Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background There is consistent evidence that individuals in higher socioeconomic status groups are more likely to report exceeding recommended drinking limits, but those in lower socioeconomic status groups experience more alcohol-related harm. This has been called the ‘alcohol harm paradox’. Such studies typically use standard cut-offs to define heavy drinking, which are exceeded by a large proportion of adults. Our study pools data from six years (2008–2013) of the population-based Health Survey for England to test whether the socioeconomic distribution of more extreme levels of drinking could help explain the paradox. Methods The study included 51,498 adults from a representative sample of the adult population of England for a cross-sectional analysis of associations between socioeconomic status and self-reported drinking. Heavy weekly drinking was measured at four thresholds, ranging from 112 g+/168 g + (alcohol for women/men, or 14/21 UK standard units) to 680 g+/880 g + (or 85/110 UK standard units) per week. Heavy episodic drinking was also measured at four thresholds, from 48 g+/64 g + (or 6/8 UK standard units) to 192 g+/256 g + (or 24/32 UK standard units) in one day. Socioeconomic status indicators were equivalised household income, education, occupation and neighbourhood deprivation. Results Lower socioeconomic status was associated with lower likelihoods of exceeding recommended limits for weekly and episodic drinking, and higher likelihoods of exceeding more extreme thresholds. For example, participants in routine or manual occupations had 0.65 (95 % CI 0.57–0.74) times the odds of exceeding the recommended weekly limit compared to those in ‘higher managerial’ occupations, and 2.15 (95 % CI 1.06–4.36) times the odds of exceeding the highest threshold. Similarly, participants in the lowest income quintile had 0.60 (95 % CI 0.52–0.69) times the odds of exceeding the recommended weekly limit when compared to the highest quintile, and 2.30 (95 % CI 1.28–4.13) times the odds of exceeding the highest threshold. Conclusions Low socioeconomic status groups are more likely to drink at extreme levels, which may partially explain the alcohol harm paradox. Policies that address alcohol-related health inequalities need to consider extreme drinking levels in some sub-groups that may be associated with multiple markers of deprivation. This will require a more disaggregated understanding of drinking practices.

Hospital patients who use illicit opioids such as heroin may use drugs during an admission or leave the hospital in order to use drugs. There have been reports of patients found dead from drug poisoning on the hospital premises or shortly after leaving the hospital. This study examines whether hospital admission and discharge are associated with increased risk of opioid-related death. We conducted a case-crossover study of opioid-related deaths in England. Our study included 13,609 deaths between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2019 among individuals aged 18 to 64. For each death, we sampled 5 control days from the period 730 to 28 days before death. We used data from the national Hospital Episode Statistics database to determine the time proximity of deaths and control days to hospital admissions. We estimated the association between hospital admission and opioid-related death using conditional logistic regression, with a reference category of time neither admitted to the hospital nor within 14 days of discharge. A total of 236/13,609 deaths (1.7%) occurred following drug use while admitted to the hospital. The risk during hospital admissions was similar or lower than periods neither admitted to the hospital nor recently discharged, with odds ratios 1.03 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.21; p = 0.75) for the first 14 days of an admission and 0.41 (95% CI 0.30 to 0.56; p < 0.001) for days 15 onwards. 1,088/13,609 deaths (8.0%) occurred in the 14 days after discharge. The risk of opioid-related death increased in this period, with odds ratios of 4.39 (95% CI 3.75 to 5.14; p < 0.001) on days 1 to 2 after discharge and 2.09 (95% CI 1.92 to 2.28; p < 0.001) on days 3 to 14. 11,629/13,609 deaths (85.5%) did not occur close to a hospital admission, and the remaining 656/13,609 deaths (4.8%) occurred in hospital following admission due to drug poisoning. Risk was greater for patients discharged from psychiatric admissions, those who left the hospital against medical advice, and those leaving the hospital after admissions of 7 days or more. The main limitation of the method is that it does not control for time-varying health or drug use within individuals; therefore, hospital admissions coinciding with high-risk periods may in part explain the results. Discharge from the hospital is associated with an acute increase in the risk of opioid-related death, and 1 in 14 opioid-related deaths in England happens in the 2 weeks after the hospital discharge. This supports interventions that prevent early discharge and improve linkage with community drug treatment and harm reduction services.

People who use heroin and other illicit opioids are at high risk of fatal overdose in the days after hospital discharge, but the reasons for this risk have not been studied. We used the National Programme on Substance Abuse Deaths, a database of coroner reports for deaths following psychoactive drug use in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. We selected reports where the death occurred between 2010 and 2021, an opioid was detected in toxicology testing, the death was related to nonmedical opioid use, and death was either during an acute medical or psychiatric hospital admission or within 14 days after discharge. We used thematic framework analysis of factors that may contribute to the risk of death during hospital admission or after discharge. We identified 121 coroners' reports; 42 where a patient died after using drugs during hospital admission, and 79 where death occurred shortly after discharge. The median age at death was 40 (IQR 34-46); 88 (73%) were male; and sedatives additional to opioids were detected at postmortem in 88 cases (73%), most commonly benzodiazepines. In thematic framework analysis, we categorised potential causes of fatal opioid overdose into three areas: (a) hospital policies and actions. Zero-tolerance policies mean that patients conceal drug use and use drugs in unsafe places such as locked bathrooms. Patients may be discharged to locations such as temporary hostels or the street while recovering. Some patients bring their own medicines or illicit opioids due to expectations of low-quality care, including undertreated withdrawal or pain; (b) high-risk use of sedatives. People may increase sedative use to manage symptoms of acute illness or a mental health crisis, and some may lose tolerance to opioids during a hospital admission; (c) declining health. Physical health and mobility problems posed barriers to post-discharge treatment for substance use, and some patients had sudden deteriorations in health that may have contributed to respiratory depression. Hospital admissions are associated with acute health crises that increase the risk of fatal overdose for patients who use illicit opioids. Hospitals need guidance to help them care for this patient group, particularly in relation to withdrawal management, harm reduction interventions such as take-home naloxone, discharge planning including continuation of opioid agonist therapy during recovery, management of poly-sedative use, and access to palliative care.

Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTI) are a common but preventable cause of morbidity and mortality among people who inject drugs (PWID). They can be severe, and hospitalisations of PWID with SSTI are rising. The most common SSTI presentations are abscesses and cellulitis. We used data from Care & Prevent, a cross-sectional community survey of PWID in London. We reported the lifetime prevalence of SSTI, severity of infections, key risk factors, and associated sequelae. Pictorial questions were used to assess SSTI severity. We recruited 455 PWID. SSTI lifetime prevalence was high: 64% reported an abscess and/or cellulitis. Over one-third (37%) reported a severe infection, 137 (47%) reported hospitalisation. SSTIrisk factors were: aged 35+ years, injecting once or more times a day, subcutaneous or intra-muscular injections, and making four or more attempts to achieve an injection. Those who reported having other health conditions were at higher odds of having an abscess or cellulitis, with risk tending to increase with number of reported conditions. Half (46%) employed self-care for their worst SSTI, and 43% waited for ten or more days before seeking medical care or not seeking medical care at all. Abscess and cellulitis are very common among PWID in London. We corroborate findings indicating SSTIs are associated with risks, e.g. venous access problems, as well as other co-morbid conditions: septicaemia, endocarditis, DVT, and kidney disease. These co-morbidities may impact SSTIs severity and outcomes. Delayed healthcare seeking potentially exacerbates infection severity, which in turn increases poorer health outcomes and complications.

Background : International and UK data suggest that Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups are at increased risk of infection and death from COVID-19. We aimed to explore the risk of death in minority ethnic groups in England using data reported by NHS England. Methods : We used NHS data on patients with a positive COVID-19 test who died in hospitals in England published on 28th April, with deaths by ethnicity available from 1st March 2020 up to 5pm on 21 April 2020. We undertook indirect standardisation of these data (using the whole population of England as the reference) to produce ethnic specific standardised mortality ratios (SMRs) adjusted for age and geographical region. Results : The largest total number of deaths in minority ethnic groups were Indian (492 deaths) and Black Caribbean (460 deaths) groups. Adjusting for region we found a lower risk of death for White Irish (SMR 0.52; 95%CIs 0.45-0.60) and White British ethnic groups (0.88; 95%CIs 0.86-0.0.89), but increased risk of death for Black African (3.24; 95%CIs 2.90-3.62), Black Caribbean (2.21; 95%CIs 2.02-2.41), Pakistani (3.29; 95%CIs 2.96-3.64), Bangladeshi (2.41; 95%CIs 1.98-2.91) and Indian (1.70; 95%CIs 1.56-1.85) minority ethnic groups. Conclusion: Our analysis adds to the evidence that BAME people are at increased risk of death from COVID-19 even after adjusting for geographical region, but was limited by the lack of data on deaths outside of NHS settings and ethnicity denominator data being based on the 2011 census. Despite these limitations, we believe there is an urgent need to take action to reduce the risk of death for BAME groups and better understand why some ethnic groups experience greater risk. Actions that are likely to reduce these inequities include ensuring adequate income protection, reducing occupational risks, reducing barriers in accessing healthcare and providing culturally and linguistically appropriate public health communications.

Injecting-related bacterial and fungal infections are associated with significant morbidity and mortality among people who inject drugs (PWID), and they are increasing in incidence. Following hospitalization with an injecting-related infection, use of opioid agonist treatment (OAT; methadone or buprenorphine) may be associated with reduced risk of death or rehospitalization with an injecting-related infection. Data came from the Opioid Agonist Treatment Safety (OATS) study, an administrative linkage cohort including all people in New South Wales, Australia, who accessed OAT between July 1, 2001 and June 28, 2018. Included participants survived a hospitalization with injecting-related infections (i.e., skin and soft-tissue infection, sepsis/bacteremia, endocarditis, osteomyelitis, septic arthritis, or epidural/brain abscess). Outcomes were all-cause death and rehospitalization for injecting-related infections. OAT exposure was classified as time varying by days on or off treatment, following hospital discharge. We used separate Cox proportional hazards models to assess associations between each outcome and OAT exposure. The study included 8,943 participants (mean age 39 years, standard deviation [SD] 11 years; 34% women). The most common infections during participants' index hospitalizations were skin and soft tissue (7,021; 79%), sepsis/bacteremia (1,207; 14%), and endocarditis (431; 5%). During median 6.56 years follow-up, 1,481 (17%) participants died; use of OAT was associated with lower hazard of death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57 to 0.70). During median 3.41 years follow-up, 3,653 (41%) were rehospitalized for injecting-related infections; use of OAT was associated with lower hazard of these rehospitalizations (aHR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.96). Study limitations include the use of routinely collected administrative data, which lacks information on other risk factors for injecting-related infections including injecting practices, injection stimulant use, housing status, and access to harm reduction services (e.g., needle exchange and supervised injecting sites); we also lacked information on OAT medication dosages. Following hospitalizations with injection drug use-associated bacterial and fungal infections, use of OAT is associated with lower risks of death and recurrent injecting-related infections among people with opioid use disorder.

ObjectivesTo understand how clinicians working in addiction services perceive their responsibilities for physical healthcare of clients who use opioids, and how physical healthcare could be improved for this group.DesignQualitative study comprising semistructured interviews.Participants16 clinicians, including nurses and nurse practitioners, nurse consultants, addiction psychiatrists, specialist general practitioners and psychiatry specialty registrars.SettingCommunity-based drug and alcohol treatment services in the UK, with services including outpatient opioid agonist therapy.ResultsWe identified three overarching themes. First, clients have unmet physical health needs that are often first identified in community drug and alcohol services. Participants reported attempts to improve their clients’ access to healthcare by liaising directly with health services and undertaking other forms of health advocacy, but report limited success, with many referrals ending in non-attendance. Second, most participants saw their role as supporting access to mainstream health services rather than providing physical healthcare directly, though sometimes reported frustration at being unable to provide certain treatments such as antibiotics for a respiratory infection. A minority of participants felt that people who use illicit opioids would be best served by an integrated ‘one-stop-shop’ model, but felt this model is currently unlikely to receive funding. Third, participants felt isolated from other health services, in part due to commissioning arrangements in which funding is provided through local government rather than the National Health Service.ConclusionsClinicians participating in this study serve a patient group with unmet physical health needs, but lack the resources to respond effectively to these needs.

Background Vaping products are effective for helping people to stop smoking and may therefore offer a potential means to reduce high rates of smoking in socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. This study aimed to examine current patterns and perceptions of vaping among people living in social housing in Great Britain compared with those living in other housing types. Methods Data were from the Smoking Toolkit Study; a nationally-representative survey conducted in 2023 ( n  = 23,245). Logistic regression tested cross-sectional associations between living in social (vs. other) housing and current vaping among adults; vaping frequency, device type, nicotine concentration, and source of purchase among current vapers; use of vaping products as a smoking cessation aid among past-year smokers who tried to quit; and harm perceptions of vaping products relative to cigarettes among current smokers. Results Current vaping prevalence was twice as high among adults living in social housing (19.4%) compared with those in other housing types (10.4%; OR = 2.07, 95%CI = 1.84–2.33). This was partly explained by differences in sociodemographic characteristics and smoking status; after adjustment, the odds of being a current vaper were 33% higher (OR adj =1.33, 95%CI = 1.14–1.54). Among vapers, there were no notable differences by housing tenure in vaping frequency, main device type used, usual nicotine concentration, usual source of purchase, or use as a smoking cessation aid. However, current smokers living in social housing were more likely to think vaping is more harmful than cigarettes (31.6% vs. 21.8%; OR adj =1.61, 95%CI = 1.30–1.99). Conclusions In Great Britain, adults who live in social housing are more likely to vape than those who live in other housing types, even after accounting for their younger age and higher smoking rates. However, misperceptions about the relative harms of vaping products and tobacco are common among smokers living in social housing. Interventions addressing these misperceptions could help encourage more people living in social housing to switch from smoking to vaping and reduce smoking-related health inequalities. Pre-registration The study protocol and analysis plan were pre-registered on Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/n3mvs/).

Abstract Background Studies of adults show that adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are associated with health and social problems and are more common among people living in deprived areas. However, there is limited information about the geographical pattern of contemporary ACEs. Methods We used data from the police, social services, schools and vital statistics in England to calculate population rates of events that represent childhood adversity. We constructed an ‘ACE Index’ that summarizes the relative frequency of ACEs at local authority level, informed by the methods of the Index of Multiple Deprivation. We explored associations between the ACE Index and local characteristics in cross-sectional ecological analysis. Results The ACE Index was strongly associated with the proportion of children that live in income-deprived households (child poverty). In addition, the ACE Index was independently associated with higher population density and was higher in certain regions, particularly the north-east. Conclusions The association between ACEs and child poverty provides evidence of a process in which deprivation increases the risk of adverse experiences in childhood. The ACE Index can inform allocation of resources for prevention and mitigation of ACEs.

To examine patterns of hazardous, harmful and dependent drinking across different socio-economic groups, and how this relationship may be explained by common mental disorder. Between 2011-2013, 1,052 participants (age range 17-91, 53% female) were interviewed for Phase 2 of the South East London Community Health study. Latent class analysis was used to define six groups based on multiple indicators of socio-economic status in three domains. Alcohol use (low risk, hazardous, harmful/dependent) was measured using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test and the presence of common mental disorder was measured using the revised Clinical Interview Schedule. Multinomial regression was used to explore associations with hazardous, harmful and dependent alcohol use, including after adjustment for common mental disorder. Harmful and dependent drinking was more common among people in Class 2 'economically inactive renters' (relative risk ratio (RRR) 3.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-8.71), Class 3 'economically inactive homeowners' (RRR 4.11, 95% CI 1.19-14.20) and Class 6 'professional renters' (RRR 3.51, 95% CI 1.14-10.78) than in Class 1 'professional homeowners'. Prevalent common mental disorder explained some of the increased risk of harmful or dependent drinking in Class 2, but not Class 3 or 6. Across distinct socio-economic groups in a large inner-city sample, we found important differences in harmful and dependent drinking, only some of which were explained by common mental disorder. The increased risk of harmful or dependent drinking across classes which are very distinct from each other suggests differing underlying drivers of drinking across these groups. A nuanced understanding of alcohol use and problems is necessary to understand the inequalities in alcohol harms.