Explore the vast range of titles available.

Current UK vaccination policy is to offer future COVID-19 booster doses to individuals at high risk of serious illness from COVID-19, but it is still uncertain which groups of the population could benefit most. In response to an urgent request from the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, we aimed to identify risk factors for severe COVID-19 outcomes (ie, COVID-19-related hospitalisation or death) in individuals who had completed their primary COVID-19 vaccination schedule and had received the first booster vaccine. We constructed prospective cohorts across all four UK nations through linkages of primary care, RT-PCR testing, vaccination, hospitalisation, and mortality data on 30 million people. We included individuals who received primary vaccine doses of BNT162b2 (tozinameran; Pfizer–BioNTech) or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford–AstraZeneca) vaccines in our initial analyses. We then restricted analyses to those given a BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 (elasomeran; Moderna) booster and had a severe COVID-19 outcome between Dec 20, 2021, and Feb 28, 2022 (when the omicron (B.1.1.529) variant was dominant). We fitted time-dependent Poisson regression models and calculated adjusted rate ratios (aRRs) and 95% CIs for the associations between risk factors and COVID-19-related hospitalisation or death. We adjusted for a range of potential covariates, including age, sex, comorbidities, and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Stratified analyses were conducted by vaccine type. We then did pooled analyses across UK nations using fixed-effect meta-analyses. Between Dec 8, 2020, and Feb 28, 2022, 17 337 580 individuals completed their primary vaccine schedule and 14 698 030 individuals received a booster dose. Between Dec 20, 2021, and Feb 28, 2022, 59 510 (0·3%) of the primary vaccine group and 26 100 (0·2%) of those who received their booster had severe COVID-19 outcomes. The risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes reduced after receiving the booster (rate change: 8·8 events per 1000 person-years to 7·6 events per 1000 person-years). Older adults (≥80 years vs 18–49 years; aRR 3·60 [95% CI 3·45–3·75]), those with comorbidities (≥5 comorbidities vs none; 9·51 [9·07–9·97]), being male (male vs female; 1·23 [1·20–1·26]), and those with certain underlying health conditions—in particular, individuals receiving immunosuppressants (yes vs no; 5·80 [5·53–6·09])—and those with chronic kidney disease (stage 5 vs no; 3·71 [2·90–4·74]) remained at high risk despite the initial booster. Individuals with a history of COVID-19 infection were at reduced risk (infected ≥9 months before booster dose vs no previous infection; aRR 0·41 [95% CI 0·29–0·58]). Older people, those with multimorbidity, and those with specific underlying health conditions remain at increased risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation and death after the initial vaccine booster and should, therefore, be prioritised for additional boosters, including novel optimised versions, and the increasing array of COVID-19 therapeutics. National Core Studies–Immunity, UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Health Data Research UK, the Scottish Government, and the University of Edinburgh.

SARS-CoV-2 infection in children and young people (CYP) can lead to life-threatening COVID-19, transmission within households and schools, and the development of long COVID. Using linked health and administrative data, we investigated vaccine uptake among 3,433,483 CYP aged 5–17 years across all UK nations between 4th August 2021 and 31st May 2022. We constructed national cohorts and undertook multi-state modelling and meta-analysis to identify associations between demographic variables and vaccine uptake. We found that uptake of the first COVID-19 vaccine among CYP was low across all four nations compared to other age groups and diminished with subsequent doses. Age and vaccination status of adults living in the same household were identified as important risk factors associated with vaccine uptake in CYP. For example, 5–11 year-olds were less likely to receive their first vaccine compared to 16–17 year-olds (adjusted Hazard Ratio [aHR]: 0.10 (95%CI: 0.06–0.19)), and CYP in unvaccinated households were less likely to receive their first vaccine compared to CYP in partially vaccinated households (aHR: 0.19, 95%CI 0.13–0.29). COVID-19 vaccination has been recommended for children and young people (aged 5–17) in the UK since 2021/2022. In this study, the authors use linked health and administrative data to estimate vaccine uptake in this age group and show that age and adult household vaccination status are associated with uptake.

Background Primary care plays a central role in most, if not all, health care systems including the care of vulnerable populations such as people who have been incarcerated. Studies linking incarceration records to health care data can improve understanding about health care access following release from prison. This review maps evidence from data-linkage studies about primary care use after prison release. Methods The framework by Arksey and O’Malley and guidance by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) were used in this review. This scoping review followed methods published in a study protocol. Searches were performed (January 2012-March 2023) in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science Core Collection using key-terms relating to two areas: (i) people who have been incarcerated and (ii) primary care. Using eligibility criteria, two authors independently screened publication titles and abstracts (step 1), and subsequently, screened full text publications (step 2). Discrepancies were resolved with a third author. Two authors independently charted data from included publications. Findings were mapped by methodology, key findings and gaps in research. Results The database searches generated 1,050 publications which were screened by title and abstract. Following this, publications were fully screened ( n  = 63 reviewer 1 and n  = 87 reviewer 2), leading to the inclusion of 17 publications. Among the included studies, primary care use after prison release was variable. Early contact with primary care services after prison release (e.g. first month) was positively associated with an increased health service use, but an investigation found that a large proportion of individuals did not access primary care during the first month. The quality of care was found to be largely inadequate (measured continuity of care) for moderate multimorbidity. There were lower levels of colorectal and breast cancer screening among people released from custody. The review identified studies of enhanced primary care programmes for individuals following release from prison, with studies reporting a reduction in reincarceration and criminal justice system costs. Conclusions This review has suggested mixed evidence regarding primary care use after prison release and has highlighted challenges and areas of suboptimal care. Further research has been discussed in relation to the scoping review findings.

•90% vaccine uptake by 30 Sept 2021, but uptake in more deprived areas was lower.•BNT162b2 was 85% effective after 2 weeks from second dose and 52% from 22 weeks.•Equitable effectiveness of BNT162b2 after second dose. While population estimates suggest high vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection, the protection for health care workers, who are at higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure, is less understood. We conducted a national cohort study of health care workers in Wales (UK) from 7 December 2020 to 30 September 2021. We examined uptake of any COVID-19 vaccine, and the effectiveness of BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) against polymerase chain reaction (PCR) confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. We used linked and routinely collected national-scale data within the SAIL Databank. Data were available on 82,959 health care workers in Wales, with exposure extending to 26 weeks after second doses. Overall vaccine uptake was high (90%), with most health care workers receiving theBNT162b2 vaccine (79%). Vaccine uptake differed by age, staff role, socioeconomic status; those aged 50–59 and 60+ years old were 1.6 times more likely to get vaccinated than those aged 16–29. Medical and dental staff, and Allied Health Practitioners were 1.5 and 1.1 times more likely to get vaccinated, compared to nursing and midwifery staff. The effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine was found to be strong and consistent across the characteristics considered; 52% three to six weeks after first dose, 86% from two weeks after second dose, though this declined to 53% from 22 weeks after the second dose. With some variation in rate of uptake, those who were vaccinated had a reduced risk of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared to those unvaccinated. Second dose has provided stronger protection for longer than first dose but our study is consistent with waning from seven weeks onwards.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has disproportionately affected people with mental health conditions. We investigated the association between receiving psychotropic drugs, as an indicator of mental health conditions, and COVID-19 vaccine uptake. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of a prospective cohort of the Northern Ireland adult population using national linked primary care registration, vaccination, secondary care and pharmacy dispensing data. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses investigated the association between anxiolytic, antidepressant, antipsychotic, and hypnotic use and COVID-19 vaccination status, accounting for age, gender, deprivation and comorbidities. Receiving any COVID-19 vaccine was the primary outcome. There were 1 433 814 individuals, of whom 1 166 917 received a COVID-19 vaccination. Psychotropic medications were dispensed to 267 049 people. In univariable analysis, people who received any psychotropic medication had greater odds of receiving COVID-19 vaccination: odds ratio (OR) = 1.42 (95% CI 1.41-1.44). However, after adjustment, psychotropic medication use was associated with reduced odds of vaccination (OR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.89-0.91). People who received anxiolytics (OR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.61-0.65), antipsychotics (OR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.73-0.78) and hypnotics (OR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.87-0.93) had reduced odds of being vaccinated. Antidepressant use was not associated with vaccination (OR = 1.02, 95% CI 1.00-1.03). We found significantly lower odds of vaccination in people who were receiving treatment with anxiolytic and antipsychotic medications. There is an urgent need for evidence-based, tailored vaccine support for people with mental health conditions.

The Data and Connectivity COVID-19 Vaccines Pharmacovigilance (DaC-VaP) UK-wide collaboration was created to monitor vaccine uptake and effectiveness and provide pharmacovigilance using routine clinical and administrative data. To monitor these, pooled analyses may be needed. However, variation in terminologies present a barrier as England uses the Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms (SNOMED CT), while the rest of the United Kingdom uses the Read v2 terminology in primary care. The availability of data sources is not uniform across the United Kingdom. This study aims to use the concept mappings in the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) common data model (CDM) to identify common concepts recorded and to report these in a repeated cross-sectional study. We planned to do this for vaccine coverage and 2 adverse events of interest (AEIs), cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) and anaphylaxis. We identified concept mappings to SNOMED CT, Read v2, the World Health Organization's International Classification of Disease Tenth Revision (ICD-10) terminology, and the UK Dictionary of Medicines and Devices (dm+d). Exposures and outcomes of interest to DaC-VaP for pharmacovigilance studies were selected. Mappings of these variables to different terminologies used across the United Kingdom's devolved nations' health services were identified from the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) Automated Terminology Harmonization, Extraction, and Normalization for Analytics (ATHENA) online browser. Lead analysts from each nation then confirmed or added to the mappings identified. These mappings were then used to report AEIs in a common format. We reported rates for windows of 0-2 and 3-28 days postvaccine every 28 days. We listed the mappings between Read v2, SNOMED CT, ICD-10, and dm+d. For vaccine exposure, we found clear mapping from OMOP to our clinical terminologies, though dm+d had codes not listed by OMOP at the time of searching. We found a list of CVST and anaphylaxis codes. For CVST, we had to use a broader cerebral venous thrombosis conceptual approach to include Read v2. We identified 56 SNOMED CT codes, of which we selected 47 (84%), and 15 Read v2 codes. For anaphylaxis, our refined search identified 60 SNOMED CT codes and 9 Read v2 codes, of which we selected 10 (17%) and 4 (44%), respectively, to include in our repeated cross-sectional studies. This approach enables the use of mappings to different terminologies within the OMOP CDM without the need to catalogue an entire database. However, Read v2 has less granular concepts than some terminologies, such as SNOMED CT. Additionally, the OMOP CDM cannot compensate for limitations in the clinical coding system. Neither Read v2 nor ICD-10 is sufficiently granular to enable CVST to be specifically flagged. Hence, any pooled analysis will have to be at the less specific level of cerebrovascular venous thrombosis. Overall, the mappings within this CDM are useful, and our method could be used for rapid collaborations where there are only a limited number of concepts to pool.

Suicidal ideation (SI) is an important risk factor for future suicide attempts. Despite its prevalence, most research has focused on other suicidal behaviours, such as self-harm. This study aims to quantify the risk of suicide and other causes of death associated with Emergency-Department (ED) presenting SI. The Northern Ireland Registry of Self-Harm (NIRSH) is a national registry capturing data on all presentations made to EDs in Northern Ireland (NI) with SI. Data on presentations occurring between 2012-2015 was linked to primary care registrations and death records, with follow-up until 2019. Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine the risks of death by suicide, external causes and all-cause mortality. Additional cause-specific analyses included accidental deaths and drug and alcohol-related causes. Ethical approval was granted by the Research Ethics Committee (REC)—REF 19/LO/1601. The final cohort comprised 1,662,118 individuals aged 10+ years, of whom 15,267 presented with SI. Individuals experiencing SI had a ten-fold increased risk of death from suicide (HRadj=10·84, 95% CI 9·18–12·80) and from external causes (HRadj=10·65, 95% CI 9·66–11·74) and a three-fold risk of death from all causes (HRadj=3·01, 95% CI 2·84–3·20). Further cause-specific analyses indicated that risk of accidental death (HRadj=8·24, 95% CI 6·29–10·81), alcohol-related death (HRadj=10·57, 95% CI 9·07–12·31), and drug-related death (HRadj=15·17, 95% CI 11·36–20·26) were also significantly raised. Identifying those experiencing SI is important but difficult in practice. This study suggests that EDs represent an important potential intervention point for this typically hard-to-reach population. Unlike self-harm, there are currently no clinical guidelines for the assessment and management of ED-presenting SI. This study was funded by the Administrative Data Research Centre Northern Ireland (ARDCNI) under a grant obtained from the Economic and Social Research Council (Grant ES/R011400/1).

Background Patients and the public have an integral role in educating healthcare professionals. Authentic partnerships between higher education institutions and patients and the public are essential. This study examined key stakeholders’ views, experiences and expectations of patient and public involvement (PPI) including the nature of the involvement and requirements for partnership. Methods Purposive and snowball sampling was used to recruit key stakeholders, including patients and members of the public involved in health professions education, and academics interested in PPI. Focus groups were held with patient and public participants, providing the opportunity to gain multiple perspectives in an interactive group setting. Academics with an interest in PPI were interviewed using a semi-structured approach. Topic guides were derived from the literature and piloted prior to data collection. Focus groups and interviews were conducted until data saturation was achieved. All data was audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymised and thematically analysed. Results Four focus groups were conducted involving 23 patient and public participants (median number of participants per focus group of 6). Nine interviews were conducted with academics (face-to-face [ n  = 8] or by telephone [ n  = 1]). Five themes were developed: previous experiences of PPI, training requirements, challenges/barriers to PPI, facilitators of PPI and future ideas for PPI. All participants held positive views of the value of PPI. Participants had mixed views in terms of training, which depended on the level of involvement, but similar views on the challenges and facilitators for PPI in education. There was agreement that PPI requires institutional vision and investment to build strong relationships and a culture of PPI best practice. Conclusions There is a need for more strategic and formal involvement of patients and the public to ensure that that PPI becomes sustainably embedded in health professions education.

Undervaccination (receiving fewer than the recommended number of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses) could be associated with increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes—ie, COVID-19 hospitalisation or death—compared with full vaccination (receiving the recommended number of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses). We sought to determine the factors associated with undervaccination, and to investigate the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in people who were undervaccinated in each UK nation and across the UK. We used anonymised, harmonised electronic health record data with whole population coverage to carry out cohort studies in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. Participants were required to be at least 5 years of age to be included in the cohorts. We estimated adjusted odds ratios for undervaccination as of June 1, 2022. We also estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for severe COVID-19 outcomes during the period June 1 to Sept 30, 2022, with undervaccination as a time-dependent exposure. We combined results from nation-specific analyses in a UK-wide fixed-effect meta-analysis. We estimated the reduction in severe COVID-19 outcomes associated with a counterfactual scenario in which everyone in the UK was fully vaccinated on June 1, 2022. The numbers of people undervaccinated on June 1, 2022 were 26 985 570 (45·8%) of 58 967 360 in England, 938 420 (49·8%) of 1 885 670 in Northern Ireland, 1 709 786 (34·2%) of 4 992 498 in Scotland, and 773 850 (32·8%) of 2 358 740 in Wales. People who were younger, from more deprived backgrounds, of non-White ethnicity, or had a lower number of comorbidities were less likely to be fully vaccinated. There was a total of 40 393 severe COVID-19 outcomes in the cohorts, with 14 156 of these in undervaccinated participants. We estimated the reduction in severe COVID-19 outcomes in the UK over 4 months of follow-up associated with a counterfactual scenario in which everyone was fully vaccinated on June 1, 2022 as 210 (95% CI 94–326) in the 5–15 years age group, 1544 (1399–1689) in those aged 16–74 years, and 5426 (5340–5512) in those aged 75 years or older. aHRs for severe COVID-19 outcomes in the meta-analysis for the age group of 75 years or older were 2·70 (2·61–2·78) for one dose fewer than recommended, 3·13 (2·93–3·34) for two fewer, 3·61 (3·13–4·17) for three fewer, and 3·08 (2·89–3·29) for four fewer. Rates of undervaccination against COVID-19 ranged from 32·8% to 49·8% across the four UK nations in summer, 2022. Undervaccination was associated with an elevated risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. UK Research and Innovation National Core Studies: Data and Connectivity.

The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) is currently under development with proposed changes recommended for the posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) diagnosis and the inclusion of a separate complex PTSD (CPTSD) disorder. Empirical studies support the distinction between PTSD and CPTSD; however, less research has focused on non-western populations. The aim of this study was to investigate whether distinct PTSD and CPTSD symptom classes emerged and to identify potential risk factors and the severity of impairment associated with resultant classes. A latent class analysis (LCA) and related analyses were conducted on 314 young adults from Northern Uganda. Fifty-one percent were female and participants were aged between 18 and 25 years. Forty percent of the participants were former child soldiers (n=124) while the remaining participants were civilians (n=190). The LCA revealed three classes: a CPTSD class (40.2%), a PTSD class (43.8%), and a low symptom class (16%). Child soldier status was a significant predictor of both CPTSD and PTSD classes (OR=5.96 and 2.82, respectively). Classes differed significantly on measures of anxiety/depression, conduct problems, somatic complaints, and war experiences. To conclude, this study provides preliminary support for the proposed distinction between PTSD and CPTSD in a young adult sample from Northern Uganda. However, future studies are needed using larger samples to test alternative models before firm conclusions can be made.