Celiac disease (CD), an autoimmune disorder triggered by gluten, impacts about one percent of the population. Only one-third receive a diagnosis, leaving the majority unaware of their condition. Untreated CD can lead to gut lining damage, resulting in malnutrition, anemia, and osteoporosis. Our primary goal was to identify at-risk groups and assess the cost-effectiveness of active case finding in primary care.

Our methodology involved systematic reviews and meta-analyses focusing on the accuracy of CD risk factors (chronic conditions and symptoms) and diagnostic tests (serological and genetic). Prediction models, based on identified risk factors, were developed for identifying individuals who would benefit from CD testing in routine primary care. Additionally, an online survey gauged individuals’ preferences regarding diagnostic certainty before initiating a gluten-free diet. This information informed the development of economic models evaluating the cost-effectiveness of various active case finding strategies.

Individuals with dermatitis herpetiformis, a family history of CD, migraine, anemia, type 1 diabetes, osteoporosis, or chronic liver disease showed one and a half to two times higher risk of having CD. IgA tTG, and EMA demonstrated good diagnostic accuracy. Genetic tests showed high sensitivity but low specificity. Survey results indicated substantial variation in preference for certainty from a blood test before initiating a gluten-free diet. Cost-effectiveness analyses showed that, in adults, IgA tTG at a one percent pre-test probability (equivalent to population screening) was the most cost effective. For non-population screening strategies, IgA EMA plus HLA was most cost effective. There was substantial uncertainty in economic model results.

While population-based screening with IgA tTG appears the most cost effective in adults, decisions for implementation should not solely rely on economic analyses. Future research should explore whether population-based CD screening aligns with UK National Screening Committee criteria and requires a long-term randomized controlled trial of screening strategies.

In September 2014, as part of a national initiative to increase access to liaison psychiatry services, the liaison psychiatry services at Bristol Royal Infirmary received new investment of £250 000 per annum, expanding its availability from 40 to 98 h per week. The long-term impact on patient outcomes and costs, of patients presenting to the emergency department with self-harm, is unknown.

To assess the long-term impact of the investment on patient care outcomes and costs, of patients presenting to the emergency department with self-harm.

Monthly data for all self-harm emergency department attendances between 1 September 2011 and 30 September 2017 was modelled using Bayesian structural time series to estimate expected outcomes in the absence of expanded operating hours (the counterfactual). The difference between the observed and expected trends for each outcome were interpreted as the effects of the investment.

Over the 3 years after service expansion, the mean number of self-harm attendances increased 13%. Median waiting time from arrival to psychosocial assessment was 2 h shorter (18.6% decrease, 95% Bayesian credible interval (BCI) −30.2% to −2.8%), there were 45 more referrals to other agencies (86.1% increase, 95% BCI 60.6% to 110.9%) and a small increase in the number of psychosocial assessments (11.7% increase, 95% BCI −3.4% to 28.5%) per month. Monthly mean net hospital costs were £34 more per episode (5.3% increase, 95% BCI −11.6% to 25.5%).

Despite annual increases in emergency department attendances, investment was associated with reduced waiting times for psychosocial assessment and more referrals to other agencies, with only a small increase in cost per episode.