scholarly journals Primary care consultation rates among people with and without severe mental illness: a UK cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink

BMJ Open ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (12) ◽  
pp. e008650 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evangelos Kontopantelis ◽  
Ivan Olier ◽  
Claire Planner ◽  
David Reeves ◽  
Darren M Ashcroft ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 78 (8) ◽  
pp. 1122-1126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georgina Nakafero ◽  
Matthew J Grainge ◽  
Puja R Myles ◽  
Christian D Mallen ◽  
Weiya Zhang ◽  
...  

ObjectivesTo examine the association between inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) administration and primary care consultation for joint pain, rheumatoid arthritis (RA) flare, corticosteroid prescription, vasculitis and unexplained fever in people with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs).MethodsWe undertook within-person comparisons using self-controlled case-series methodology. AIRD cases who received the IIV and had an outcome of interest in the same influenza cycle were ascertained in Clinical Practice Research Datalink. The influenza cycle was partitioned into exposure periods (1–14 days prevaccination and 0–14, 15–30, 31–60 and 61–90 days postvaccination), with the remaining time-period classified as non-exposed. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) and 95% CI for different outcomes were calculated.ResultsData for 14 928 AIRD cases (69% women, 80% with RA) were included. There was no evidence for association between vaccination and primary care consultation for RA flare, corticosteroid prescription, fever or vasculitis. On the contrary, vaccination associated with reduced primary care consultation for joint pain in the subsequent 90 days (IRR 0.91 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.94)).ConclusionThis study found no evidence for a significant association between vaccination and primary care consultation for most surrogates of increased disease activity or vaccine adverse-effects in people with AIRDs. It adds to the accumulating evidence to support influenza vaccination in AIRDs.


BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (9) ◽  
pp. e021827 ◽  
Author(s):  
James P Sheppard ◽  
Sarah Stevens ◽  
Richard J Stevens ◽  
Jonathan Mant ◽  
Una Martin ◽  
...  

ObjectivesEvidence to support initiation of pharmacological treatment in patients with uncomplicated (low risk) mild hypertension is inconclusive. As such, clinical guidelines are contradictory and healthcare policy has changed regularly. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of lifestyle advice and drug therapy in this population and whether secular trends were associated with policy changes.DesignLongitudinal cohort study.SettingPrimary care practices contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink in England.ParticipantsData were extracted from the linked electronic health records of patients aged 18–74 years, with stage 1 hypertension (blood pressure between 140/90 and 159/99 mm Hg), no cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors and no treatment, from 1998 to 2015. Patients exited if follow-up records became unavailable, they progressed to stage 2 hypertension, developed a CVD risk factor or received lifestyle advice/treatment.Primary outcome measuresThe association between policy changes and incidence of lifestyle advice or treatment, examined using an interrupted time-series analysis.ResultsA total of 108 843 patients were defined as having uncomplicated mild hypertension (mean age 51.9±12.9 years, 60.0% female). Patientsspent a median 2.6 years (IQR 0.9–5.5) in the study, after which 12.2% (95% CI 12.0% to 12.4%) were given lifestyle advice, 29.9% (95% CI 29.7% to 30.2%) were prescribed medication and 19.4% (95% CI 19.2% to 19.6%) were given both. The introduction of the quality outcomes framework (QOF) and subsequent changes to QOF indicators were followed by significant increases in the incidence of lifestyle advice. Treatment prescriptions decreased slightly over time, but were not associated with policy changes.ConclusionsDespite secular trends that accord with UK guidance, many patients are still prescribed treatment for mild hypertension. Adequately powered studies are needed to determine if this is appropriate.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. 1-194
Author(s):  
Jennie Lister ◽  
Lu Han ◽  
Sue Bellass ◽  
Jo Taylor ◽  
Sarah L Alderson ◽  
...  

Background People with severe mental illness experience poorer health outcomes than the general population. Diabetes contributes significantly to this health gap. Objectives The objectives were to identify the determinants of diabetes and to explore variation in diabetes outcomes for people with severe mental illness. Design Under a social inequalities framework, a concurrent mixed-methods design combined analysis of linked primary care records with qualitative interviews. Setting The quantitative study was carried out in general practices in England (2000–16). The qualitative study was a community study (undertaken in the North West and in Yorkshire and the Humber). Participants The quantitative study used the longitudinal health records of 32,781 people with severe mental illness (a subset of 3448 people had diabetes) and 9551 ‘controls’ (with diabetes but no severe mental illness), matched on age, sex and practice, from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (GOLD version). The qualitative study participants comprised 39 adults with diabetes and severe mental illness, nine family members and 30 health-care staff. Data sources The Clinical Practice Research Datalink (GOLD) individual patient data were linked to Hospital Episode Statistics, Office for National Statistics mortality data and the Index of Multiple Deprivation. Results People with severe mental illness were more likely to have diabetes if they were taking atypical antipsychotics, were living in areas of social deprivation, or were of Asian or black ethnicity. A substantial minority developed diabetes prior to severe mental illness. Compared with people with diabetes alone, people with both severe mental illness and diabetes received more frequent physical checks, maintained tighter glycaemic and blood pressure control, and had fewer recorded physical comorbidities and elective admissions, on average. However, they had more emergency admissions (incidence rate ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.36) and a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality than people with diabetes but no severe mental illness (hazard ratio 1.89, 95% confidence interval 1.59 to 2.26). These paradoxical results may be explained by other findings. For example, people with severe mental illness and diabetes were more likely to live in socially deprived areas, which is associated with reduced frequency of health checks, poorer health outcomes and higher mortality risk. In interviews, participants frequently described prioritising their mental illness over their diabetes (e.g. tolerating antipsychotic side effects, despite awareness of harmful impacts on diabetes control) and feeling overwhelmed by competing treatment demands from multiple morbidities. Both service users and practitioners acknowledged misattributing physical symptoms to poor mental health (‘diagnostic overshadowing’). Limitations Data may not be nationally representative for all relevant covariates, and the completeness of recording varied across practices. Conclusions People with severe mental illness and diabetes experience poorer health outcomes than, and deficiencies in some aspects of health care compared with, people with diabetes alone. Future work These findings can inform the development of targeted interventions aimed at addressing inequalities in this population. Study registration National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Central Portfolio Management System (37024); and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03534921. Funding This project was funded by the NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document