Conectar
Ethnicity data are critical for identifying inequalities, but previous studies suggest that ethnicity is not consistently recorded between different administrative datasets. With researchers increasingly leveraging cross-domain data linkages, we investigated the completeness and consistency of ethnicity data in two linked health and education datasets.
Cohort study.
South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust deidentified electronic health records, accessed via Clinical Record Interactive Search (CRIS) and the National Pupil Database (NPD) (2007–2013).
N=30 426 children and adolescents referred to local Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services.
Ethnicity data were compared between CRIS and the NPD. Associations between ethnicity as recorded from each source and key educational and clinical outcomes were explored with risk ratios.
Ethnicity data were available for 79.3% from the NPD, 87.0% from CRIS, 97.3% from either source and 69.0% from both sources. Among those who had ethnicity data from both, the two data sources agreed on 87.0% of aggregate ethnicity categorisations overall, but with high levels of disagreement in Mixed and Other ethnic groups. Strengths of associations between ethnicity, educational attainment and neurodevelopmental disorder varied according to which data source was used to code ethnicity. For example, as compared with White pupils, a significantly higher proportion of Asian pupils achieved expected educational attainment thresholds only if ethnicity was coded from the NPD (RR=1.46, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.64), not if ethnicity was coded from CRIS (RR=1.11, 0.98 to 1.26).
Data linkage has the potential to minimise missing ethnicity data, and overlap in ethnicity categorisations between CRIS and the NPD was generally high. However, choosing which data source to primarily code ethnicity from can have implications for analyses of ethnicity, mental health and educational outcomes. Users of linked data should exercise caution in combining and comparing ethnicity between different data sources.
To determine the frequency, timing, and duration of post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) and their impact on health and function.
Post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection is an emerging major public health problem that is poorly understood and has no current treatment or cure. PASC is a new syndrome that has yet to be fully clinically characterised.
Descriptive cross-sectional survey (n = 5163) was conducted from online COVID-19 survivor support groups who reported symptoms for more than 21 days following SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Participants reported background demographics and the date and method of their covid diagnosis, as well as all symptoms experienced since onset of covid in terms of the symptom start date, duration, and Likert scales measuring three symptom-specific health impacts: pain and discomfort, work impairment, and social impairment. Descriptive statistics and measures of central tendencies were computed for participant demographics and symptom data.
Participants reported experiencing a mean of 21 symptoms (range 1–93); fatigue (79.0%), headache (55.3%), shortness of breath (55.3%) and difficulty concentrating (53.6%) were the most common. Symptoms often remitted and relapsed for extended periods of time (duration M = 112 days), longest lasting symptoms included the inability to exercise (M = 106.5 days), fatigue (M = 101.7 days) and difficulty concentrating, associated with memory impairment (M = 101.1 days). Participants reported extreme pressure at the base of the head, syncope, sharp or sudden chest pain, and “brain pressure” among the most distressing and impacting daily life.
Post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection can be characterised by a wide range of symptoms, many of which cause moderate-to-severe distress and can hinder survivors' overall well-being.
This study advances our understanding of the symptoms of PASC and their health impacts.
One-third of children in England have special educational needs (SEN) provision recorded during their school career. The proportion of children with SEN provision varies between schools and demographic groups, which may reflect variation in need, inequitable provision and/or systemic factors. There is scant evidence on whether SEN provision improves health and education outcomes.
The Health Outcomes of young People in Education (HOPE) research programme uses administrative data from the Education and Child Health Insights from Linked Data—ECHILD—which contains data from all state schools, and contacts with National Health Service hospitals in England, to explore variation in SEN provision and its impact on health and education outcomes. This umbrella protocol sets out analyses across four work packages (WP). WP1 defined a range of ‘health phenotypes’, that is health conditions expected to need SEN provision in primary school. Next, we describe health and education outcomes (WP1) and individual, school-level and area-level factors affecting variation in SEN provision across different phenotypes (WP2). WP3 assesses the impact of SEN provision on health and education outcomes for specific health phenotypes using a range of causal inference methods to account for confounding factors and possible selection bias. In WP4 we review local policies and synthesise findings from surveys, interviews and focus groups of service users and providers to understand factors associated with variation in and experiences of identification, assessment and provision for SEN. Triangulation of findings on outcomes, variation and impact of SEN provision for different health phenotypes in ECHILD, with experiences of SEN provision will inform interpretation of findings for policy, practice and families and methods for future evaluation.
Research ethics committees have approved the use of the ECHILD database and, separately, the survey, interviews and focus groups of young people, parents and service providers. These stakeholders will contribute to the design, interpretation and communication of findings.
FreshRSS 