Impact of socioeconomic deprivation on rate and cause of death in severe mental illness

Background: Socioeconomic status has important associations with disease-specific mortality in the general population. Although individuals with Severe Mental Illnesses (SMI) experience significant premature mortality, the relationship between socioeconomic status and mortality in this group remains under investigated.<p></p> Aims: To assess the impact of socioeconomic status on rate and cause of death in individuals with SMI (schizophrenia and bipolar disorder) relative to the local (Glasgow) and wider (Scottish) populations.<p></p> Methods: Cause and age of death during 2006-2010 inclusive for individuals with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder registered on the Glasgow Psychosis Clinical Information System (PsyCIS) were obtained by linkage to the Scottish General Register Office (GRO). Rate and cause of death by socioeconomic status, measured by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD), were compared to the Glasgow and Scottish populations.<p></p> Results: Death rates were higher in people with SMI across all socioeconomic quintiles compared to the Glasgow and Scottish populations, and persisted when suicide was excluded. Differences were largest in the most deprived quintile (794.6 per 10,000 population vs. 274.7 and 252.4 for Glasgow and Scotland respectively). Cause of death varied by socioeconomic status. For those living in the most deprived quintile, higher drug-related deaths occurred in those with SMI compared to local Glasgow and wider Scottish population rates (12.3% vs. 5.9%, p = <0.001 and 5.1% p = 0.002 respectively). A lower proportion of deaths due to cancer in those with SMI living in the most deprived quintile were also observed, relative to the local Glasgow and wider Scottish populations (12.3% vs. 25.1% p = 0.013 and 26.3% p = <0.001). The proportion of suicides was significantly higher in those with SMI living in the more affluent quintiles relative to Glasgow and Scotland (54.6% vs. 5.8%, p = <0.001 and 5.5%, p = <0.001). Discussion and conclusions: Excess mortality in those with SMI occurred across all socioeconomic quintiles compared to the Glasgow and Scottish populations but was most marked in the most deprived quintiles when suicide was excluded as a cause of death. Further work assessing the impact of socioeconomic status on specific causes of premature mortality in SMI is needed

Place of death in patients with lung cancer: a retrospective cohort study from 2004-2013

Introduction: Many patients with cancer die in an acute hospital bed, which has been frequently identified as the least preferred location, with psychological and financial implications. This study looks at place and cause of death in patients with lung cancer and identifies which factors are associated with dying in an acute hospital bed versus at home. Methods and Findings: We used the National Lung Cancer Audit linked to Hospital Episode Statistics and Office for National Statistics data to determine cause and place of death in those with lung cancer; both overall and by cancer Network. We used multivariate logistic regression to compare features of those who died in an acute hospital versus those who died at home. Results: Of 143627 patients identified 40% (57678) died in an acute hospital, 29% (41957) died at home and 17% (24108) died in a hospice. Individual factors associated with death in an acute hospital bed compared to home were male sex, increasing age, poor performance status, social deprivation and diagnosis via an emergency route. There was marked variation between cancer Networks in place of death. The proportion of patients dying in an acute hospital ranged from 28% to 48%, with variation most notable in provision of hospice care (9% versus 33%). Cause of death in the majority was lung cancer (86%), with other malignancies, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and ischaemic heart disease (IHD) comprising 9% collectively. Conclusions: A substantial proportion of patients with lung cancer die in acute hospital beds and this is more likely with increasing age, male sex, social deprivation and in those with poor performance status. There is marked variation between Networks, suggesting a need to improve end-of-life planning in those at greatest risk, and to review the allocation of resources to provide more hospice beds, enhanced community support and ensure equal access

Are low-value care measures up to the task? A systematic review of the literature

Background Reducing low-value care is a core component of healthcare reforms in many Western countries. A comprehensive and sound set of low-value care measures is needed in order to monitor low-value care use in general and in provider-payer contracts. Our objective was to review the scientific literature on low-value care measurement, aiming to assess the scope and quality of current measures. Methods A systematic review was performed for the period 2010–2015. We assessed the scope of low-value care recommendations and measures by categorizing them according to the Classification of Health Care Functions. Additionally, we assessed the quality of the measures by 1) analysing their development process and the level of evidence underlying the measures, and 2) analysing the evidence regarding the validity of a selected subset of the measures. Results Our search yielded 292 potentially relevant articles. After screening, we selected 23 articles eligible for review. We obtained 115 low-value care measures, of which 87 were concentrated in the cure sector, 25 in prevention and 3 in long-term care. No measures were found in rehabilitative care and health promotion. We found 62 measures from articles that translated low-value care recommendations into measures, while 53 measures were previously developed by institutions as the National Quality Forum. Three measures were assigned the highest level of evidence, as they were underpinned by both guidelines and literature evidence. Our search yielded no information on coding/criterion validity and construct validity for the included measures. Despite this, most measures were already used in practice. Conclusion This systematic review provides insight into the current state of low-value care measures. It shows that more attention is needed for the evidential underpinning and quality of these measures. Clear information about the level of evidence and validity helps to identify measures that truly represent low-value care and are sufficiently qualified to fulfil their aims through quality monitoring and in innovative payer-provider contracts. This will contribute to creating and maintaining the support of providers, payers, policy makers and citizens, who are all aiming to improve value in health care

Cancer Risk in Diabetic Patients Treated with Metformin: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: A growing body of evidence has suggested that metformin potentially reduces the risk of cancer. Our objective was to enhance the precision of estimates of the effect of metformin on the risk of any-site and site-specific cancers in patients with diabetes. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We performed a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov for pertinent articles published as of October 12, 2011, and included them in a systematic review and meta-analysis. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) for overall cancer mortality and cancer incidence. Of the 21,195 diabetic patients reported in 6 studies (4 cohort studies, 2 RCTs), 991 (4.5%) cases of death from cancer were reported. A total of 11,117 (5.3%) cases of incident cancer at any site were reported among 210,892 patients in 10 studies (2 RCTs, 6 cohort studies, 2 case-control studies). The risks of cancer among metformin users were significantly lower than those among non-metformin users: the pooled RRs (95% confidence interval) were 0.66 (0.49-0.88) for cancer mortality, 0.67 (0.53-0.85) for all-cancer incidence, 0.68 (0.53-0.88) for colorectal cancer (n = 6), 0.20 (0.07-0.59) for hepatocellular cancer (n = 4), 0.67 (0.45-0.99) for lung cancer (n = 3). CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The use of metformin in diabetic patients was associated with significantly lower risks of cancer mortality and incidence. However, this analysis is mainly based on observational studies and our findings underscore the more need for long-term RCTs to confirm this potential benefit for individuals with diabetes