Happier during lockdown: a descriptive analysis of self-reported wellbeing in 17,000 UK school students during Covid-19 lockdown.

Funder: The Westminster FoundationRelatively little research has focused on children and young people (CYP) whose mental health and wellbeing improved during Covid-19 lockdown measures. We aimed to (1) determine the proportion of CYP who self-reported improvement in their mental wellbeing during the first Covid-19 lockdown and (2) describe the characteristics of this group in relation to their peers. We conducted a descriptive analysis of data from the 2020 OxWell Student Survey, a self-report, cross-sectional survey of English CYP. A total of 16,940 CYP primarily aged 8-18 years reported on change in mental wellbeing during lockdown. We characterised these CYP in terms of school, home, relational, and lifestyle factors as well as feelings about returning to school. One-third (33%) of CYP reported improved mental wellbeing during the first UK national lockdown. Compared with peers who reported no change or deterioration, a higher proportion of CYP with improved mental wellbeing reported improved relationships with friends and family, less loneliness and exclusion, reduced bullying, better management of school tasks, and more sleep and exercise during lockdown. In conclusion, a sizeable minority of CYP reported improved mental wellbeing during lockdown. Determining the reasons why these CYP felt they fared better during lockdown and considering how these beneficial experiences can be maintained beyond the pandemic might provide insights into how to promote the future mental health and wellbeing of school-aged CYP. All those working with CYP now have an opportunity to consider whether a systemic shift is needed in order to understand and realise any learnings from experiences during the pandemic.Funding ES is funded by a Gates Cambridge Scholarship (Grant Number: OPP1144). SP is funded by a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Post-Doctoral Fellowship award (Grant Number PDF-2017-10-029) and The Westminster Foundation. NC is supported by funding from the UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) Emerging Minds Network. KLM is funded by the NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215-20005). PBJ is supported by the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration East of England. MF was supported by funding from the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley at Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust. The OxWell Student Survey is supported by the NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre, an MRC Pathfinder Award to the University of Oxford, and the Westminster Foundation. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care

Willingness of children and adolescents to have a COVID-19 vaccination: Results of a large whole schools survey in England.

BackgroundVaccine hesitancy has affected COVID-19 adult vaccination programs in many countries. Data on hesitancy amongst child and adolescent populations is largely confined to parent opinion. We investigated the characteristics of vaccine hesitant children and adolescents using results from a large, school-based self-report survey of the willingness to have a COVID-19 vaccination in students aged 9 -18 years in England.MethodsData from the OxWell Student Survey on mental health, life experiences and behaviours were used, collected from four counties across England. Local authority partners recruited schools. The vaccine hesitancy question gave six response options and were clustered to inform delivery: eager and willing were categorised as vaccination 'opt-in', don't know and not bothered categorised as 'undecided', and unwilling and anti-vaccination categorised as 'opt-out'. We conducted a multinomial regression to determine associations between vaccine hesitancy and sociodemographic, health behaviour and social connection variables.Findings27,910 students from 180 schools answered the vaccine hesitancy question between 14th May and 21st July 2021, of whom 13984 (50.1%) would opt-in to take a vaccination, 10322 (37.0%) were undecided, and 3604 (12.9%) would opt-out. A lower percentage of younger students reported that they would opt-in to vaccination, for example, 35.7% of 9-year-olds and 51.3% of 13-year-olds compared to 77.8% of 17-year-olds would opt-in to take a vaccination. Students who were 'opt-out' or 'undecided' (a combined 'vaccine hesitant' group) were more likely to come from deprived socioeconomic contexts with higher rates of home rental versus home ownership and their school locations were more likely to be in areas of greater deprivation. They were more likely to smoke or vape, spend longer on social media, feel that they did not belong in their school community but had lower levels of anxiety and depression. The vaccine hesitant students- the undecided and opt-out groups- were similar in profile, although the opt-out students had higher reported confirmed or probable previous COVID-19 infection than the opt-in group, whereas those undecided, did not.InterpretationIf government vaccination strategies move towards vaccinating younger school-aged students, efforts to increase vaccination uptake may be necessary. Compared with students who would opt-in, those who were vaccine hesitant had greater indicators of social deprivation and felt a lack of community cohesion by not feeling a sense of belonging at their school. There were indications that those students who would opt-out had higher levels of marginalisation and mistrust. If programmes are rolled out, focus on hesitant younger students will be important, targeting more marginalised and deprived young people with information from trusted sources utilising social media; improving access to vaccination centres with provision both in and outside school; and addressing fears and worries about the effects of the vaccine. The main limitation of this study is that the participant group may not be wholly representative of England or the UK, which may bias population-level estimates of willingness to be vaccinated.FundingThe Westminster Foundation, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley at Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust and the NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre

Study protocol: the OxWell school survey investigating social, emotional and behavioural factors associated with mental health and well-being.

INTRODUCTION: Improving our understanding of the broad range of social, emotional and behavioural factors that contribute to mental health outcomes in adolescents will be greatly enhanced with diverse, representative population samples. We present a protocol for a repeated self-report survey assessing risk and protective factors for mental health and well-being in school pupils aged 8-18 years with different socioeconomic backgrounds in England. The survey will provide a comprehensive picture of mental health and associated risks at the community level to inform the development of primary and secondary prevention and treatment strategies in schools. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol is for a large-scale online repeated self-report survey, representative of children and adolescents aged 8-18 years attending schools or further education colleges in participating counties in England. The survey consists of around 300 questions, including validated measures of mental health and well-being, risk and protective factors, and care-seeking behaviour and preferences. Additional questions each year vary to address current events and novel hypotheses, developed by the research team, collaborators and stakeholders. Primary analyses will investigate current and changing risk and protective factors, care-seeking behaviour and attitudes to allowing linkage of their sensitive data to other databases for research, and will compare measures of mental health to measures of well-being. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the University of Oxford Research Ethics Committee (Reference: R62366). Tailored data summaries will be provided to participating schools and stakeholders within 3 months of data collection. The main findings will be presented at scientific meetings, published in peer-reviewed journals and shared via digital and social media channels. At the end of the study, other researchers will be able to apply for access to anonymous data extracts

Is improvement in comorbid major depression associated with longer survival in people with cancer? A long-term follow-up of participants in the SMaRT oncology-2 and 3 trials

OBJECTIVE: There is evidence that patients with cancer have worse survival if they have comorbid major depression, but uncertainty whether a reduction in depression severity improves survival. We aimed to address this question. METHODS: We did a secondary analysis of data from participants in the SMaRT Oncology-2 and 3 trials of depression treatment in patients with cancer and comorbid major depression (total n = 642). Participants' data were analysed as cohorts, defined by treatment (usual care or Depression Care for People with Cancer, an intensive treatment programme, in both trials) and cancer prognosis (good or poor, in SMaRT Oncology-2 and 3 respectively). We measured change in depression severity from randomisation to 12 weeks using Symptom Checklist Depression Scale (SCL-20) scores and assessed survival by linked mortality data. We used Cox regression to estimate the effect of a one-unit decrease in SCL-20 score on survival, controlling for measured confounders. RESULTS: We found no evidence for an association between improvement in depression and survival in any of the four cohorts, after adjusting for age, sex, primary cancer, baseline cancer severity and baseline depression severity. Pooling the cohorts in a fixed-effects meta-analysis yielded an estimated 7% reduction in the hazard of death per one-unit decrease in SCL-20 score. This finding was not statistically significant; the 95% confidence interval extended from a 26% decrease to an 18% increase in hazard of death. CONCLUSION: We found no evidence that reduction in severity of comorbid major depression is associated with longer survival in patients with cancer

Generation and evaluation of artificial mental health records for Natural Language Processing

Funder: EPSRC Healtex Feasibility Funding (grant EP/N027280/1): "Towards Shareable Data in Clinical Natural Language Processing: Generating Synthetic Electronic Health Records"Funder: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College LondonFunder: National Institute for Health Research Post Doctoral Fellowship award (grant number PDF-2017-10-029)Funder: Health Data Research UKFunder: Swedish Research Council(2015-00359)/the Marie Sklodowska Curie ActionsAbstract: A serious obstacle to the development of Natural Language Processing (NLP) methods in the clinical domain is the accessibility of textual data. The mental health domain is particularly challenging, partly because clinical documentation relies heavily on free text that is difficult to de-identify completely. This problem could be tackled by using artificial medical data. In this work, we present an approach to generate artificial clinical documents. We apply this approach to discharge summaries from a large mental healthcare provider and discharge summaries from an intensive care unit. We perform an extensive intrinsic evaluation where we (1) apply several measures of text preservation; (2) measure how much the model memorises training data; and (3) estimate clinical validity of the generated text based on a human evaluation task. Furthermore, we perform an extrinsic evaluation by studying the impact of using artificial text in a downstream NLP text classification task. We found that using this artificial data as training data can lead to classification results that are comparable to the original results. Additionally, using only a small amount of information from the original data to condition the generation of the artificial data is successful, which holds promise for reducing the risk of these artificial data retaining rare information from the original data. This is an important finding for our long-term goal of being able to generate artificial clinical data that can be released to the wider research community and accelerate advances in developing computational methods that use healthcare data

Generation and evaluation of artificial mental health records for Natural Language Processing

Funder: EPSRC Healtex Feasibility Funding (grant EP/N027280/1): "Towards Shareable Data in Clinical Natural Language Processing: Generating Synthetic Electronic Health Records"Funder: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College LondonFunder: National Institute for Health Research Post Doctoral Fellowship award (grant number PDF-2017-10-029)Funder: Health Data Research UKFunder: Swedish Research Council(2015-00359)/the Marie Sklodowska Curie ActionsAbstract: A serious obstacle to the development of Natural Language Processing (NLP) methods in the clinical domain is the accessibility of textual data. The mental health domain is particularly challenging, partly because clinical documentation relies heavily on free text that is difficult to de-identify completely. This problem could be tackled by using artificial medical data. In this work, we present an approach to generate artificial clinical documents. We apply this approach to discharge summaries from a large mental healthcare provider and discharge summaries from an intensive care unit. We perform an extensive intrinsic evaluation where we (1) apply several measures of text preservation; (2) measure how much the model memorises training data; and (3) estimate clinical validity of the generated text based on a human evaluation task. Furthermore, we perform an extrinsic evaluation by studying the impact of using artificial text in a downstream NLP text classification task. We found that using this artificial data as training data can lead to classification results that are comparable to the original results. Additionally, using only a small amount of information from the original data to condition the generation of the artificial data is successful, which holds promise for reducing the risk of these artificial data retaining rare information from the original data. This is an important finding for our long-term goal of being able to generate artificial clinical data that can be released to the wider research community and accelerate advances in developing computational methods that use healthcare data

The prevalence of depression in general hospital inpatients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of interview-based studies.

BACKGROUND: Comorbid depression in the medically ill is clinically important. Admission to a general hospital offers an opportunity to identify and initiate treatment for depression. However, we first need to know how common depression is in general hospital inpatients. We aimed to address this question by systematically reviewing the relevant literature. METHODS: We reviewed published prevalence studies in any language which had used diagnostic interviews of general hospital inpatients and met basic methodological quality criteria. We focussed on interview-based studies in order to estimate the proportion of patients with a diagnosis of depressive illness. RESULTS: Of 158 relevant articles, 65 (41%) describing 60 separate studies met our inclusion criteria. The 31 studies that focussed on general medical and surgical inpatients reported prevalence estimates ranging from 5% to 34%. There was substantial, highly statistically significant, heterogeneity between studies which was not materially explained by the covariates we were able to consider. The average of the reported prevalences was 12% (95% CI 10-15), with a 95% prediction interval of 4-32%. The remaining 29 studies, of a variety of specific clinical populations, are described. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence suggests a likely prevalence high enough to make it worthwhile screening hospital inpatients for depression and initiating treatment where appropriate. Further, higher quality, research is needed to clarify the prevalence of depression in specific settings and to further explore the reasons for the observed heterogeneity in estimates

A web-based clinical decision tool to support treatment decision-making in psychiatry: a pilot focus group study with clinicians, patients and carers

Background. Treatment decision tools have been developed in many fields of medicine, including psychiatry, however benefits for patients have not been sustained once the support is withdrawn. We have developed a web-based computerised clinical decision support tool (CDST), which can provide patients and clinicians with continuous, up-to-date, personalised information about the efficacy and tolerability of competing interventions. To test the feasibility and acceptability of the CDST we conducted a focus group study, aimed to explore the views of clinicians, patients and carers. Methods. The CDST was developed in Oxford. To tailor treatments at an individual level, the CDST combines the best available evidence from the scientific literature with patient preferences and values, and with patient medical profile to generate personalised clinical recommendations. We conducted three focus groups comprising of three different participant types: consultant psychiatrists, participants with mental health diagnosis and/or experience of caring for someone with a mental health diagnosis, and primary care practitioners and nurses. Each 1-hour focus group started with a short visual demonstration of the CDST. To standardise the discussion during the focus groups, we used the same topic guide that covered themes relating to the acceptability and usability of the CDST. Focus groups were recorded and any identifying participant details were anonymised. Data were analysed thematically and managed using the Framework method and the constant comparative method. Results. The focus groups took place in Oxford between October 2016 and January 2017. Overall 31 participants attended (12 consultants, 11 primary care practitioners and 8 patients or carers). The main themes that emerged related to CDST applications in clinical practice, communication, conflicting priorities and record keeping. CDST was considered a useful clinical decision support, with recognised value in promoting clinician-patient collaboration and contributing to the development of personalised medicine. One major benefit of the CDST was perceived to be the open discussion about the possible side-effects of medications. Participants from all the three groups, however, universally commented that the terminology and language presented on the CDST were too medicalised, potentially leading to ethical issues around consent to treatment. Conclusions. The CDST can improve communication pathways between patients, carers and clinicians, identifying care priorities and providing an up-to-date platform for implementing evidence-based practice, with regard to prescribing practices

The development and validation of a scoring tool to predict the operative duration of elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background: The ability to accurately predict operative duration has the potential to optimise theatre efficiency and utilisation, thus reducing costs and increasing staff and patient satisfaction. With laparoscopic cholecystectomy being one of the most commonly performed procedures worldwide, a tool to predict operative duration could be extremely beneficial to healthcare organisations. Methods: Data collected from the CholeS study on patients undergoing cholecystectomy in UK and Irish hospitals between 04/2014 and 05/2014 were used to study operative duration. A multivariable binary logistic regression model was produced in order to identify significant independent predictors of long (> 90 min) operations. The resulting model was converted to a risk score, which was subsequently validated on second cohort of patients using ROC curves. Results: After exclusions, data were available for 7227 patients in the derivation (CholeS) cohort. The median operative duration was 60 min (interquartile range 45–85), with 17.7% of operations lasting longer than 90 min. Ten factors were found to be significant independent predictors of operative durations > 90 min, including ASA, age, previous surgical admissions, BMI, gallbladder wall thickness and CBD diameter. A risk score was then produced from these factors, and applied to a cohort of 2405 patients from a tertiary centre for external validation. This returned an area under the ROC curve of 0.708 (SE = 0.013, p  90 min increasing more than eightfold from 5.1 to 41.8% in the extremes of the score. Conclusion: The scoring tool produced in this study was found to be significantly predictive of long operative durations on validation in an external cohort. As such, the tool may have the potential to enable organisations to better organise theatre lists and deliver greater efficiencies in care

BHPR research: qualitative1. Complex reasoning determines patients' perception of outcome following foot surgery in rheumatoid arhtritis

Background: Foot surgery is common in patients with RA but research into surgical outcomes is limited and conceptually flawed as current outcome measures lack face validity: to date no one has asked patients what is important to them. This study aimed to determine which factors are important to patients when evaluating the success of foot surgery in RA Methods: Semi structured interviews of RA patients who had undergone foot surgery were conducted and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis of interviews was conducted to explore issues that were important to patients. Results: 11 RA patients (9 ♂, mean age 59, dis dur = 22yrs, mean of 3 yrs post op) with mixed experiences of foot surgery were interviewed. Patients interpreted outcome in respect to a multitude of factors, frequently positive change in one aspect contrasted with negative opinions about another. Overall, four major themes emerged. Function: Functional ability & participation in valued activities were very important to patients. Walking ability was a key concern but patients interpreted levels of activity in light of other aspects of their disease, reflecting on change in functional ability more than overall level. Positive feelings of improved mobility were often moderated by negative self perception ("I mean, I still walk like a waddling duck”). Appearance: Appearance was important to almost all patients but perhaps the most complex theme of all. Physical appearance, foot shape, and footwear were closely interlinked, yet patients saw these as distinct separate concepts. Patients need to legitimize these feelings was clear and they frequently entered into a defensive repertoire ("it's not cosmetic surgery; it's something that's more important than that, you know?”). Clinician opinion: Surgeons' post operative evaluation of the procedure was very influential. The impact of this appraisal continued to affect patients' lasting impression irrespective of how the outcome compared to their initial goals ("when he'd done it ... he said that hasn't worked as good as he'd wanted to ... but the pain has gone”). Pain: Whilst pain was important to almost all patients, it appeared to be less important than the other themes. Pain was predominately raised when it influenced other themes, such as function; many still felt the need to legitimize their foot pain in order for health professionals to take it seriously ("in the end I went to my GP because it had happened a few times and I went to an orthopaedic surgeon who was quite dismissive of it, it was like what are you complaining about”). Conclusions: Patients interpret the outcome of foot surgery using a multitude of interrelated factors, particularly functional ability, appearance and surgeons' appraisal of the procedure. While pain was often noted, this appeared less important than other factors in the overall outcome of the surgery. Future research into foot surgery should incorporate the complexity of how patients determine their outcome Disclosure statement: All authors have declared no conflicts of interes