Silent voices : supporting children and young people affected by parental alcohol misuse

Main table of contents: • Summary of Key Messages and Recommendations • Section One: Background • Section Two: Methodology • Section Three: Consultation with children and young people • Section Four: Review Findings • Research Question One: What is known about the experiences of children and families where there is parental alcohol misuse and to what extent is this informed by the views of children and young people themselves? • Research Question Two: What are the key wider issues associated with PAM (e.g. unemployment, domestic abuse, mental health) and how do they relate to risk/protective factors for children and families? • Research Question Three: What is known about protective factors and processes in this population and how they can minimise risk/negative outcomes? • Research Question Four: What is known about services, and their delivery, and the impact/benefit of such services for children (and families) where there is PAM and to what extent is this informed by the views of children and young people themselves? • Research Question Five: What is the current policy context for children and families where there is PAM and how might it be improved? • Research Question Six: Thinking about questions 1 to 5 above, what are the gaps in our knowledge about children affected by PAM and services for these children

Fulfilling Lives: Supporting people with multiple needs, Evaluation Report, Year 1

This report is prepared for the Big Lottery Fund (the Fund) by the national evaluationteam and provides emerging findings and lessons learned from the first year of thenational evaluation of the Fulfilling Lives: Supporting people with multiple needsinitiative hereafter referred to as Fulfilling Lives (multiple needs).The national evaluation has been designed to determine the degree to which the initiativeis successfully achieving its aims and how they are being achieved. The evaluation will beboth formative and summative in nature, in that, it will inform the ongoing design and delivery of Fulfilling Lives (multiple needs) and its component projects as well as assessoverall achievements and value for money to inform future decision and policy making.Within this context, the evaluation has a number of objectives:— To track and assess the achievements of the initiative and to estimate the extent to whichthese are attributable to the projects and interventions delivered.— To calculate the costs of the projects and the corresponding value of benefits to theexchequer and wider society. This will enable an assessment of value for money of theprogramme and for individual interventions.— To identify what interventions and approaches work well, for which people, families andcommunities and in which circumstances and contexts.— To assess the extent to which the Big Lottery Fund's principles are incorporated into projectdesign and delivery and to determine the degree to which these principles affect successfuldelivery and outcomes.— To explore project implementation, understand problems faced and to facilitate theidentification of solutions and lessons learned

The Improving Rural Cancer Outcomes Trial: a cluster-randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention to reduce time to diagnosis in rural cancer patients in Western Australia.

BACKGROUND: Rural Australians have poorer survival for most common cancers, due partially to later diagnosis. Internationally, several initiatives to improve cancer outcomes have focused on earlier presentation to healthcare and timely diagnosis. We aimed to measure the effect of community-based symptom awareness and general practice-based educational interventions on the time to diagnosis in rural patients presenting with breast, prostate, colorectal or lung cancer in Western Australia. METHODS: 2 × 2 factorial cluster randomised controlled trial. Community Intervention: cancer symptom awareness campaign tailored for rural Australians. GP intervention: resource card with symptom risk assessment charts and local cancer referral pathways implemented through multiple academic detailing visits. Trial Area A received the community symptom awareness and Trial Area B acted as the community campaign control region. Within both Trial Areas general practices were randomised to the GP intervention or control. PRIMARY OUTCOME: total diagnostic interval (TDI). RESULTS: 1358 people with incident breast, prostate, colorectal or lung cancer were recruited. There were no significant differences in the median or ln mean TDI at either intervention level (community intervention vs control: median TDI 107.5 vs 92 days; ln mean difference 0.08 95% CI -0.06-0.23 P=0.27; GP intervention vs control: median TDI 97 vs 96.5 days; ln mean difference 0.004 95% CI -0.18-0.19 P=0.99). There were no significant differences in the TDI when analysed by factorial design, tumour group or sub-intervals of the TDI. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest trial to test the effect of community campaign or GP interventions on timeliness of cancer diagnosis. We found no effect of either intervention. This may reflect limited dose of the interventions, or the limited duration of follow-up. Alternatively, these interventions do not have a measurable effect on time to cancer diagnosis

Impact on and use of an inner-city London Infectious Diseases Department by international migrants: a questionnaire survey

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The UK has witnessed a considerable increase in immigration in the past decade. Migrant may face barriers to accessing appropriate health care on arrival and the current focus on screening certain migrants for tuberculosis on arrival is considered inadequate. We assessed the implications for an inner-city London Infectious Diseases Department in a high migrant area.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We administered an anonymous 20-point questionnaire survey to all admitted patients during a 6 week period. Questions related to sociodemographic characteristics and clinical presentation. Analysis was by migration status (UK born <it>vs </it>overseas born).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>111 of 133 patients completed the survey (response rate 83.4%). 58 (52.2%) were born in the UK; 53 (47.7%) of the cohort were overseas born. Overseas-born were over-represented in comparison to Census data for this survey site (47.7% <it>vs </it>33.6%; proportional difference 0.142 [95% CI 0.049–0.235]; p = 0.002): overseas born reported 33 different countries of birth, most (73.6%) of whom arrived in the UK pre-1975 and self-reported their nationality as British. A smaller number (26.4%) were new migrants to the UK (≤10 years), mostly refugees/asylum seekers. Overseas-born patients presented with a broad range and more severe spectrum of infections, differing from the UK-born population, resulting in two deaths in this group only. Presentation with a primary infection was associated with refugee/asylum status (n = 8; OR 6.35 [95% CI 1.28–31.50]; p = 0.023), being a new migrant (12; 10.62 [2.24–50.23]; p = 0.003), and being overseas born (31; 3.69 [1.67–8.18]; p = 0.001). Not having registered with a primary-care physician was associated with being overseas born, being a refugee/asylum seeker, being a new migrant, not having English as a first language, and being in the UK for ≤5 years. No significant differences were found between groups in terms of duration of illness prior to presentation or duration of hospitalisation (mean 11.74 days [SD 12.69]).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Migrants presented with a range of more severe infections, which suggests they face barriers to accessing appropriate health care and screening both on arrival and once settled through primary care services. A more organised and holistic approach to migrant health care is required.</p

Coronary Atherosclerotic Plaque Activity and Future Coronary Events

This study was funded by a Wellcome Trust Senior Investigator Award (WT103782AIA). Image analysis was supported by National Institutes for Health (R34HL161195 and 1R01HL135557). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Wellcome Trust or the National Institutes of Health. The British Heart Foundation supports DEN (CH/09/002, RG/16/10/32375, RE/18/5/34216), MRD (FS/SCRF/21/32010), NLM (CH/F/21/90010, RG/20/10/34966, RE/18/5/34216) AJM (AA/18/3/34220) and MCW (FS/ICRF/20/26002) and DD (FS/RTF/20/30009, NH/19/1/34595, PG/18/35/33786, PG/15/88/31780, PG/17/64/33205). MRD is the recipient of the Sir Jules Thorn Award for Biomedical Research 2015 (15/JTA). PJS is supported by outstanding investigator award National Institutes for Health (R35HL161195). JK is supported by the National Science Centre 2021/41/B/NZ5/02630. EvB is supported by SINAPSE (www.sinapse.ac.uk). AB is supported by a Clinical Research Training Fellowships (MR/V007254/1). DD is supported by Chest Heart and Stroke Scotland (19/53), Tenovus Scotland (G.18.01), and Friends of Anchor and Grampian NHS-Endowments. The Edinburgh Clinical Research Facilities, Edinburgh Imaging facility and Edinburgh Clinical Trials Unit are supported by the National Health Service Research Scotland through National Health Service Lothian Health Board. The Leeds Clinical Research Facilities are supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) via its Clinical Research Facility programme. The work at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (the Los Angeles site) was supported in part by the Dr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson Medical Research Foundation. For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission. The Chief Investigator and Edinburgh Clinical Trials Unit had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.Peer reviewedPostprin

Impact on and use of health services by international migrants: questionnaire survey of inner city London A&E attenders

BACKGROUND: Changing immigration trends pose new challenges for the UK's open access health service and there is considerable speculation that migrants from resource-poor countries place a disproportionate burden on services. Data are needed to inform provision of services to migrant groups and to ensure their access to appropriate health care. We compared sociodemographic characteristics and impact of migrant groups and UK-born patients presenting to a hospital A&E/Walk-In Centre and prior use of community-based General Practitioner (GP) services. METHODS: We administered an anonymous questionnaire survey of all presenting patients at an A&E/Walk-In Centre at an inner-city London hospital during a 1 month period. Questions related to nationality, immigration status, time in the UK, registration and use of GP services. We compared differences between groups using two-way tables by Chi-Square and Fisher's exact test. We used logistic regression modelling to quantify associations of explanatory variables and outcomes. RESULTS: 1611 of 3262 patients completed the survey (response rate 49.4%). 720 (44.7%) were overseas born, representing 87 nationalities, of whom 532 (73.9%) were new migrants to the UK (≤10 years). Overseas born were over-represented in comparison to local estimates (44.7% vs 33.6%; p < 0.001; proportional difference 0.111 [95% CI 0.087–0.136]). Dominant immigration status' were: work permit (24.4%), EU citizens (21.5%), with only 21 (1.3%) political asylum seekers/refugees. 178 (11%) reported nationalities from refugee-generating countries (RGCs), eg, Somalia, who were less likely to speak English. Compared with RGCs, and after adjusting for age and sex, the Australians, New Zealanders, and South Africans (ANS group; OR 0.28 [95% CI 0.11 to 0.71]; p = 0.008) and the Other Migrant (OM) group comprising mainly Europeans (0.13 [0.06 to 0.30]; p = 0.000) were less likely to have GP registration and to have made prior contact with GPs, yet this did not affect mode of access to hospital services across groups nor delay access to care. CONCLUSION: Recently arrived migrants are a diverse and substantial group, of whom migrants from refugee-generating countries and asylum seekers comprise only a minority group. Service reorganisation to ensure improved access to community-based GPs and delivery of more appropriate care may lessen their impact on acute services

Finishing the euchromatic sequence of the human genome

The sequence of the human genome encodes the genetic instructions for human physiology, as well as rich information about human evolution. In 2001, the International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium reported a draft sequence of the euchromatic portion of the human genome. Since then, the international collaboration has worked to convert this draft into a genome sequence with high accuracy and nearly complete coverage. Here, we report the result of this finishing process. The current genome sequence (Build 35) contains 2.85 billion nucleotides interrupted by only 341 gaps. It covers ∼99% of the euchromatic genome and is accurate to an error rate of ∼1 event per 100,000 bases. Many of the remaining euchromatic gaps are associated with segmental duplications and will require focused work with new methods. The near-complete sequence, the first for a vertebrate, greatly improves the precision of biological analyses of the human genome including studies of gene number, birth and death. Notably, the human enome seems to encode only 20,000-25,000 protein-coding genes. The genome sequence reported here should serve as a firm foundation for biomedical research in the decades ahead