This study evaluated the impact of 2015/2016 prescribing guidance on antidepressant prescribing choices in children.

A retrospective e-cohort study of whole population routine electronic healthcare records was conducted. Poisson regression was undertaken to explore trends over time for depression, antidepressant prescribing, indications and secondary care contacts. Time trend analysis was conducted to assess the impact of guidance.

A total of 643 322 primary care patients in Wales UK, aged 6–17 years from 2010–2019 contributed 3 215 584 person-years of follow-up. Adjusted incidence of depression more than doubled (IRR for 2019 = 2.8 [2.5–3.2]) with similar trends seen for antidepressants. Fluoxetine was the most frequently prescribed first-line antidepressant. Citalopram comprised less than 5% of first prescriptions in younger children but 22.9% (95% CI 22.0–23.8; 95% CI 2533) in 16–17-year-olds. Approximately half of new antidepressant prescribing was associated with depression. Segmented regression analysis showed that prescriptions of ‘all’ antidepressants, Fluoxetine and Sertraline were increasing before the guidance. This upward trend flattened for both ‘all’ antidepressants and Fluoxetine and steepened for Sertraline. Citalopram prescribing was decreasing significantly pre guidance being issued with no significant change afterward.

Targeted intervention is needed to address rising rates of depression in children. Practitioners are partially adhering to local and national guidance. The decision-making process behind prescribing choices is likely to be multi-factorial. Activities to support implementation of guidance should be adopted in relation to safety in prescribing of antidepressants in children including timely availability of talking therapies and specialist mental health services.

Childhood bullying is a public health priority. We evaluated the effectiveness and costs of KiVa, a whole-school anti-bullying program that targets the peer context.

A two-arm pragmatic multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial with embedded economic evaluation. Schools were randomized to KiVa-intervention or usual practice (UP), stratified on school size and Free School Meals eligibility. KiVa was delivered by trained teachers across one school year. Follow-up was at 12 months post randomization. Primary outcome: student-reported bullying-victimization; secondary outcomes: self-reported bullying-perpetration, participant roles in bullying, empathy and teacher-reported Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Outcomes were analyzed using multilevel linear and logistic regression models.

Between 8/11/2019–12/02/2021, 118 primary schools were recruited in four trial sites, 11 111 students in primary analysis (KiVa-intervention: n = 5944; 49.6% female; UP: n = 5167, 49.0% female). At baseline, 21.6% of students reported being bullied in the UP group and 20.3% in the KiVa-intervention group, reducing to 20.7% in the UP group and 17.7% in the KiVa-intervention group at follow-up (odds ratio 0.87; 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 0.97, p value = 0.009). Students in the KiVa group had significantly higher empathy and reduced peer problems. We found no differences in bullying perpetration, school wellbeing, emotional or behavioral problems. A priori subgroup analyses revealed no differences in effectiveness by socioeconomic gradient, or by gender. KiVa costs £20.78 more per pupil than usual practice in the first year, and £1.65 more per pupil in subsequent years.

The KiVa anti-bullying program is effective at reducing bullying victimization with small-moderate effects of public health importance.

The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research program (17-92-11). Intervention costs were funded by the Rayne Foundation, GwE North Wales Regional School Improvement Service, Children's Services, Devon County Council and HSBC Global Services (UK) Ltd.

To describe national antibiotic prescribing for acute gastroenteritis (AGE).

Ambulatory care.

We included visits with diagnoses for bacterial and viral gastrointestinal infections from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS/NHAMCS; 2006–2015) and the IBM Watson 2014 MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database. For NAMCS/NHAMCS, we calculated annual percentage estimates and 99% confidence intervals (CIs) of visits with antibiotics prescribed; sample sizes were too small to calculate estimates by pathogen. For MarketScan, we used Poisson regression to calculate the percentage of visits with antibiotics prescribed and 95% CIs, including by pathogen.

We included 10,210 NAMCS/NHAMCS AGE visits; an estimated 13.3% (99% CI, 11.2%–15.4%) resulted in antibiotic prescriptions, most frequently fluoroquinolones (28.7%; 99% CI, 21.1%–36.3%), nitroimidazoles (20.2%; 99% CI, 14.0%–26.4%), and penicillins (18.9%; 99% CI, 11.6%–26.2%). In NAMCS/NHAMCS, antibiotic prescribing was least frequent in emergency departments (10.8%; 99% CI, 9.5%–12.1%). Among 1,868,465 MarketScan AGE visits, antibiotics were prescribed for 13.8% (95% CI, 13.7%−13.8%), most commonly for Yersinia (46.7%; 95% CI, 21.4%–71.9%), Campylobacter (44.8%; 95% CI, 41.5%–48.1%), Shigella (39.7%; 95% CI, 35.9%–43.6%), typhoid or paratyphoid fever (32.7%; (95% CI, 27.2%–38.3%), and nontyphoidal Salmonella (31.7%; 95% CI, 29.5%–33.9%). Antibiotics were prescribed for 12.3% (95% CI, 11.7%–13.0%) of visits for viral gastroenteritis.

Overall, ∼13% of AGE visits resulted in antibiotic prescriptions. Antibiotics were unnecessarily prescribed for viral gastroenteritis and some bacterial infections for which antibiotics are not recommended. Antibiotic stewardship assessments and interventions for AGE are needed in ambulatory settings.

In the UK, 11.8% of expectant mothers undergo an elective caesarean section (ELCS) representing 92 000 births per annum. It is not known to what extent this procedure has an impact on mental well-being in the longer term.

To determine the prevalence and postpartum progression of anxiety and depression symptoms in women undergoing ELCS in Wales.

Prevalence of depression and anxiety were determined in women at University Hospital Wales (2015–16; n = 308) through completion of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS; ≥13) and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; ≥40) questionnaires 1 day prior to ELCS, and three postpartum time points for 1 year. Maternal characteristics were determined from questionnaires and, where possible, confirmed from National Health Service maternity records.

Using these criteria the prevalence of reported depression symptoms was 14.3% (95% CI 10.9–18.3) 1 day prior to ELCS, 8.0% (95% CI 4.2–12.5) within 1 week, 8.7% (95% CI 4.2–13.8) at 10 weeks and 12.4% (95% CI 6.4–18.4) 1 year postpartum. Prevalence of reported anxiety symptoms was 27.3% (95% CI 22.5–32.4), 21.7% (95% CI 15.8–28.0), 25.3% (95% CI 18.5–32.7) and 35.1% (95% CI 26.3–44.2) at these same stages. Prenatal anxiety was not resolved after ELCS more than 1 year after delivery.

Women undergoing ELCS experience prolonged anxiety postpartum that merits focused clinical attention.

None.

New approaches are needed to safely reduce emergency admissions to hospital by targeting interventions effectively in primary care. A predictive risk stratification tool (PRISM) identifies each registered patient's risk of an emergency admission in the following year, allowing practitioners to identify and manage those at higher risk. We evaluated the introduction of PRISM in primary care in one area of the United Kingdom, assessing its impact on emergency admissions and other service use.

We conducted a randomized stepped wedge trial with cluster-defined control and intervention phases, and participant-level anonymized linked outcomes. PRISM was implemented in eleven primary care practice clusters (total thirty-two practices) over a year from March 2013. We analyzed routine linked data outcomes for 18 months.

We included outcomes for 230,099 registered patients, assigned to ranked risk groups.

Overall, the rate of emergency admissions was higher in the intervention phase than in the control phase: adjusted difference in number of emergency admissions per participant per year at risk, delta = .011 (95 percent Confidence Interval, CI .010, .013). Patients in the intervention phase spent more days in hospital per year: adjusted delta = .029 (95 percent CI .026, .031). Both effects were consistent across risk groups.

Primary care activity increased in the intervention phase overall delta = .011 (95 percent CI .007, .014), except for the two highest risk groups which showed a decrease in the number of days with recorded activity.

Introduction of a predictive risk model in primary care was associated with increased emergency episodes across the general practice population and at each risk level, in contrast to the intended purpose of the model. Future evaluation work could assess the impact of targeting of different services to patients across different levels of risk, rather than the current policy focus on those at highest risk.

Emergency admissions to hospital are a major financial burden on health services. In one area of the United Kingdom (UK), we evaluated a predictive risk stratification tool (PRISM) designed to support primary care practitioners to identify and manage patients at high risk of admission. We assessed the costs of implementing PRISM and its impact on health services costs. At the same time as the study, but independent of it, an incentive payment (‘QOF’) was introduced to encourage primary care practitioners to identify high risk patients and manage their care.

We conducted a randomized stepped wedge trial in thirty-two practices, with cluster-defined control and intervention phases, and participant-level anonymized linked outcomes. We analysed routine linked data on patient outcomes for 18 months (February 2013 – September 2014). We assigned standard unit costs in pound sterling to the resources utilized by each patient. Cost differences between the two study phases were used in conjunction with differences in the primary outcome (emergency admissions) to undertake a cost-effectiveness analysis.

We included outcomes for 230,099 registered patients. We estimated a PRISM implementation cost of GBP0.12 per patient per year.

Costs of emergency department attendances, outpatient visits, emergency and elective admissions to hospital, and general practice activity were higher per patient per year in the intervention phase than control phase (adjusted δ = GBP76, 95 percent Confidence Interval, CI GBP46, GBP106), an effect that was consistent and generally increased with risk level.

Despite low reported use of PRISM, it was associated with increased healthcare expenditure. This effect was unexpected and in the opposite direction to that intended. We cannot disentangle the effects of introducing the PRISM tool from those of imposing the QOF targets; however, since across the UK predictive risk stratification tools for emergency admissions have been introduced alongside incentives to focus on patients at risk, we believe that our findings are generalizable.

A predictive risk stratification tool (PRISM) to estimate a patient's risk of an emergency hospital admission in the following year was trialled in general practice in an area of the United Kingdom. PRISM's introduction coincided with a new incentive payment (‘QOF’) in the regional contract for family doctors to identify and manage the care of people at high risk of emergency hospital admission.

Alongside the trial, we carried out a complementary qualitative study of processes of change associated with PRISM's implementation. We aimed to describe how PRISM was understood, communicated, adopted, and used by practitioners, managers, local commissioners and policy makers. We gathered data through focus groups, interviews and questionnaires at three time points (baseline, mid-trial and end-trial). We analyzed data thematically, informed by Normalisation Process Theory (1).

All groups showed high awareness of PRISM, but raised concerns about whether it could identify patients not yet known, and about whether there were sufficient community-based services to respond to care needs identified. All practices reported using PRISM to fulfil their QOF targets, but after the QOF reporting period ended, only two practices continued to use it. Family doctors said PRISM changed their awareness of patients and focused them on targeting the highest-risk patients, though they were uncertain about the potential for positive impact on this group.

Though external factors supported its uptake in the short term, with a focus on the highest risk patients, PRISM did not become a sustained part of normal practice for primary care practitioners.