Search

ObjectivesTo describe rates and variation in uptake of pneumococcal and measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccines in children and associated change in vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs) across the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsRetrospective database study of all children aged ResultsCoverage of booster dose of pneumococcal vaccine decreased from 94.5% (95% CI 94.3% to 94.7%) at its height on International Organization for Standardization (ISO) week 47 (2020) to 93.6% (95% CI 93.4% to 93.8%) by the end of the study. Coverage of second dose of MMR decreased from 85.0% (95% CI 84.7% to 85.3%) at its height on ISO week 37 (2020) to 84.1% (95% CI 83.8% to 84.4%) by the end of the study. The break point in trends for MMR was at ISO week 34 (2020) (95% CI weeks 32–37 (2020)), while for pneumococcal vaccine the break point was later at ISO week 3 (2021) (95% CI week 53 (2020) to week 8 (2021)). Vaccination coverage for children of white ethnicity was less likely to decrease than other ethnicities. Rates of consultation for VPDs fell and remained low since August 2020.ConclusionChildhood vaccination rates started to fall ahead of the onset of the second wave; this fall is accentuating ethnic, socioeconomic and geographical disparities in vaccine uptake and risks widening health disparities. Social distancing and school closures may have contributed to lower rates of associated VPDs, but there may be increased risk as these measures are removed.

ObjectiveTo explore patients’ and General Practitioners' (GPs) accounts of how responsibility for follow-up was perceived and shared in their experiences of cancer safety netting occurring within the past 6 months.DesignIn-depth interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed through an abductive process, exploring anticipated and emergent themes. Conceptualisations of ‘responsibility’ were explored by drawing on atransactionaltointerdependentcontinuum drawing from the shared decision-making literature.Settings and participantsA purposive sample of 25 qualified GPs and 23 adult patients in Oxfordshire, UK.ResultsThe transactional sharing approach involves responsibility being passed from GP to patient. Patients expected and were willing to accept responsibility in this way as long as they received clear guidance from their GP and had capacity. In interdependent sharing, GPs principally aimed to reach consensus and share responsibility with the patient by explaining their rationale, uncertainty or by stressing the potential seriousness of the situation. Patients sharing this responsibility could be put at risk if no follow-up or timeframe was suggested, they had inadequate information, were falsely reassured or their concerns were not addressed at re-consultation.ConclusionGPs and patients exchange and share responsibility using a combination of transactional and interdependent styles, tailoring information based on patient characteristics and each party’s level of concern. Clear action plans (written where necessary) at the end of every consultation would help patients decide when to re-consult. Further research should investigate how responsibility is shared within and outside the consultation, within primary care teams and with specialist services.

BackgroundGUIDE-IT, the largest trial to date, published in August 2017, evaluating the effectiveness of natriuretic peptide (NP)-guided treatment of heart failure (HF), was stopped early for futility on a composite outcome. However, the reported effect sizes on individual outcomes of all-cause mortality and HF admissions are potentially clinically relevant.ObjectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis aims to combine all available trial level evidence to determine if NP-guided treatment of HF reduces all-cause mortality and HF admissions in patients with HF.Study selectionEight databases, no language restrictions, up to November 2017 were searched for all randomised controlled trials comparing NP-guided treatment versus clinical assessment alone in adult patients with HF. No language restrictions were applied. Publications were independently double screened and extracted. Fixed-effect meta-analyses were conducted.Findings89 papers were included, reporting 19 trials (4554 participants), average ages 62–80 years. Pooled risk ratio estimates for all-cause mortality (16 trials, 4063 participants) were 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.99 and 0.80, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.89 for HF admissions (11 trials, 2822 participants). Sensitivity analyses, restricted to low risk of bias, produced similar estimates, but were no longer statistically significant.ConclusionsConsidering all the evidence to date, the pooled effects suggest that NP-guided treatment is beneficial in reducing HF admissions and all-cause mortality. However, there is still insufficient high-quality evidence to make definitive recommendations on the use of NP-guided treatment in clinical practice.Trial registration numberSystematic Review Cochrane Database Number: CD008966.

This article is part of a series of articles featuring the Catalogue of Bias introduced in this volume of BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine that describes attrition bias and outlines its potential impact on research studies and the preventive steps to minimise its risk. Attrition bias is a type of selection bias due to systematic differences between study groups in the number and the way participants are lost from a study. Differences between people who leave a study and those who continue, particularly between study groups, can be the reason for any observed effect and not the intervention itself. Associations for mortality in trials of tranexamic acid and upper gastrointestinal bleeding were no longer apparent after studies with high or unclear risk of attrition bias were removed. Over-recruitment can help prevent important attrition bias. Sampling weights and tailored replenishment samples can help to compensate for the effects of attrition bias when present.

Objective: To explore English women’s experiences of cervical screening result communication. Design: Qualitative study consisting of seven focus groups conducted between May 2005 and April 2006. Participants: 33 women with a range of screening results (normal, inadequate, borderline and abnormal) who had recently been for cervical screening, and five women who had attended a colposcopy appointment for the first time following screening. Setting: Three screening centres (Hampshire, Reading and Sheffield) and one colposcopy clinic (Oxford) in England. Results: Unsatisfactory result communication (eg, delivery of out-of-date and conflicting information) on the part of both screening centres and primary care teams was highlighted. Variable levels of general practitioner involvement in screening result provision were experienced; result-giving strategies included personal as well as generic letters and telephone calls. Means for improving women’s understanding of abnormal results were described including the use of diagrams to explain the progression of cell changes, the provision of updates regarding any changes in cell abnormalities between screening tests (ie, lesion progression or regression) and contact with a knowledgeable “intermediary” outside primary care. Conclusions: The timely provision of appropriate information is an important aspect of any screening programme. Our findings suggest that there is scope for improvement in both the delivery and content of cervical screening result notifications. Regular review of patient result-giving strategies on the part of screening centres and general practices could help ensure that screening programme standards for written information are met. Enhanced communication between primary care teams and screening centres could facilitate the provision of consistent and clear result messages thereby improving women’s cervical screening experiences.