BACKGROUND: Moderately severe or major trauma (injury severity score (ISS) > 8) is common, often resulting in physical and psychological problems and leading to difficulties in returning to work. Vocational rehabilitation (VR) can improve return to work/education in some injuries (e.g. traumatic brain and spinal cord injury), but evidence is lacking for other moderately severe or major trauma.
METHODS: ROWTATE is an individually randomised controlled multicentre pragmatic trial of early VR and psychological support in trauma patients. It includes an internal pilot, economic evaluation, a process evaluation and an implementation study. Participants will be screened for eligibility and recruited within 12 weeks of admission to eight major trauma centres in England. A total of 722 participants with ISS > 8 will be randomised 1:1 to VR and psychological support (where needed, following psychological screening) plus usual care or to usual care alone. The ROWTATE VR intervention will be provided within 2 weeks of study recruitment by occupational therapists and where needed, by clinical psychologists. It will be individually tailored and provided for ≤ 12 months, dependent on participant need. Baseline assessment will collect data on demographics, injury details, work/education status, cognitive impairment, anxiety, depression, post-traumatic distress, disability, recovery expectations, financial stress and health-related quality of life. Participants will be followed up by postal/telephone/online questionnaires at 3, 6 and 12 months post-randomisation. The primary objective is to establish whether the ROWTATE VR intervention plus usual care is more effective than usual care alone for improving participants\' self-reported return to work/education for at least 80% of pre-injury hours at 12 months post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes include other work outcomes (e.g. hours of work/education, time to return to work/education, sickness absence), depression, anxiety, post-traumatic distress, work self-efficacy, financial stress, purpose in life, health-related quality of life and healthcare/personal resource use. The process evaluation and implementation study will be described elsewhere.
CONCLUSIONS: This trial will provide robust evidence regarding a VR intervention for a major trauma population. Evidence of a clinically and cost-effective VR intervention will be important for commissioners and providers to enable adoption of VR services for this large and important group of patients within the NHS.
BACKGROUND: ISRCTN: 43115471. Registered 27/07/2021.

BACKGROUND: With the global challenge of antimicrobial resistance intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic, evaluating adverse events (AEs) post-antibiotic treatment for common infections is crucial. This study aims to examines the changes in incidence rates of AEs during the COVID-19 pandemic and predict AE risk following antibiotic prescriptions for common infections, considering their previous antibiotic exposure and other long-term clinical conditions.
METHODS: With the approval of NHS England, we used OpenSAFELY platform and analysed electronic health records from patients aged 18-110, prescribed antibiotics for urinary tract infection (UTI), lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI), upper respiratory tract infections (URTI), sinusitis, otitis externa, and otitis media between January 2019 and June 2023. We evaluated the temporal trends in the incidence rate of AEs for each infection, analysing monthly changes over time. The survival probability of emergency AE hospitalisation was estimated in each COVID-19 period (period 1: 1 January 2019 to 25 March 2020, period 2: 26 March 2020 to 8 March 2021, period 3: 9 March 2021 to 30 June 2023) using the Kaplan-Meier approach. Prognostic models, using Cox proportional hazards regression, were developed and validated to predict AE risk within 30 days post-prescription using the records in Period 1.
RESULTS: Out of 9.4 million patients who received antibiotics, 0.6% of UTI, 0.3% of URTI, and 0.5% of LRTI patients experienced AEs. UTI and LRTI patients demonstrated a higher risk of AEs, with a noted increase in AE incidence during the COVID-19 pandemic. Higher comorbidity and recent antibiotic use emerged as significant AE predictors. The developed models exhibited good calibration and discrimination, especially for UTIs and LRTIs, with a C-statistic above 0.70.
CONCLUSIONS: The study reveals a variable incidence of AEs post-antibiotic treatment for common infections, with UTI and LRTI patients facing higher risks. AE risks varied between infections and COVID-19 periods. These findings underscore the necessity for cautious antibiotic prescribing and call for further exploration into the intricate dynamics between antibiotic use, AEs, and the pandemic.

BACKGROUND: We assessed experiences of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaginal self-sampling and future screening preferences in an ethnically and socio-economically diverse group of women overdue for cervical screening.
METHODS: A postal questionnaire was embedded in the YouScreen self-sampling trial in England: 32.5% (2712/8338) of kit completers returned the survey. Kit non-completers were encouraged to return a questionnaire, but no responses were received. Participants were ethnically diverse (40.3% came from ethnic minority backgrounds), and 59.1% came from the two most deprived quintiles. Differences in confidence in kit completion, trust in the test results and intention to attend a follow-up test if HPV-positive were evaluated using Pearson\'s χ2 analyses. Binary logistic regression models explored predictors of a future screening choice and preferences for urine versus vaginal self-sampling.
RESULTS: Most kit-completers reported high confidence in self-sampling (82.6%) and high trust in the results (79.9%), but experiences varied by ethnicity and screening status. Most free-text comments were positive but some reported difficulties using the device, pain or discomfort. Most women would opt for self-sampling in the future (71.3% vs. 10.4% for a clinician-taken test) and it was more often preferred by ethnic minority groups, overdue screeners and never attenders. Urine self-tests were preferred to vaginal tests (41.9% vs. 15.4%), especially among women from Asian, Black or Other Ethnic backgrounds.
CONCLUSIONS: Kit-completers were confident, found the test easy to complete, and trusted the self-sample results. However, experiences varied by ethnic group and some women highlighted difficulties with the kit. Most women would prefer self-sampling in the future, but it was not a universal preference, so offering a choice will be important.
UNASSIGNED: We did not have direct patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in the questionnaire design. However, patients and public representatives did input into the design of the YouScreen trial and reviewed the wider study materials (e.g. participant information sheet).
BACKGROUND: This questionnaire study was embedded in the YouScreen trial. The protocol for the YouScreen trial is available at https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12759467. The National Institute for Health Research 43 Clinical Research Network (NIHR CRN) Central Portfolio Management System (CPMS) ID is 4441934.

BACKGROUND: Randomised trials are essential to reliably assess medical interventions. Nevertheless, interpretation of such studies, particularly when considering absolute effects, is enhanced by understanding how the trial population may differ from the populations it aims to represent.
METHODS: We compared baseline characteristics and mortality of RECOVERY participants recruited in England (n = 38,510) with a reference population hospitalised with COVID-19 in England (n = 346,271) from March 2020 to November 2021. We used linked hospitalisation and mortality data for both cohorts to extract demographics, comorbidity/frailty scores, and crude and age- and sex-adjusted 28-day all-cause mortality.
RESULTS: Demographics of RECOVERY participants were broadly similar to the reference population, but RECOVERY participants were younger (mean age [standard deviation]: RECOVERY 62.6 [15.3] vs reference 65.7 [18.5] years) and less frequently female (37% vs 45%). Comorbidity and frailty scores were lower in RECOVERY, but differences were attenuated after age stratification. Age- and sex-adjusted 28-day mortality declined over time but was similar between cohorts across the study period (RECOVERY 23.7% [95% confidence interval: 23.3-24.1%]; vs reference 24.8% [24.6-25.0%]), except during the first pandemic wave in the UK (March-May 2020) when adjusted mortality was lower in RECOVERY.
CONCLUSIONS: Adjusted 28-day mortality in RECOVERY was similar to a nationwide reference population of patients admitted with COVID-19 in England during the same period but varied substantially over time in both cohorts. Therefore, the absolute effect estimates from RECOVERY were broadly applicable to the target population at the time but should be interpreted in the light of current mortality estimates.
BACKGROUND: ISRCTN50189673- Feb. 04, 2020, NCT04381936- May 11, 2020.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol-related mortality and morbidity increased during the COVID-19 pandemic in England, with people from lower-socioeconomic groups disproportionately affected. The North East and North Cumbria (NENC) region has high levels of deprivation and the highest rates of alcohol-related harm in England. Consequently, there is an urgent need for the implementation of evidence-based preventative approaches such as identifying people at risk of alcohol harm and providing them with appropriate support. Non-alcohol specialist secondary care clinicians could play a key role in delivering these interventions, but current implementation remains limited. In this study we aimed to explore current practices and challenges around identifying, supporting, and signposting patients with Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) in secondary care hospitals in the NENC through the accounts of staff in the post COVID-19 context.
METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 30 non-alcohol specialist staff (10 doctors, 20 nurses) in eight secondary care hospitals across the NENC between June and October 2021. Data were analysed inductively and deductively to identify key codes and themes, with Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) then used to structure the findings.
RESULTS: Findings were grouped using the NPT domains \'implementation contexts\' and \'implementation mechanisms\'. The following implementation contexts were identified as key factors limiting the implementation of alcohol prevention work: poverty which has been exacerbated by COVID-19 and the prioritisation of acute presentations (negotiating capacity); structural stigma (strategic intentions); and relational stigma (reframing organisational logics). Implementation mechanisms identified as barriers were: workforce knowledge and skills (cognitive participation); the perception that other departments and roles were better placed to deliver this preventative work than their own (collective action); and the perceived futility and negative feedback cycle (reflexive monitoring).
CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19, has generated additional challenges to identifying, supporting, and signposting patients with AUD in secondary care hospitals in the NENC. Our interpretation suggests that implementation contexts, in particular structural stigma and growing economic disparity, are the greatest barriers to implementation of evidence-based care in this area. Thus, while some implementation mechanisms can be addressed at a local policy and practice level via improved training and support, system-wide action is needed to enable sustained delivery of preventative alcohol work in these settings.

Every year, there are ~100,000 hospital admissions for asthma in the UK, many of which are potentially preventable. Evidence suggests that carefully conceptualised and implemented audit and feedback (A&F) cycles have the potential to improve clinical outcomes for those with chronic conditions. We wanted to investigate the technical feasibility of developing a near-real time asthma dashboard to support A&F interventions for asthma management in primary care. We extracted cross-sectional data on asthma from 756 participating GP practices in the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre (RCGP RSC) database in England comprising 7.6 million registered people. Summary indicators for a GP practice were compared to all participating RCGP RSC practices using practice-level data, for the week 6-12th-Mar-2023. A weekly, automated asthma dashboard with features that can support electronic-A&F cycles that compared key asthma indicators for a GP practice to RCGP RSC could be created ( https://tinyurl.com/3ydtrt85 ): 12-weeks-incidence 0.4% vs 0.4%, annual prevalence 6.1% vs 6.7%, inhaled relievers to preventer 1.2 vs 1.1, self-management plan given 83.4% vs 60.8%, annual reviews 36.8% vs 57.3%, prednisolone prescriptions 2.0% vs 3.2%, influenza vaccination 56.6% vs 55.5%, pneumococcal vaccination ever (aged ≥65 years) 90.2% vs 84.1% and current smokers 14.9% vs 14.8%. Across the RCGP RSC, the rate of hospitalisations was 0.024%; comparative data had to be suppressed for the study practice because of small numbers. We have successfully created an automated near real-time asthma dashboard that can be used to support A&F initiatives to improve asthma care and outcomes in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the magnitude and shape of the relationship between dental caries experience and the source of oral health information in England.
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study using the Child Dental Health Survey 2013 in England. Using a negative binomial model, the relationship between the number of decayed, missing, filled teeth (DMFT) of 12- and 15-year-old students and their primary source of oral health information was assessed. The sources of oral health information included parents, television, newspapers, the Internet, and social media. The adjusted model included age, sex, and the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD). R was used for data handling, analysis and reporting.
RESULTS: Overall, 2,372 children were assessed (48.7% female, 48.6% 12-year-old). For the majority, the primary source of oral health information was their parents (89.5%) followed by the Internet (43.4%). Over nine-tenth of the participants had a DMFT = 0. The adjusted model showed that the prevalence rate of DMFT for the children whose primary source of information is their parents (0.45) or television (0.62) is lower than 1. The prevalence rate for the Internet (1.17) and social media (1.67) was higher than 1, but they were removed from the final model due to being non-statistically significant. Age and deprivation had a direct relationship with the prevalence rate of DMFT, meaning that 15-year-olds and children from more deprived areas had a higher prevalence rate of DMFT.
CONCLUSIONS: Children whose primary source of oral health information was their parents or television had a lower DMFT. On the contrary, using the Internet or social media as the source of oral health information was associated with higher caries experience among schoolchildren.

UNASSIGNED: During the COVID-19 pandemic, public health teams tried several approaches to circulate accurate health information and engage with community members to understand what they need from public health services. Two such approaches were community champions and community participatory action research (CPAR). This study evaluates two champion programmes and a CPAR programme in terms of what worked, for whom, and in what contexts, including the funding and resourcing associated with implementation.
UNASSIGNED: Between June 2022 and June 2023, a realist evaluation of three distinct case studies (COVID-19 champions, Vaccine Champions, and CPAR programmes) in the city of Southampton in England was conducted in three stages: development of initial programme theories and collection of additional contextual information, including funding and resources associated with delivering each programme; initial programme theory testing; synthesis of final programme theories. Data was collected primarily through semi-structured interviews (n = 29) across programme and training leads, voluntary services, community organisations, volunteers, and local community members, and one focus group with local community members (n = 8).
UNASSIGNED: The City Council used £642 k from two funding awards to deliver the programmes: COVID-19 Champions £41 k; Vaccine Champions £485 k; and CPAR programmes £115 k. Twenty-eight initial programme theories were generated, which were \"tested\" to support, refine, or refute context-mechanism-outcome relationships, resulting finally in a set of 22 programme theories across the three programmes. Six demi-regularities were generated, each featuring in multiple programme theories, and providing data on how and why these programmes can work, and in which contexts: (1) building trust through community connections; (2) fostering relationships and collaboration; (3) provision of training and resources; (4) local community knowledge and expertise; (5) community representation and leadership; (6) appropriate communication and information sharing.
UNASSIGNED: This study provides new knowledge and understanding of the factors affecting the implementation of community champion and CPAR approaches during public health emergencies. These findings suggest that representation and involvement of community members, establishing and building on trust, adequate training and resources, and clear communication from trusted community members and organisations are catalysts for meaningful engagement with communities.Evaluation registration: Research Registry identifier: researchregistry8094.

(1) Background: Pre-pandemic, child and adolescent mental health service (CAMHS) referrals were paper based in Liverpool and Sefton (England, United Kingdom), causing delays in waiting times. The \"CYP as One\" online mental health referral platform was co-created to overcome these challenges. (2) Methods: This study aims to improve \"CYP as One\" accessibility and usability and, subsequently, support CAMHS to improve waiting times. The current study utilised the Living Lab approach. We conducted content analysis on completed online referrals extracted from the \"CYP as One\" platform. These findings were supplemented by seven online focus groups, with 16-19-year-old young people, parents of children under 16, and health service providers. Thematic analysis was conducted on all data. (3) Results: The thematic analysis returned seven themes, namely (i) \"CYP as One\" vs. Traditional Referrals, (ii) Gender and Language Dynamics, (iii) Digital Empathy in Action, (iv) the Influence of the Provider Perspective, (v) Age and Social Sensitivity, (vi) Enhancing Access to Information, and (vii) Boosting Admin and Clinical Efficiency. (4) Conclusions: Digital content that seeks to replace in-person referrals can provide adequate support to children and young people who have faced difficulties accessing mental health services.

BACKGROUND: Interest in modifiable risk factors (MRFs) for dementia is high, given the personal, social, and economic impact of the disorder, especially in ageing societies such as the United Kingdom. Exploring the population attributable fraction (PAF) of dementia attributable to MRFs and how this may have changed over time remains unclear. Unravelling the temporal dynamics of MRFs is crucial for informing the development of evidence-based and effective public health policies. This investigation examined the temporal trajectories of MRFs for dementia in England.
METHODS: We used data from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing, a panel study over eight waves collected between 2004 and 2019 (76,904 interviews in total). We calculated the PAFs for twelve MRFs (including six early- to mid-life factors and six late-life factors), as recommended by the Lancet Commission, and the individual weighted PAFs (IW-PAFs) for each risk factor. Temporal trends were analysed to understand the changes in the overall PAF and IW-PAF over the study period. Subgroup analyses were conducted by sex and socioeconomic status (SES).
RESULTS: The overall PAF for dementia MRFs changed from 46.73% in 2004/2005 to 36.79% in 2018/2019, though this trend was not statistically significant. During 2004-2019, hypertension, with an average IW-PAF of 8.21%, was the primary modifiable determinant of dementia, followed by obesity (6.16%), social isolation (5.61%), hearing loss (4.81%), depression (4.72%), low education (4.63%), physical inactivity (3.26%), diabetes mellitus (2.49%), smoking (2.0%), excessive alcohol consumption (1.16%), air pollution (0.42%), and traumatic brain injury (TBI) (0.26%). During 2004-2019, only IW-PAFs of low education, social isolation, and smoking showed significant decreasing trends, while IW-PAFs of other factors either did not change significantly or increased (including TBI, diabetes mellitus, and air pollution). Upon sex-specific disaggregation, a higher overall PAF for MRFs was found among women, predominantly associated with later-life risk factors, most notably social isolation, depression, and physical inactivity. Additionally, hearing loss, classified as an early- to mid-life factor, played a supplementary role in the identified sex disparity. A comparable discrepancy was evident upon PAF evaluation by SES, with lower income groups experiencing a higher dementia risk, largely tied to later-life factors such as social isolation, physical inactivity, depression, and smoking. Early- to mid-life factors, in particular, low education and obesity, were also observed to contribute to the SES-associated divergence in dementia risk. Temporal PAF and IW-PAF trends, stratified by sex and SES, revealed that MRF PAF gaps across sex or SES categories have persisted or increased.
CONCLUSIONS: In England, there was little change over time in the proportion of dementia attributable to known modifiable risk factors. The observed trends underscore the continuing relevance of these risk factors and the need for targeted public health strategies to address them.