Public attitudes towards alcohol control policies in Scotland and England: Results from a mixed-methods study

The harmful effects of heavy drinking on health have been widely reported, yet public opinion on governmental responsibility for alcohol control remains divided. This study examines UK public attitudes towards alcohol policies, identifies underlying dimensions that inform these, and relationships with perceived effectiveness. A cross-sectional mixed methods study involving a telephone survey of 3477 adult drinkers aged 16-65 and sixteen focus groups with 89 adult drinkers in Scotland and England was conducted between September 2012 and February 2013. Principal components analysis (PCA) was used to reduce twelve policy statements into underlying dimensions. These dimensions were used in linear regression models examining alcohol policy support by demographics, drinking behaviour and perceptions of UK drinking and government responsibility. Findings were supplemented with a thematic analysis of focus group transcripts. A majority of survey respondents supported all alcohol policies, although the level of support varied by type of policy. Greater enforcement of laws on under-age sales and more police patrolling the streets were strongly supported while support for pricing policies and restricting access to alcohol was more divided. PCA identified four main dimensions underlying support on policies: alcohol availability, provision of health information and treatment services, alcohol pricing, and greater law enforcement. Being female, older, a moderate drinker, and holding a belief that government should do more to reduce alcohol harms were associated with higher support on all policy dimensions. Focus group data revealed findings from the survey may have presented an overly positive level of support on all policies due to differences in perceived policy effectiveness. Perceived effectiveness can help inform underlying patterns of policy support and should be considered in conjunction with standard measures of support in future research on alcohol control policies

School closures during the 2009 influenza pandemic: national and local experiences

published_or_final_versio

An evaluation of foundation doctor training: a mixed-methods study of the impact on workforce well-being and patient care [the Evaluating the Impact of Doctors in Training (EDiT) study

Background A major reform of junior doctor training was undertaken in 2004–5, with the introduction of foundation training (FT) to address perceived problems with work structure, conditions and training opportunities for postgraduate doctors. The well-being and motivation of junior doctors within the context of this change to training (and other changes such as restrictions in working hours of junior doctors and increasing demand for health care) and the consequent impact upon the quality of care provided is not well understood. Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the well-being of foundation year 2 (F2) doctors in training. Phase 1 describes the aims of delivering foundation training with a focus on the role of training in supporting the well-being of F2 doctors and assesses how FT is implemented on a regional basis, particularly in emergency medicine (EM). Phase 2 identifies how F2 doctor well-being and motivation are influenced over F2 and specifically in relation to EM placements and quality of care provided to patients. Methods Phase 1 used semistructured interviews and focus groups with postgraduate deanery leads, training leads (TLs) and F2 doctors to explore the strategic aims and implementation of FT, focusing on the specialty of EM. Phase 2 was a 12-month online longitudinal study of F2 doctors measuring levels of and changes in well-being and motivation. In a range of specialties, one of which was EM, data from measures of well-being, motivation, intention to quit, confidence and competence and job-related characteristics (e.g. work demands, task feedback, role clarity) were collected at four time points. In addition, we examined F2 doctor well-being in relation to quality of care by reviewing clinical records (criterion-based and holistic reviews) during the emergency department (ED) placement relating to head injury and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Results Phase 1 of the study found that variation exists in how successfully FT is implemented locally; F2 lacks a clearly defined end point; there is a minimal focus on the well-being of F2 doctors (only on the few already shown to be ‘in difficulty’); the ED presented a challenging but worthwhile learning environment requiring a significant amount of support from senior ED staff; and disagreement existed about the performance and confidence levels of F2 doctors. A total of 30 EDs in nine postgraduate medical deaneries participated in phase 2 with 217 foundation doctors completing the longitudinal study. F2 doctors reported significantly increased confidence in managing common acute conditions and undertaking practical procedures over their second foundation year, with the biggest increase in confidence and competence associated with their ED placement. F2 doctors had levels of job satisfaction and anxiety/depression that were comparable to or better than those of other NHS workers, and adequate quality and safety of care are being provided for head injury and COPD. Conclusions There are ongoing challenges in delivering high-quality FT at the local level, especially in time-pressured specialties such as EM. There are also challenges in how FT detects and manages doctors who are struggling with their work. The survey was the first to document the well-being of foundation doctors over the course of their second year, and average scores compared well with those of other doctors and health-care workers. F2 doctors are benefiting from the training provided as we found improvements in perceived confidence and competence over the year, with the ED placement being of most value to F2 doctors in this respect. Although adequate quality of care was demonstrated, we found no significant relationships between well-being of foundation doctors and the quality of care they provided to patients, suggesting the need for further work in this area

International Consensus Statement on Rhinology and Allergy: Rhinosinusitis

Background: The 5 years since the publication of the first International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Rhinosinusitis (ICAR‐RS) has witnessed foundational progress in our understanding and treatment of rhinologic disease. These advances are reflected within the more than 40 new topics covered within the ICAR‐RS‐2021 as well as updates to the original 140 topics. This executive summary consolidates the evidence‐based findings of the document. Methods: ICAR‐RS presents over 180 topics in the forms of evidence‐based reviews with recommendations (EBRRs), evidence‐based reviews, and literature reviews. The highest grade structured recommendations of the EBRR sections are summarized in this executive summary. Results: ICAR‐RS‐2021 covers 22 topics regarding the medical management of RS, which are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Additionally, 4 topics regarding the surgical management of RS are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Finally, a comprehensive evidence‐based management algorithm is provided. Conclusion: This ICAR‐RS‐2021 executive summary provides a compilation of the evidence‐based recommendations for medical and surgical treatment of the most common forms of RS