Suchergebnisse

OBJECTIVES: This study examined the prevalence of risky drinking by members of parliament (MPs), as well as the relationship between risky drinking and age, years spent as an MP, working outside parliament, awareness of the Parliamentary Health and Wellbeing Service, and probable mental ill health. DESIGN: A survey questionnaire assessed alcohol consumption using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). Risky drinking was identified by combining categories of increasing (hazardous), higher (harmful) and probable dependent drinking for those with a total score of 8 or more. Comparator groups from the 2014 Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey (APMS) were used as controls. SETTING: UK House of Commons. PARTICIPANTS: 650 MPs. RESULTS: Compared with all 650 MPs, participants (n=146) were more likely to be female (p<0.05) or have an educational qualification (p<0.05). Weighted proportions on AUDIT items were higher than the APMS comparator group for participants who had a drink four or more times a week, 10 or more drinks on a typical drinking day, six or more drinks in one occasion, or felt guilty because of drinking (p<0.01). Weighted percentages for risky drinking were higher in MPs compared with the whole English population (p<0.05), but similar when compared with socioeconomic comparator groups. The odds of risky drinking were 2.74 times greater for MPs who had an additional work role outside parliament compared with those who did not (95% CI 0.98 to 7.65) and 2.4 times greater for MPs with probable mental ill health compared with those with no evidence of probable mental ill health (95% CI 0.78 to 7.43). CONCLUSIONS: A low level of awareness of the Parliamentary Health and Wellbeing Service has implications for improving the detection of risky drinking and improving access to this service by MPs. Possible increased likelihood of risky drinking in MPs who also had an additional work role outside Parliament and among those with probable mental ill health requires further exploration.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess (1) the overall mental health of Members of Parliament (MPs) and (2) awareness among MPs of the mental health support services available to them in Parliament. DESIGN: An anonymous self-completed online cross-sectional survey was conducted in December 2016. SETTING: 56th UK House of Commons. PARTICIPANTS: All 650 members of the 56th UK House of Commons were invited to participate; 146 MPs (23%) completed the survey. OUTCOMES: The General Health Questionnaire-12 was used to assess age- and sex-standardised prevalence of probable common mental disorders (CMD). Results were compared with a nationally representative survey, the Health Survey for England (HSE) 2014. Core demographic questions, MPs' awareness of available mental health services, their willingness to discuss mental health issues with party Whips and fellow MPs and the effects of employment outside Parliament were assessed. RESULTS: Comparison of MP respondents with HSE comparator groups found that MPs have higher rates of mental health problems (age- and sex-standardised prevalence of probable CMD in 49 surveyed MPs 34% (95% CI 27% to 42%) versus 17% (95% CI 13% to 21%) in the high-income comparison group). Survey respondents were younger, more likely to be female and more educated compared with all MPs. 77% of MPs (n=112) did not know how to access in-house mental health support. 52% (n=76) would not discuss their mental health with party Whips or other MPs (48%; n=70). CONCLUSIONS: MPs in the study sample had higher rates of mental health problems than rates seen in the whole English population or comparable occupational groups. Most surveyed MPs are unaware of mental health support services or how to access them. Our findings represent a relatively small sample of MPs. There is a need for MPs to have better awareness of, and access to, mental health support.

Objectives The purpose of this study was to assess (1) the overall mental health of Members of Parliament (MPs) and (2) awareness among MPs of the mental health support services available to them in Parliament. Design An anonymous self-completed online cross-sectional survey was conducted in December 2016. Setting 56th UK House of Commons. Participants All 650 members of the 56th UK House of Commons were invited to participate; 146 MPs (23%) completed the survey. Outcomes The General Health Questionnaire-12 was used to assess age- and sex-standardised prevalence of probable common mental disorders (CMD). Results were compared with a nationally representative survey, the Health Survey for England (HSE) 2014. Core demographic questions, MPs' awareness of available mental health services, their willingness to discuss mental health issues with party Whips and fellow MPs and the effects of employment outside Parliament were assessed. Results Comparison of MP respondents with HSE comparator groups found that MPs have higher rates of mental health problems (age- and sex-standardised prevalence of probable CMD in 49 surveyed MPs 34% (95% CI 27% to 42%) versus 17% (95% CI 13% to 21%) in the high-income comparison group). Survey respondents were younger, more likely to be female and more educated compared with all MPs. 77% of MPs (n=112) did not know how to access in-house mental health support. 52% (n=76) would not discuss their mental health with party Whips or other MPs (48%; n=70). Conclusions MPs in the study sample had higher rates of mental health problems than rates seen in the whole English population or comparable occupational groups. Most surveyed MPs are unaware of mental health support services or how to access them. Our findings represent a relatively small sample of MPs. There is a need for MPs to have better awareness of, and access to, mental health support.

BackgroundThe association of COVID-19 infection with death in people with severe mental illnesses (SMI), and the relationship to multimorbidities/ underlying health conditions ethnicity is unclear. Health records linked to COVID-19 tests data could help to inform this knowledge gap.
ObjectiveTo determine the risk of death in people with SMI following COVID-19 infection compared to reference groups and assess whether excess mortality is accounted through underlying health conditions or further elevated in minority ethnic groups.
Design, setting and participantsNationally representative cohort study using primary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Database (CPRD), with participants followed from the start of the pandemic in 2020, for 1.5 years, covering England, Wales and Northern Ireland. For consenting practices, CPRD data was linked to COVID-19 data Public Health England (PHE) Second Generation Surveillance System (SGSS), PHE COVID-19 Hospitalisation in England Surveillance System (CHESS), and Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre (ICNARC) data on COVID-10 intensive care admissions. The cohort comprised 795,836 individuals, with 7,493 individuals with SMI and a positive COVID-19 test ("SMI/COVID-19"). Comparison groups were: 2,325 individuals with SMI/ testing negative for COVID-19 ("SMI/ non COVID-19"), 657,414 individuals from a non-SMI group/ testing positive for COVID-19 ("non-SMI/ COVID-19"), and 128,604 individuals from a non-SMI group/ testing negative for COVID-19 ("non-SMI/ non-COVID-19").
ExposuresSMI defined as the presence of schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, or affective disorders with psychosis, according to the International Classification of Mental Disorders (ICD-10). COVID-19 diagnoses identified through confirmed laboratory tests and clinical diagnoses.
OutcomesAll-cause mortality
ResultsA higher proportion of SMI patients with COVID-19 were obese (37% versus 22% in the non-SMI/non-COVID-19 group), current smokers (27% versus 23% in the non-SMI/non-COVID-19 group), had underlying health conditions, and were Black Caribbean/ Black African (5% versus 1% in the non-SMI/non-COVID-19 group). Relative to the non-SMI/ non-COVID-19 group, the SMI/ COVID-19 group had an elevated risk of death (age and sex-adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 5.03 (95%CI: 4.61-5.54)). This was elevated to a lesser extent, in the SMI/ non COVID-19 group (aHR: 1.93 (95%CI: 1.54-2.41)) and in the non-SMI/ COVID-19 group (aHR: 2.85 (95%CI: 2.72-2.98). Excess risk persisted after adjusting for tobacco use, weight and comorbidities. Mortality trends were similar across groups by ethnicity. Risk of death was highest for the SMI/ COVID-19 group during the first wave of infection in the UK, however excess mortality was still evident and substantially elevated at the second wave also.
ConclusionsPeople living with SMI are at an increased risk of death compared to population controls; this excess risk is further elevated following COVID-19 infection, with similar trends by ethnicity. Underlying health conditions only partially account for deaths following COVID-19 infection in this group.

Background: Environmental tobacco smoke has an adverse association with preterm birth and birth weight. England introduced a new law to make virtually all enclosed public places and workplaces smoke free on July 1, 2007. We investigated the effect of smoke-free legislation on birth outcomes in England using Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) maternity data. Methods: We used regression discontinuity, a quasi-experimental study design, which can facilitate valid causal inference, to analyze short-term effects of smoke-free legislation on birth weight, low birth weight, gestational age, preterm birth, and small for gestational age. Results: We analyzed 1,800,906 pregnancies resulting in singleton live-births in England between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2009. In the 1 to 5 months following the introduction of the smoke-free legislation, for those entering their third trimester, the risk of low birth weight decreased by between 8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4%, 12%) and 14% (95% CI: 5%, 23%), very low birth weight between 28% (95% CI: 19%, 36%) and 32% (95% CI: 21%, 41%), preterm birth between 4% (95% CI: 1%, 8%) and 9% (95% CI: 2%, 16%), and small for gestational age between 5% (95% CI: 2%, 8%) and 9% (95% CI: 2%, 15%). The estimated impact of the smoke-free legislation varied by maternal age, deprivation, ethnicity, and region. Conclusions: The introduction of smoke-free legislation in England had an immediate estimated beneficial impact on birth outcomes overall, although we did not observe improvements across all age, ethnic, or deprivation groups. See video abstract at http://links.lww.com/EDE/B85.

ABSTRACT This study aims to present the results of the translation, cross-cultural validation and preliminary evaluation of a tool, originally developed in the United Kingdom, to guide Brazilian researchers in the elaboration of projects and rigorous and high-quality implementation research: ImpRes-BR. Following currently established good practices for cross-cultural validation of instruments and scales, the tool, together with its user guide, was translated and back-translated, subjected to a pilot test with 20 health professionals and evaluated by a panel of 10 specialists who assigned the values used for the calculations of the Content Validity Index at the item level (CVI-I) and scale (CVI-E). In this process, in addition to conceptual validity indices greater than 90%, an IVC-I of at least 0.90 was observed in all domains of the tool and its guide, and an IVC-E of 0.98. Having established the validity of the tool and its guide, it was applied in 14 research projects in the planning or execution phase and was recognized as a powerful instrument for self-analysis of the teams in the qualification of their projects and strengthening them in relation to the principles of the Implementation Science.

RESUMO Este estudo tem como objetivo apresentar os resultados da tradução, validação transcultural e avaliação preliminar de uma ferramenta, originalmente desenvolvida no Reino Unido, para orientar pesquisadores brasileiros na elaboração de projetos e pesquisas de implementação rigorosos e de alta qualidade: ImpRes-BR. Seguindo boas práticas atualmente estabelecidas para validação transcultural de instrumentos e escalas, a ferramenta, juntamente com seu guia de utilização, foi traduzida e retrotraduzida, submetida a um teste piloto com 20 profissionais de saúde e avaliada por um painel de 10 especialistas que atribuíram os valores utilizados para os cálculos do Índice de Validade de Conteúdo ao nível do item (IVC-I) e escala (IVC-E). Nesse processo, além de índices de validade conceitual superiores à 90%, foi observado um IVC-I de pelo menos 0,90 em todos os domínios da ferramenta e seu guia e um IVC-E de 0,98. Estabelecida a validade da ferramenta e seu guia, a mesma foi aplicada em 14 projetos de pesquisa em fase de planejamento ou execução e foi reconhecida enquanto um instrumento potente para autoanálise das equipes na qualificação de seus projetos e fortalecimento destes em relação aos princípios da Ciência de Implementação.

Abstract
Purpose
Recovery Colleges (RCs) have been implemented across England with wide variation in organisational characteristics. The purpose of this study is to describe RCs across England in terms of organisational and student characteristics, fidelity and annual spending, to generate a RC typology based on characteristics and to explore the relationship between characteristics and fidelity.

Methods
All RC in England meeting criteria on recovery orientation, coproduction and adult learning were included. Managers completed a survey capturing characteristics, fidelity and budget. Hierarchical cluster analysis was conducted to identify common groupings and generate an RC typology.

Results
Participants comprised 63 (72%) of 88 RC in England. Fidelity scores were high (median 11, IQR 9–13). Both NHS and strengths-focussed RCs were associated with higher fidelity. The median annual budget was £200,000 (IQR £127,000–£300,000) per RC. The median cost per student was £518 (IQR £275–£840), cost per course designed was £5,556 (IQR £3,000–£9,416) and per course run was £1,510 (IQR £682–£3,030). The total annual budget across England for RCs is an estimated £17.6 m including £13.4 m from NHS budgets, with 11,000 courses delivered to 45,500 students.

Conclusion
Although the majority of RCs had high levels of fidelity, there were sufficiently pronounced differences in other key characteristics to generate a typology of RCs. This typology might prove important for understanding student outcomes and how they are achieved and for commissioning decisions. Staffing and co-producing new courses are key drivers of spending. The estimated budget for RCs was less than 1% of NHS mental health spending.