Search

Background: A greater understanding of Over the Counter (OTC) and Prescription Only Medication (POM) misuse amongst adults accessing substance misuse services (SMS) during COVID-19 is required to identify how SMS can better meet the needs of the people who require treatment. Aim: To use a questionnaire to explore OTC/POM misuse during COVID-19 in adults accessing community SMS in England. Methods: In 2020 to 2021 anonymous self-administered online/paper questionnaires which collated quantitative and qualitative data were completed. They were piloted for suitability and ethical approval was obtained. Thematic analysis was conducted for qualitative data and chi-square tests used to assess the relationship between quantitative variables. Results: Participants were Caucasian (94.6% British), majority male (58.9%), aged 18 to 61 years. Most were prescribed medication for problematic substance use, with a 92.5% self-reported adherence rate. The misuse of benzodiazepines (22.2%) codeine products (30.8%) and pregabalin (14.5%) predominated and 37.5% misused 2 or more medicines. Administration was usually oral and concomitant use of other substances was common: alcohol 44.6% (52% daily), tobacco/vaping 73.2% and illicit substances 58.9%. There were statistically significant associations identified, including between changes during COVID-19 to OTC/POM misuse and illicit use. Only 56 questionnaires were included in the analysis: we believe this low number was because of infection control measures, limited footfall in services, pressures on staff limiting their capacity to distribute the paper questionnaires and reliance upon telephone consultations limiting online distribution. Increasing OTC/POM misuse and obtaining illicit supplies were reported when access to usual supplies were restricted; however, changes to doses/dispensing arrangement liberalisation in response to COVID-19 were positively viewed. Conclusion: OTC/POM misuse, including polypharmacy and concomitant use of other substances occurred during COVID-19: SMS need to be vigilant for these issues and mitigate the associated risks for example with harm reduction interventions. Further qualitative research is required to explore the issues identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When countries are impacted by a crisis, comparisons at the national level are often drawn. Whilst useful, this approach fails to explore how local measures are enacted alongside centralised responses. This paper addresses that gap by examining England's intergovernmental response to the Covid-19 pandemic. With a focus on multi-level governance (MLG) and resilience theories the paper explores how tiers of government respond to the demands of the crisis. The focus is primarily on the responses of those involved with responding to the economic crisis with a recognition of the interlinked health and environmental crises. Adopting a case study approach, which included some of the areas hardest hit by the pandemic, the paper asks whether the application of MLG provided a resilient system to the shock of the pandemic. The findings illustrate local government sought to respond quickly, but decision-making was too often centrally controlled rather than devolved to the most appropriate scale. The paper draws lessons for how England might think constructively about its post pandemic reorientation considering the adaptation of intergovernmental roles and subnational governance that permits greater devolution to facilitate place-based recovery. Drawing on the knowledge gained throughout the pandemic, the paper argues that to Level Up in England and address the long-term economic and societal imbalances will demand a place-based recovery model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

England's National Health Service (NHS) is in the process of major reform as old institutional structures based around an internal "market" are being replaced with integrated care systems. The changes represent a significant shift in ethos away from commercialisation to collaboration between health providers. But the way that these policies unfold will depend on the context within which they are implemented, and three decades of neoliberal reforms have left their mark on the structure of the health system. This paper shows how a powerful, politically-connected financialised private sector has evolved alongside a weakened public system, depleted further by the pandemic. While the share of overall public health spending reaching the private sector has not increased greatly over the past decade, private financial investors are strongly embedded in some segments of health delivery, particularly mental health services where shareholder returns are boosted by financial engineering. The boundaries between private and public are increasingly blurred with the NHS treating private patients and self-payment for health services is increasingly normalised. Rather than traditional privatisation, the health system is facing a more subtle and pernicious erosion of public services across different dimensions which seems likely to continue despite the new reforms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Excess mortality is an important measure of the scale of the coronavirus-2019 pandemic. It includes both deaths caused directly by the pandemic, and deaths caused by the unintended consequences of containment such as delays to accessing care or postponements of healthcare provision in the population. In 2020 and 2021, in England, multiple groups have produced measures of excess mortality during the pandemic. This paper describes the data and methods used in five different approaches to estimating excess mortality and compares their estimates. The fundamental principles of estimating excess mortality are described, as well as the key commonalities and differences between five approaches. Two of these are based on the date of registration: a quasi-Poisson model with offset and a 5-year average; and three are based on date of occurrence: a Poisson model without offset, the European monitoring of excess mortality model and a synthetic controls model. Comparisons between estimates of excess mortality are made for the period March 2020 through March 2021 and for the two waves of the pandemic that occur within that time-period. Model estimates are strikingly similar during the first wave of the pandemic though larger differences are observed during the second wave. Models that adjusted for reduced circulation of winter infection produced higher estimates of excess compared with those that did not. Models that do not adjust for reduced circulation of winter infection captured the effect of reduced winter illness as a result of mobility restrictions during the period. None of the estimates captured mortality displacement and therefore may underestimate excess at the current time, though the extent to which this has occurred is not yet identified. Models use different approaches to address variation in data availability and stakeholder requirements of the measure. Variation between estimates reflects differences in the date of interest, population denominators and parameters in the model relating to seasonality and trend. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]