Palliative Medicine

Background: Palliative care services appear less able to reach people from ethnically diverse communities and if they do, people from these communities report having different and often poorer experiences. The barriers to access are well described so research investigating potential solutions is needed. Aims: To understand how improved palliative care outcomes for people from ethnically diverse communities have or could be achieved, and what contextual issues have influenced these outcomes. Methods: Qualitative multiple case study. The cases were defined as areas across England with services providing generalist or specialist palliative care to adults and/or children. Interviews were conducted with patients, family carers, parents (from ethnically diverse communities), health and social care professionals. Data were analysed using thematic framework analysis. Findings: Cases (n=6) included 71 participants. Five solution focused themes were identified; how the conditions for culturally and spiritually safe care are created; engagement and trust building between ethnically diverse communities and the providers that serve them as a mechanism to promote access; workforce composition and diversity helping to bridge the gap between ethnically diverse communities and services; how communication practices enable equitable care for people who have English as an additional language and organisational commitment and partnership as drivers of sustainable change. Conclusions: Equitable access to quality palliative care is not a marginal policy issue with the economic and moral argument for change strong. Care systems need to recognise, partner with, and build upon existing community strengths. Change requires intent, accountability, leadership and the reallocation of attention and responsibility.

Objectives To explore the acceptability and tolerability of cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) using Alpha-Stim AID as a potential intervention for anxiety associated with breathlessness in people with advanced chronic respiratory disease. Methods A multicentre, mixed-methods, non-randomised interventional feasibility study with a parallel usual-care control group. Participants were adults with chronic respiratory disease and significant anxiety and breathlessness symptoms (assessed via Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale) receiving care from hospice services. The intervention groups used Alpha-Stim AID for eight weeks either at a fixed or personalised dose, followed by a four-week follow-up period. This feasibility study was not powered to assess clinical efficacy. Results 12.5% of screened patients at the primary site were eligible, and 29 unique participants were recruited. Three participants withdrew from the study (10.3%), none of which were attributable to CES. Most adverse events were mild, with headache reported frequently across control and intervention groups. Outcome measure completion was high, with data missingness below 6.4%. Numerical rating scales of anxiety and breathlessness fluctuated daily and remained broadly static, whereas GAD-7 scores assessing anxiety improved over time across all groups. This feasibility study was not powered to assess clinical efficacy. Conclusion CES using Alpha-Stim AID was deliverable within hospice services and was generally acceptable and tolerable among participants who enrolled. Our findings support further evaluation which should involve a fully-powered randomised controlled trial against a sham device to determine whether CES provides clinically meaningful improvements in anxiety for this patient population.

Background: Demoralization, a syndrome of helplessness, hopelessness, and loss of meaning and chronic pain are common sources of distress in early palliative care. Psilocybin-assisted therapy (PAT) is an emerging intervention with preliminary data suggesting improvements in pain and demoralization. To date, PAT has not been studied among people living with both demoralization and chronic pain nor has it been studied as part of routine multidisciplinary outpatient palliative care. Objectives: We conducted an open-label pilot study assessing the safety, feasibility, and acceptability of PAT delivered with multidisciplinary palliative care support in cancer patients across the illness trajectory living with demoralization and chronic pain. Methods: Participants received a single 25 mg oral dose of psilocybin with preparation, monitoring, and integration provided by a mental health clinician and spiritual health clinician, alongside multidisciplinary palliative care support. Outcomes included safety, feasibility, acceptability, and exploratory self-report measures assessing for demoralization and pain intensity pre- and post-dosing. Results: Eleven participants were enrolled, ten of whom received psilocybin. The intervention was safe and feasible, with no serious adverse events and complete study visit retention among dosed participants. All 10 dosed participants reported the intervention as highly acceptable. Among dosed participants, 70% rated the experience among the five most meaningful and educational of their lives, and 60% among their five most spiritually significant experiences. By study endpoint, 90% no longer met criteria for clinically-significant demoralization syndrome and had pain scores below the trial enrollment threshold. Conclusions: PAT delivered with multidisciplinary palliative care support was safe, feasible, and acceptable in demoralized cancer patients with chronic pain. Key Message: Psilocybin-assisted therapy delivered within multidisciplinary outpatient palliative care was safe, feasible, and acceptable among demoralized cancer patients with chronic pain.

Background: Palliative care is recommended by clinical practice guidelines for patients with advanced heart failure (aHF), yet specialty palliative care (SPC) remains substantially underutilized in this population. We sought to quantify between-facility variation in SPC receipt among people with aHF and determine how much variation is explained by patient case mix and facility structural characteristics versus residual unmeasured factors. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 23,991 Veterans with prevalent aHF identified through administrative data across 133 VA Medical Centers (VAMCs) with [≥]20 aHF cases, from January 2022 to December 2023. Variation was assessed using multilevel logistic regression with facility random intercepts, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and the adjusted median odds ratio (aMOR). Facility-specific risk-standardized SPC rates were used to estimate SPC encounters attributable to facility performance better or worse than the national rate. Results: Of the sample, the mean patient age was 72.3 years (SD = 10.0), and 97.6% were male. The national observed rate of SPC was 17.5%, with risk-adjusted rates varying approximately 14-fold across facilities (3.3% to 45.6%). The adjusted ICC was 11.5%, and aMOR was 1.87 (95% Confidence Intervals 1.70-2.06). Measured patient case-mix and facility structural characteristics explained only 18.9% of between-facility variation (proportional reduction in the ICC, fully adjusted vs. null model). Facilities performing better than the national rate delivered 791 more SPC encounters than expected (17.8%), while those performing worse than the national rate delivered 480 fewer encounters than expected (10.8%). Conclusions: In the context of a national mean rate of SPC that reflects substantial underuse, delivery varied 14-fold across VAMCs, with most variation unexplained by patient complexity or measured facility resources. These findings suggest that potentially modifiable organizational factors, beyond patient preferences or facility structures alone, may contribute to current utilization gaps and represent actionable targets for quality improvement.

Background: People living with terminal illness face a double financial burden from additional costs and loss of earning for themselves and their carers. Social security benefits are intended to help alleviate some of this financial pressure, and in the UK and other countries people are eligible for fast-tracked access to financial support via the Special Rules for End of Life. One in 3 people who are eligible miss out on this support, yet there is limited evidence on the reasons for this take-up deficit. Objectives: The aim of this study is to understand the barriers and facilitators to claiming benefits for terminally ill people from the perspectives of patients, carers, and health care professionals. Methods: This is a qualitative study combining i) focus groups with healthcare professionals recruited via professional networks and social media, and ii) interviews with patients and carers recruited in hospital and hospice settings. We analysed the data using Practical Thematic Analysis Results: Fifty-five multidisciplinary healthcare professionals participated in 11 focus groups, and we interviewed 10 patients and carers. We constructed five descriptive themes to summarise the data: Navigating priorities and uncertainty; positive impacts alongside a sense of shame and stigma; talking about money, difficulties and dividends; everybodys, yet nobodys, responsibility; and sticking points in the system. Conclusion: The themes reveal several challenges that may contribute to people not taking up this financial support. However, discussions about access to benefits were also seen as a core part of holistic care, a positive way to offer support and a gateway to other discussions about end-of-life care preferences and decisions. Recommendations for policy and practice include evaluating the adoption of a diagnostic rather than a prognostic eligibility criteria, integrating discussions about benefits into existing processes such as advance care planning, and improving education and support for clinicians.

Background Falls are a major safety concern in healthcare. In palliative care, patients are particularly vulnerable due to complex symptom burdens and rapid physical decline. However, standard falls risk assessment tools, primarily designed for acute clinical environments, rely on static risk scores and lack efficacy in hospice settings. The Falls Early Warning Score (FEWS) is a observational tool developed to address the specific contributing factors and complex needs of palliative patients. Aims To explore and understand staff views regarding the implementation, utility, and benefits of the FEWS tool to identify people at risk of falling in a specialist palliative care inpatient unit. Methods A mixed-methods study was conducted at a UK hospice. Healthcare professionals with clinical experience using the FEWS chart completed an electronic questionnaire assessing their confidence, practice, and perceived barriers. Questionnaire outcomes informed subsequent face-to-face, semi-structured interviews. Qualitative data were evaluated using reflexive thematic analysis. Results Eleven staff completed the questionnaire, and five participated in interviews. Three major themes were identified: (1) Education, highlighting staff preferences for 1:1 training and the necessity of dedicated user guides; (2) Location and format of the FEWS tool, contrasting the data collection benefits of electronic formats against the bedside accessibility of paper charts; and (3) Recognised benefits of the FEWS tool, including its ability to prompt safe staffing levels, highlight variable patient presentation, and mitigate the emotional and physical impact of falls. Conclusions It is feasible and highly acceptable to integrate bespoke falls risk assessment tools into palliative care. By addressing the unique complexities of hospice patients, customised tools like FEWS can empower staff and support dynamic clinical decision-making. Further research is required to evaluate their clinical efficacy in reducing falls.

Background Digital legacy (the digital information available about someone following their death) has increasing societal importance as personal assets and interactions become increasingly digitized. Healthcare professionals often have a limited understanding of how to address digital legacy in practice, and there is a lack of interdisciplinary networks to improve education, research, and professional development in digital legacy. Objective This paper describes the development of an interdisciplinary initiative designed to build research capacity and develop consensus-based recommendations for integrating digital legacy into palliative care. Method Over 12-months, we conducted interdisciplinary engagement activities with diverse stakeholders, including clinicians, designers, and sociologists. We used a modified World Cafe method to facilitate dialogue and capture feedback on how memories are digitally curated, the management of digital estates, and intergenerational perspectives on digital legacy. Results We identified eight core recommendations for research and policy, including promoting digital legacy education, supporting policy development, and broadening the scope of interdisciplinary research. Our discussions highlighted the complexity of modern digital estates and the need for legal and ethical frameworks to protect individual rights. Conclusions The Network demonstrates that interdisciplinary collaboratives can address important issues relating to digital legacy, which provides a foundation to conduct collaborative research that improves the management of digital legacies in society.

Abstract Background: Hospital discharge from coronary care units (CCUs) is commonly framed as a discrete clinical or administrative endpoint. This event-based conceptualisation obscures the ongoing nursing and interprofessional work undertaken across the admission to stabilise discharge readiness. Aim: To theorise discharge readiness in CCUs as anticipatory nursing and interprofessional work and to examine how professional roles, organisational systems and service contexts shape discharge across two national context. Design: Qualitative study utilising reflexive thematic analysis. Methods: Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with 37 clinicians (nurses, allied health professionals and medical staff) working in CCUs in Australia and the United Kingdom. Reflexive Thematic Analysis was undertaken inductively within each dataset, followed by higher-level interpretive integration. Results: Four interrelated themes conceptualised discharge readiness as: (1) anticipatory nursing work initiated at admission and sustained through ongoing assessment, coordination and documentation; (2) negotiated readiness achieved through interprofessional alignment and distributed expertise; (3) discharge documentation as a site of organisational tension shaping workflow and communication; and (4) discharge flow constrained by system-level pressures, downstream service availability and policy logics. Across both national contexts, nurses were positioned as custodians of discharge readiness through continuous monitoring, relational coordination and informal risk management, although enactment varied by organisational setting. Conclusion: This study contributes to nursing scholarship by positioning discharge readiness not as a single decision point, but as an emergent outcome of anticipatory nursing labour, interprofessional negotiation and organisational systems. By making visible the distributed and often hidden work underpinning discharge, the findings extend existing models of transitional care and provide a theoretically grounded foundation for strengthening discharge practice in coronary care nursing.

Introduction People with severe mental illness (SMI) and learning disabilities (LD) experience significant health inequalities, with diet-related conditions contributing substantially to early and preventable death. Despite high levels of nutritional risk, the presence and effectiveness of nutritional screening in mental health (MH) and LD settings remains under-researched. This study aimed to investigate nutritional screening practices in UK inpatient MH and LD services from the perspectives of dietitians. Methods A cross-sectional mixed-methods study was conducted using a novel 22-question online survey. Data was collected via the British Dietetic Association Mental Health Specialist Group (April-June 2025). Quantitative data was analysed descriptively and qualitative data by reflexive thematic analysis. Findings were integrated and presented thematically. Ethical approval was granted by Teesside University (2025Mar26544). Results Forty-seven dietitians participated, most with substantial dietetic experience, from a range of MH settings. Screening practices were widely established and supported by policy and audit. However, participants reported low confidence in screening translating into meaningful patient care. Barriers to screening included appropriateness of available tools, time constraints, difficulty engaging distressed patients and poor prioritisation of physical health. Digital integration and wider infrastructure were also important. Dietitians rarely undertook screening directly, instead holding secondary or leadership roles, while screening was most often completed by nursing staff who were often perceived to place limited importance on the process. Existing tools, particularly the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), were viewed as insufficiently capturing the broader nutritional risks relevant to MH/LD populations, leading some services to adopt bespoke, unvalidated tools. Conclusion Concerns regarding the suitability of existing nutritional screening tools in MH/LD settings are consistent with previous literature. However, we suggest cautious use of unvalidated bespoke tools. Whilst there was no clear front runner, MH specific tools such as the St Andrews Nutrition Screening Instrument (SANSI) and the NutriMental Screener warrant further evaluation. Importantly, findings indicate that optimising tool choice alone is unlikely to improve screening effectiveness. Nutritional screening must be embedded within clear care pathways, supported by organisational leadership, digital infrastructure, and multiprofessional engagement to move beyond procedural completion and support meaningful clinical action to improve patient care.

Background Chronic pain is common in adults aged 85 years and older (85+) and is associated with detrimental outcomes. Chronic pain guidelines advise first line management with non-pharmacological measures; paracetamol and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are the preferred analgesics. Challenges in accessing non-pharmacological therapies for adults aged 85+, and the presence of multimorbidity and polypharmacy, mean that opioid medication is often prescribed for chronic pain despite the potential for opioid-related adverse effects and guidance identifying long-term opioids for chronic pain as a potentially inappropriate prescription. Aim This study aims to explore patient, caregiver, and healthcare professional perspectives on the prescription of opioid medications for pain management for chronic pain in adults aged 85+ to support development of resources for optimising opioid prescribing. Design and Setting In this qualitative study, participants were recruited through primary care, in the community or in care home settings. Method 36 semi-structured interviews were conducted with care home residents and community dwellers aged 85+ (n=12), caregivers (informal and care home staff) (n=12), and healthcare professionals (n=12). Interviews were transcribed and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results Four themes were developed: contextual complexity, satellite influences, balancing act, and pragmatic prescribing. Using opioids in adults aged 85+ is a balancing act to support patients best possible quality of life within their unique circumstances whilst using the pain management tools available. Conclusion Opioids continue to have an important role in pain management in adults aged 85+ largely due to paucity of alternatives and the drive to support quality of life.

Background: Adults with severe mental health conditions (often referred to as severe mental illness, SMI) experience 15 to 20 year mortality gap relative to the general population, with lung cancer a significant contributor. National cancer policy targets earlier diagnosis but does not explicitly address how pathways function for this group. Aims: This study aimed to describe lung cancer risk, prevalence, screening eligibility, referral activity and diagnostic pathway performance for adults with SMI in South East London (SEL), and to examine where along the pathway inequalities arise. Methods: Co-designed with experts with lived experience and voluntary sector, this exploratory mixed-methods service evaluation combined quantitative analysis of routinely collected data from the Quality Outcomes Framework (QOF), SMI Register and Cancer Waiting Times Record (April 2023-March 2024) with semi-structured qualitative interviews (n=11 clinical staff) and focus groups (n=6 adults with lived experience of SMI). Quantitative and qualitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and framework-based thematic analysis respectively, and findings were integrated using a joint display approach, organised by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Results: Lung cancer prevalence was approximately double among adults with SMI (0.17% vs 0.09% in the general population). Despite Urgent Suspected Cancer (USC) referral rates being more than twice as high in the SMI population (63 vs 28 per 100,000), fewer cancers were detected via planned general practice (GP) routes (11% vs 20%), the 28-day Faster Diagnosis Standard was not met for any SMI patient diagnosed with lung cancer during the study period; overall FDS performance was 76% in the SMI population compared with 84% in the general population; and appointment non-attendance was more than double that in the general population (6% vs 3%). Qualitative findings identified individual, service and system-level mechanisms, including stigma, diagnostic overshadowing, fragmented coordination, and rigid pathway protocols, that compound disadvantage across lung cancer pathway stages. Conclusions: Inequality in lung cancer outcomes for adults with SMI accumulates across the pathway rather than arising at a single point of failure. Addressing this requires proportionate adaptations within existing cancer pathways, alongside routine reporting of cancer outcomes stratified by SMI population. Keywords: severe mental health conditions, lung cancer, health inequalities, cancer screening, diagnostic pathway, mixed methods

Background Agenda-setting is a fundamental patient-centered communication practice in which a clinician works with a patient to elicit, propose, and organize topics for discussion during a clinical encounter. Various agenda-setting interventions have been developed, including patient-facing tools and clinician training, but their effects have not been systematically evaluated. We aimed to determine the effects of these interventions on encounter, patient, care partner, and clinician outcomes. Methods We searched grey literature and seven databases, including PubMed, from inception through July 2025 for randomized and non-randomized comparative studies of interventions designed to promote or improve clinical visit agenda-setting. Two reviewers independently screened articles and extracted data, with a third reviewer resolving conflicts. We assessed risk of bias using RoB 2 for randomized studies and ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies. We conducted random effects meta-analyses when outcomes were sufficiently comparable, assessed heterogeneity using I2, and rated certainty of evidence using GRADE. Post hoc exploratory subgroup analyses examined study design, adjustment status, and intervention structure. Results Twenty-nine articles describing 22 unique studies met the inclusion criteria, including 13 randomized and nine non-randomized studies. Agenda-setting interventions increased the occurrence of agenda-setting (risk ratio 5.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.06 to 14.28, I2=34.6%) and favored the intervention for concerns addressed when measured as a continuous outcome (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.37, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.57, I2=65.3%) and overall clinician satisfaction (SMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.78, I2=0.0%). There were no clear differences in the number of concerns raised (mean difference (MD) 0.21, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.61, I2=59.6%), visit duration (MD 0.64 minutes, 95% CI -0.83 to 2.12, I2=51.4%), or overall patient satisfaction (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.15, I2=47.0%). Potentially important heterogeneity was present for four of these six outcomes. Post hoc exploratory subgroup analyses did not provide clear evidence that effects varied by study design, adjustment status, or intervention structure. Risk of bias was often high, serious, or critical, and certainty of evidence was low or very low for all pooled outcomes. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive synthesis of clinical visit agenda-setting interventions. Such interventions may increase the occurrence of agenda-setting and the extent to which patient concerns are addressed without increasing visit length. However, the certainty of evidence was low or very low, and the available evidence does not establish a superior intervention structure.

Background: Mobile outreach initiatives have emerged to address persistent barriers to care for people experiencing homelessness, substance use, and mental illness. Although these models show promise, less is known about how and under what conditions they enable engagement and coordinated care. This study explains how, why, and under what circumstances a mobile, cross sector outreach model enables access to care for marginalized populations. Methods: We conducted a realist evaluation of Supportive Outreach Services (S.O.S.), a mobile, cross sector outreach program in Grey County, Ontario. Data included 31 semi structured interviews with outreach providers, partner organizations, system leaders, and clients, supplemented by document review and stakeholder feedback. Using retroductive reasoning and constant comparison, we developed and refined context mechanism outcome configurations to construct an explanatory program theory. Results: Five interconnected realist explanations account for how the model enables access to care. Trust built through repeated, non judgmental encounters supports engagement; proximity reduces barriers to participation; accessible support enables timely help seeking; cross sector relationships enable adaptive coordination; and visible results build legitimacy that sustains participation and resources. Together, these explanations provide a linked explanatory account of how mobile outreach reduces friction between marginalized populations and fragmented services while identifying the structural conditions that constrain its effectiveness. Conclusions: The effectiveness of mobile outreach depends less on the services delivered than on its capacity to reduce friction, sustain relationships, and adapt care across organizational boundaries. The resulting program theory offers transferable explanations for designing coordinated community based services while highlighting the structural conditions required for durable change.

Background Effective communication during consultations is facilitated by clinical empathy and realistic optimism, and can enhance patient satisfaction with care, alleviate symptoms, and improve quality of life. However, primary care systems are under significant strain and changing rapidly, which may affect practitioners' ability to communicate empathically and convey realistic optimism, with implications for the patient-practitioner relationship and patient outcomes. Understanding patients' perspectives of healthcare communication in the current clinical context is therefore important. We aimed to explore patients' experiences and perceptions of communication in UK primary care consultations, focussing on the communication of clinical empathy and realistic optimism. Methods A qualitative interview study was conducted as part of a multi-centre cluster-randomised trial of EMPathicO, a brief e-learning package for Primary Care Practitioners (PCPs) on communicating clinical empathy and realistic optimism. Participants were not aware whether their general practice had access to EMPathicO or not. Interviews were conducted within 7-14 days of participants' consultations, explored their views and experiences of clinical empathy and realistic optimism, and were transcribed verbatim. Interviews were analysed using Ritchie and Spencer's Framework Method. Results We conducted semi-structured audio-recorded qualitative telephone interviews with 71 participants from 29 primary care practices taking part in the EMPathicO trial. Following comprehensive mapping of data to the framework derived following initial analysis, four themes were agreed. Overall, most participants described positive empathic consultations with their PCPs, however, participants' experiences were shaped by wider systemic and contextual factors. They described a stretched and inefficient primary care system impacting empathy and optimism; the impact of PCP 'preparedness' as a marker for empathy; how consultation modality (i.e. in-person or telephone) shaped perceptions of empathy, and how PCPs sharing next steps in participants' treatment and management could foster realistic optimism. Conclusions While clinical empathy and realistic optimism may be experienced by patients during consultations with practitioners, the wider contextual challenges of accessing and navigating primary care systems can threaten overall perceptions of feeling cared for. Future primary care policy and workforce training must consider these system pressures to preserve effective communication in consultations and positive patient-practitioner encounters.

Background: Trauma-informed approaches (TIAs) are increasingly implemented across public-sector settings to improve support for young people affected by adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). However, practitioners often report difficulties translating broad trauma-informed principles into everyday practice, and young people are rarely involved in developing resources intended to support implementation. Aim: To co-design, implement and undertake a preliminary evaluation of a youth-led trauma-informed resource for professionals working with young people in public-sector settings in England. Methods: The study formed part of the UKRI-funded Attune programme and employed Accelerated Experience-Based Co-Design (AEBCD). Eighteen adolescents with lived experience of ACEs and 16 professionals from nine public-sector settings participated in three regional co-design workshops. Findings from a prior arts-based lived experience study informed the workshops. Participants collaboratively developed Validating Voices, a low-cost resource designed to increase validating interactions between professionals and young people. The resource was subsequently introduced into nine organisations and evaluated using staff surveys and semi-structured interviews. Results: Co-design participants identified professional invalidation of young peoples experiences, identities, needs and emotions as an under-recognised contributor to mental health. The resulting resource combined discussion cards, creative activities, role-play and organisational reflection exercises to promote validating practices. Five organisations implemented the resource and reported it to be feasible. Flexible local adaptation was common, while more participatory role-play elements proved harder to implement consistently. Staff observed increased opportunities for disclosure, reflection, peer connection and professional curiosity about young peoples experiences. Staff reported listening differently to young people and, in some settings, implementing changes in response to young people's recommendations. Conclusions: Youth-led co-design identified validation as a practical and meaningful mechanism for operationalising trauma-informed principles in everyday professional practice. With refinements, Validating Voices shows promise as a resource to support more relational, collaborative and trauma-informed responses to young people in public sector settings.

Introduction: Blackpool, England's most deprived local authority, has the highest drug-related death rate in the country. People in police custody with problem substance use are a key Core20PLUS5 inclusion-health group, yet referral from the police into structured drug and alcohol treatment is fragmented and relies heavily on self-report. We evaluated the current police-to-treatment route in Blackpool and designed an evidence-informed unified pathway. Materials and Methods: A mixed-methods service evaluation and pathway-design project was conducted during a six-month General Practice / Public Health rotation. Routinely collected referral data from Horizon (the local specialist drug and alcohol service) covering the 47-month period from December 2019 to October 2023 were analysed. Findings were triangulated with national policy, the Project ADDER and Liaison and Diversion evaluations, and the international evidence on police-led pre-arrest diversion. Results: Of 5,900 total referrals into Horizon over 47 months, only 269 (4.56%) originated from the police. Police referrals accounted for fewer than 5% of monthly referrals in 30 of 47 months, for 5 to 9.9% in 16 months, and for >/= 10% in only one month (10.8%, December 2022). Blackpool recorded 76 drug-misuse deaths in 2019-21 (19.4 per 100,000, approximately four times the England rate). A six-step unified pathway is proposed: Initiate Referral (opt-out, from ADDER Police and Liaison and Diversion); Initial Assessment; Tailored Treatment Plan; Continuous Support; Collaboration and Monitoring; and Evaluation and Adjustment. Conclusions: Police contact is markedly under-used as a gateway to treatment despite Blackpool having the highest drug-related mortality in England. An opt-out, multi-agency pathway anchored in Core20PLUS5 has the potential to narrow the treatment gap, reduce re-offending, and address the structural health inequalities that drive premature mortality.

Importance: Loneliness is associated with premature mortality and poor mental health and was declared an epidemic by the US Surgeon General in 2023, but national surveillance has relied on state-based or experimental online surveys. In 2024, the National Health Interview Survey measured loneliness directly for the first time. Objective: To estimate the national prevalence of loneliness among US adults, identify the sociodemographic groups with the highest burden, and quantify associations with mental health, health status, and health care use. Design: Cross-sectional analysis of the 2024 National Health Interview Survey, a nationally representative household survey conducted continuously from January to December 2024. Setting: US households; face-to-face and telephone interviews. Participants: 32 629 sampled civilian noninstitutionalized adults aged 18 years or older (response rate, 47.9%); 31 470 (96.4%) had valid loneliness data. Exposures: Frequent loneliness, defined as feeling lonely always or usually on a 5-category item (always, usually, sometimes, rarely, never). Main Outcomes and Measures: Survey-weighted prevalence of loneliness overall and by sociodemographic characteristics, and associations of frequent loneliness with serious psychological distress (Kessler 6 scale score 13 or higher), frequent feelings of depression and anxiety, life dissatisfaction, fair or poor self-rated health, receipt of counseling or therapy, cost-related unmet mental health care need, and emergency department use. Results: In 2024, 4.9% (95% CI, 4.6%-5.2%) of US adults, an estimated 12.2 million people, felt lonely always or usually, and 23.7% (95% CI, 23.1%-24.3%), an estimated 59.3 million, felt lonely at least sometimes. Prevalence of frequent loneliness was highest among adults with family income below the federal poverty level (10.3%), adults with disability (13.6%), adults living alone (9.0%), and American Indian or Alaska Native adults (12.2%). Adults aged 65 years or older had the lowest prevalence of any age group (4.0%) and adults aged 18 to 29 years the highest (6.3%). After adjustment for sociodemographic characteristics, frequent loneliness was associated with serious psychological distress (adjusted odds ratio, 14.5; 95% CI, 12.1-17.3), life dissatisfaction (9.0; 95% CI, 7.6-10.8), cost-related unmet mental health care need (4.3; 95% CI, 3.5-5.2), and emergency department use (1.8; 95% CI, 1.5-2.0). Conclusions and Relevance: Loneliness among US adults was patterned by poverty, disability, and household structure rather than older age. These estimates from the nation's principal household health survey provide a benchmark for monitoring loneliness and suggest that strategies for social connection should address material hardship and access to mental health care.

Insomnia is a transdiagnostic risk factor for depression and anxiety and frequently co-occurs with both conditions. Sleep restriction therapy (SRT) is considered a key active component of cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia (CBT-I), is now delivered without therapist involvement via digital platforms such as SleepFix. Existing meta-analytic evidence suggests that digital behavioural therapy for insomnia (dBT-I) may improve anxiety and depression, but participant-level evidence remains limited. This individual participant data meta-analysis pooled data from two Australian randomised controlled trials (dBT-I n=220; control n=270; 78.3% female; mean age 66.0 years) to examine whether dBT-I, with SRT as the central component and delivered through the SleepFix program, reduces depressive and anxiety symptoms in adults with insomnia disorder, who were not specifically selected for anxiety and depression. We measured anxiety using the Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale and depression using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 or Geriatric Depression Scale-15, with depression scores standardised to a common scale assuming a shared standard deviation of 4. We fitted linear mixed-effects models with random intercepts for participants and trials at Weeks 8 and 16, including baseline GAD-7 (mean 6.1, SD 4.8) in the anxiety model. dBT-I significantly reduced anxiety at Week 8 (mean difference -0.94 GAD-7 points, 95% CI -1.80 to -0.09, p=.030) and Week 16 (-0.94 GAD-7 points, 95% CI -1.86 to -0.02, p=.044), and depression at Week 8 (-0.40 SDs, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.14, p=.003) and Week 16 (-0.44 SDs, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.17, p=.002), with no evidence effects diminished between timepoints. However, the reductions were less than the smallest detectable difference for these questionnaires (i.e., 1 point). These findings support dBT-I as a scalable intervention with modest mental health benefits extending beyond insomnia.

The COVID-19 pandemic amplified existing public health emergencies, including the overdose crisis. In rural areas, the effect of emergency preparedness planning on local responses to the pandemic is unknown. We conducted 52 semi-structured interviews with two participant groups (28 people who use drugs [PWUD] and 24 local stakeholders) in two rural counties in southern Ohio. Interviews explored service disruptions, perceptions of the pandemic, organizations pre-existing emergency plans, and communication channels. Transcripts were analyzed thematically to identify data patterns within and between stakeholders and PWUD. Emergency preparedness plans often were inadequate for the needs of PWUD. Several stakeholders reported that their organizations existing plans required updates and additional PWUD perspectives to respond effectively to pandemic-related needs. Both PWUD and stakeholders described widespread service disruptions, including reduced hours, understaffing, and limited access to supplies. Communication was inconsistent, contributing to challenges in maintaining trust and ensuring access to accurate information. Heightened stigma and law enforcement protocols further discouraged the use of essential services. Despite these challenges, PWUD and stakeholders showed resilience and identified community-driven solutions, including peer distribution networks and rapid transition to telehealth services to mitigate these harms. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed critical gaps in existing emergency preparedness plans for PWUD in rural Ohio. Ensuring the continuity of essential services, strengthening communication channels, and integrating PWUD perspectives into future emergency preparedness plans are essential to improve responses to future emergencies.

Objective: To examine if food insecurity moderates the relationship between rurality and mental health outcomes (suicide mortality, poor mental health days, frequent mental distress) and to assess if these effects vary across U.S. Census divisions. Methods: This county-level (n=2,397) cross-sectional study used OLS and spatial error regression to analyze public data from sources including the County Health Rankings and USDA. We modeled suicide mortality, poor mental health days, and frequent mental distress as functions of the Index of Relative Rurality (IRR) and food insecurity, controlling for median income and provider rates. The suicide model was also tested across nine U.S. Census divisions. Results: Baseline models revealed a paradox: rurality was a direct risk factor for suicide (B=0.400) but protective for poor mental health days (B=-0.224). The national multivariable model revealed a significant, positive rurality-food insecurity interaction for suicide mortality (B=0.861), indicating a synergistic risk. This interaction was not significant for general mental distress, which was more strongly predicted by income and food insecurity. Regional analysis confirmed the suicide interaction was potent in five divisions, including the Pacific (B=3.048) and Mountain (B=1.712) , but absent in others (e.g., South Atlantic). Conclusions: The drivers of suicide are distinct from those of general mental distress and are geographically heterogeneous. The interaction of rurality and food insecurity creates a compounded risk for suicide. Suicide prevention must be regionally-tailored and address structural inequalities, such as food insecurity, alongside clinical care.