationship between formal and informal care: An application using panel data for people living together.

There is limited evidence on the relationship between formal and informal care using panel data in a U.K. setting and focused specifically on people living together (co-residents). Using all 18 waves of the British Household Panel Survey (1991-2009), we analyse the effect of informal care given by co-residents on the use of formal home care and health care services more generally. To account for endogeneity, we estimate models using random effects instrumental variable regression using the number of daughters as a source of exogenous variation. We find that a 10% increase in the monthly provision of informal care hours decreases the probability of using home help (formal home care) by 1.02 percentage points (p < .05), equivalent to a 15.62% relative reduction. This effect was larger for home help provided by the state (ß = -.117) compared with non-state home help (ß = -.044). These results provide evidence that significant increases in the supply of informal care would reduce the demand for home-help provision.

Inequalities in family practitioner use by sexual orientation: evidence from the English General Practice Patient Survey.

OBJECTIVE: To test for differences in primary care family practitioner usage by sexual orientation. DESIGN: Multivariate logistic analysis of pooled cross-sectional postal questionnaire responses to family practitioner usage. SETTING: Patient-reported use and experience of primary care in England, UK. Data from several waves of a postal questionnaire (General Practice Patient Survey) 2012-2014. POPULATION: 2 807 320 survey responses of adults aged 18 years and over, registered with a family practitioner. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Probability of a visit to a family practitioner within the past 3 months. RESULTS: Lesbian women were 0.803 times (95% CI 0.755 to 0.854) less likely to have seen a family practitioner in the past 3 months relative to heterosexual women (bisexual women OR=0.887, 95% CI 0.817 to 0.963). Gay men were 1.218 times (95% CI 1.163 to 1.276) more likely to have seen a family practitioner relative to heterosexual men (bisexual men OR=1.084, 95% CI 0.989 to 1.188). Our results are robust to the timing of the family practitioner visit (0-3, 0-6, 0-12 months). Gay men were more likely to have seen a family practitioner than heterosexual men where the proportion of women practitioners in the practice was higher (OR=1.238, 95% CI 1.041 to 1.472). CONCLUSIONS: Inequalities in the use of primary care across sexual orientation in England exist having conditioned on several measures of health status, demographic and family practitioner characteristics. The findings suggest these differences may be reduced by policies targeting a reduction of differences in patient acceptability of primary care. In particular, further research is needed to understand whether lower use among heterosexual men represents unmet need or overutilisation among gay men, and the barriers to practitioner use seemingly occurring due to the gender distribution of practices.