To determine whether periods of disruption were associated with increased ‘avoidable’ hospital admissions and wider social inequalities in England.

Observational repeated cross-sectional study.

England (January 2019 to March 2022).

With the approval of NHS England we used individual-level electronic health records from OpenSAFELY, which covered ~40% of general practices in England (mean monthly population size 23.5 million people).

We estimated crude and directly age-standardised rates for potentially preventable unplanned hospital admissions: ambulatory care sensitive conditions and urgent emergency sensitive conditions. We considered how trends in these outcomes varied by three measures of social and spatial inequality: neighbourhood socioeconomic deprivation, ethnicity and geographical region.

There were large declines in avoidable hospitalisations during the first national lockdown (March to May 2020). Trends increased post-lockdown but never reached 2019 levels. The exception to these trends was for vaccine-preventable ambulatory care sensitive admissions which remained low throughout 2020–2021. While trends were consistent by each measure of inequality, absolute levels of inequalities narrowed across levels of neighbourhood socioeconomic deprivation, Asian ethnicity (compared with white ethnicity) and geographical region (especially in northern regions).

We found no evidence that periods of healthcare disruption from the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in more avoidable hospitalisations. Falling avoidable hospital admissions has coincided with declining inequalities most strongly by level of deprivation, but also for Asian ethnic groups and northern regions of England.

Aspirin could be offered for colorectal cancer prevention for the UK general population. To ensure the views of the general population are considered in future guidance, we explored public perceptions of aspirin for preventive therapy.

We conducted an online survey to investigate aspirin use, and awareness of aspirin for cancer prevention among the UK general population. We conducted semistructured interviews with a subsample of survey respondents to explore participants’ acceptability towards aspirin for cancer preventive therapy. We analysed the interview data using reflexive thematic analysis and mapped the themes onto the Theoretical Domains Framework, and the Necessity and Concerns Framework.

Online survey and remote interviews.

We recruited 400 UK respondents aged 50–70 years through a market research company to the survey. We purposefully sampled, recruited and interviewed 20 survey respondents.

In the survey, 19.0% (76/400) of respondents were aware that aspirin can be used to prevent cancer. Among those who had previously taken aspirin, 1.9% (4/216) had taken it for cancer prevention. The interviews generated three themes: (1) perceived necessity of aspirin; (2) concerns about side effects; and (3) preferred information sources. Participants with a personal or family history of cancer were more likely to perceive aspirin as necessary for cancer prevention. Concerns about taking aspirin at higher doses and its side effects, such as gastrointestinal bleeding, were common. Many described wanting guidance and advice on aspirin to be communicated from sources perceived as trustworthy, such as healthcare professionals.

Among the general population, those with a personal or family history of cancer may be more receptive towards taking aspirin for preventive therapy. Future policies and campaigns recommending aspirin may be of particular interest to these groups. Multiple considerations about the benefits and risks of aspirin highlight the need to support informed decisions on the medication.

The objective of this study was to explore the outcomes of research engagement (patient engagement, PE) in the context of qualitative research.

We observed engagement in two groups comprised of patients, clinicians and researchers tasked with conducting a qualitative preference exploration project in inflammatory bowel disease. One group was led by a patient research partner (PLG, partner led group) and the other by an academic researcher (RLG, researcher led group). A semistructured guide and a set of critical outcomes of research engagement were used as a framework to ground our analysis.

The study was conducted online.

Patient research partners (n=5), researchers (n=5) and clinicians (n=4) participated in this study.

Transcripts of meetings, descriptive and reflective observation data of engagement during meetings and email correspondence between group members were analysed to identify the outcomes of PE.

Both projects were patient-centred, collaborative, meaningful, rigorous, adaptable, ethical, legitimate, understandable, feasible, timely and sustainable. Patient research partners (PRPs) in both groups wore dual hats as patients and researchers and influenced project decisions wearing both hats. They took on advisory and operational roles. Collaboration seemed easier in the PLG than in the RLG. The RLG PRPs spent more time than their counterparts in the PLG sharing their experience with biologics and helping their group identify a meaningful project question. A formal literature review informed the design, project materials and analysis in the RLG, while the formal review informed the project materials and analysis in the PLG. A PRP in the RLG and the PLG lead leveraged personal connections to facilitate recruitment. The outcomes of both projects were meaningful to all members of the groups.

Our findings show that engagement of PRPs in research has a positive influence on the project design and delivery in the context of qualitative research in both the patient-led and researcher-led group.