Author: Azeem Majeed

I am Professor of Primary Care and Public Health, and Head of the Department of Primary Care & Public Health at Imperial College London. I am also involved in postgraduate education and training in both general practice and public health, and I am the Course Director of the Imperial College Master of Public Health (MPH) programme.

Preliminary Outcomes of a Digital Therapeutic Intervention for Smoking Cessation in Adult Smokers: Randomized Controlled Trial

Tobacco smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death and disease worldwide. Digital interventions delivered through smartphones offer a promising alternative to traditional methods, but little is known about their effectiveness. Our objective was to test the preliminary effectiveness of Quit Genius, a novel digital therapeutic intervention for smoking cessation. Our research was published in the journal JMIR Mental Health.

We used a 2-arm, single-blinded, parallel-group randomized controlled trial design. Participants were recruited via referrals from primary care practices and social media advertisements in the United Kingdom. A total of 556 adult smokers (aged 18 years or older) smoking at least 5 cigarettes a day for the past year were recruited. Of these, 530 were included for the final analysis. Participants were randomized to one of 2 interventions. Treatment consisted of a digital therapeutic intervention for smoking cessation consisting of a smartphone app delivering cognitive behavioral therapy content, one-to-one coaching, craving tools, and tracking capabilities. The control intervention was very brief advice along the Ask, Advise, Act model. All participants were offered nicotine replacement therapy for 3 months. Participants in a random half of each arm were pseudorandomly assigned a carbon monoxide device for biochemical verification. Outcomes were self-reported via phone or online. The primary outcome was self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 4 weeks post quit date.

556 participants were randomized (treatment: n=277; control: n=279). The intention-to-treat analysis included 530 participants (n=265 in each arm; 11 excluded for randomization before trial registration and 15 for protocol violations at baseline visit). By the quit date (an average of 16 days after randomization), 89.1% (236/265) of those in the treatment arm were still actively engaged. At the time of the primary outcome, 74.0% (196/265) of participants were still engaging with the app. At 4 weeks post quit date, 44.5% (118/265) of participants in the treatment arm had not smoked in the preceding 7 days compared with 28.7% (76/265) in the control group (risk ratio 1.55, 95% CI 1.23-1.96; P<.001; intention-to-treat, n=530). Self-reported 7-day abstinence agreed with carbon monoxide measurement (carbon monoxide <10 ppm) in 96% of cases (80/83) where carbon monoxide readings were available. No harmful effects of the intervention were observed.

We concluded that the Quit Genius digital therapeutic intervention is a superior treatment in achieving smoking cessation 4 weeks post quit date compared with very brief advice.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/22833

Impact of Remote Consultations on Antibiotic Prescribing in Primary Health Care: Systematic Review

here has been growing international interest in performing remote consultations in primary care, particularly amidst the current COVID-19 pandemic. Despite this, the evidence surrounding the safety of remote consultations is inconclusive. The appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing in remote consultations is an important aspect of patient safety that needs to be addressed. We aimed to summarize evidence on the impact of remote consultation in primary care with regard to antibiotic prescribing. The research was published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research.

In total, 12 studies were identified. Of these, 4 studies reported higher antibiotic-prescribing rates, 5 studies reported lower antibiotic-prescribing rates, and 3 studies reported similar antibiotic-prescribing rates in remote consultations compared with face-to-face consultations. Guideline-concordant prescribing was not significantly different between remote and face-to-face consultations for patients with sinusitis, but conflicting results were found for patients with acute respiratory infections. Mixed evidence was found for follow-up visit rates after remote and face-to-face consultations.

We concluded that there is insufficient evidence to confidently conclude that remote consulting has a significant impact on antibiotic prescribing in primary care. However, studies indicating higher prescribing rates in remote consultations than in face-to-face consultations are a concern. Further well-conducted studies are needed to inform safe and appropriate implementation of remote consulting to ensure that there is no unintended impact on antimicrobial resistance.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/23482

Maximising the impact of social prescribing on population health in the era of COVID-19

Our new paper in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine discusses social prescribing, the process of referring people to non-clinical community services; such as exercise classes and welfare advice, with the aim of improving mental, physical and social wellbeing.

Social prescribing has been increasingly adopted across high-income countries including the UK, United States of America, Canada and Finland. The UK’s Department of Health first introduced the term ‘social prescribing’ in 2006 to promote good health and independence, especially for people with long-term conditions. Over a decade later, in 2019, NHS England committed to funding social prescribing through link workers. Link workers receive referrals, mainly from general practitioners, and are attached to primary care networks with populations of 30–50,000 people.

In the paper, we examine the impact of different social prescribing schemes in England, from a population health perspective, that focus on individuals, communities or a combination of both. We examine the opportunities to maximise social prescribing’s impact on population health, in the era of COVID-19, by realigning social prescribing to a household model that reflects principles of universality, comprehensiveness and integration.

Excess mortality: the gold standard in measuring the impact of COVID-19 worldwide?

Our new paper published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine discusses excess mortality during the Covid-19 pandemic. The scale of the COVID-19 pandemic has forced policy-makers to operate with limited evidence for the relative success of different control measures.  Excess mortality is one key outcome measure. The highest excess mortality per million population is seen in Spain, followed by England and Wales. The majority of these excess deaths are caused by COVID-19, but a significant proportion are not directly related to COVID-19. In measuring the impact of COVID-19, mortality is however only one of many important outcomes. Even in ‘mild’ cases not requiring hospitalisation, symptoms can be long-lasting, and heart and lung complications are common, affecting quality of life and ability to work. Beyond the effects on health, the pandemic has disrupted all aspects of society – many countries have experienced record economic recessions, while school closures affect children’s educational attainment.

The impact of COVID-19 on academic primary care and public health

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a dramatic effect on people’s lives globally. For academics working in fields such as primary care and public health, the pandemic led to major changes in professional roles as I discuss in an article published in the JRSM. Universities across the United Kingdom closed their campuses in March 2020 and switched to remote working. Staff began to work from home and teaching of students moved online. University staff rapidly had to put in place systems for teaching, monitoring and assessing students remotely. For many universities, these changes will be in place until the end of 2020, with no return to a more normal mode of working until January 2021 at the earliest.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0141076820947053

COVID-19 presents opportunities and threats to transport and health

The ‘lockdown’ of the United Kingdom on 23 March had pronounced impacts on travel patterns as we discussed in our recent JRSM paper. As many millions of people moved to either working at home or were furloughed from their jobs, there were large decreases in trips to workplaces alongside even steeper decreases in recreational journeys. Transport is an often overlooked influence on the health of populations and health inequalities, affecting physical activity, road traffic incidents and air pollution, in addition to being a major contributor to climate change. There is ongoing uncertainty around the longer-term trajectory of COVID-19, including risks of a second wave, meaning that the medium-term changes to transport and society are hard to predict. Nevertheless, the current easing of the lockdown in England presents both opportunities and threats to the health impacts of transport.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0141076820938997

Identifying naturally occurring communities of NHS primary care providers

Primary Care Networks (PCNs) are a new organisational hierarchy with wide-ranging responsibilities introduced in the National Health Service (NHS) Long Term Plan. The vision is that PCNs should represent ‘natural’ communities of general practices (GP practices) collaborating at scale and covering a geography that fits well with practices, other healthcare providers and local communities. Our study published in BMJ Open aims to identify natural communities of GP practices based on patient registration patterns using Markov Multiscale Community Detection, an unsupervised network-based clustering technique to create catchments for these communities. With PCNs expected to take a role in population health management and with community providers expected to reconfigure around them, it is vital to recognise how PCNs represent their communities. Our method may be used by policymakers to understand the populations and geography shared between networks.

DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036504

The primary care response to COVID-19 in England’s National Health Service

In a recent article, I discuss the primary care response to Covid-19 in England. The first case of COVID-19 in England was identified at the end of January 2020. Cases increased during February, and by early March, it became apparent that England faced a large COVID-19 epidemic. This led to the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England (the bodies that respectively fund and manage the NHS in England) to recommend radical changes to the provision of NHS primary care services.
For most general practices, these changes began to be implemented in the week beginning 16 March 2020. As a first step, general practices switched from the traditional model of face-to-face service provision to one where all patients were initially assessed through a telephone or a video call. Patients were encouraged to register for online booking of these appointments if they had not already done this.
All patients requesting advice spoke first to a health professional, usually general practitioners. The aim was to deal with as many queries as possible by telephone or a video call. Patients who required a face-to-face appointment were booked to be seen in later that day. This ensured that patients were largely managed on the same day they sought medical advice. These changes have resulted in around three-quarters of patients being managed remotely compared to the same time last year when only one-quarter were, with the total volume of primary care activity falling by about 25%.
We have seen rapid changes in primary care in England, but challenges remain, particularly if the number of people with COVID-19 infection increases rapidly and starts to overwhelm the health system, or if second and subsequent waves of infection occur. Other challenges include providing medical care for people who are self-isolating at home because of their age or because of underlying medical problems that increase their risk of complications and death if they contract a COVID-19 infection. There are also problems that will arise from the cutting back of many specialist hospital services, which will have negative effects on health outcomes if restrictions in health services remain in place for a prolonged period.
Overall, primary care in England has responded well to the COVID-19 pandemic, making radical changes to how primary care services are delivered in a very short period of time. Key to allowing this to happen is the commitment by the UK government to support general practices financially to prevent the loss of income that has occurred to primary care practices in countries such as the USA. However, the future will remain challenging for primary care teams in England until such time as a vaccine or effective drug treatment can be found for COVID-19.
Read the full article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

Health inequalities: the hidden cost of COVID-19

My article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine discusses the wider impact of COVID-19 on health systems and the potential for changes to health services to increase health inequalities. We report a 44% decrease in emergency department attendances in England in March 2020. We must not overlook the importance of good infection control for outsourced NHS staff such as cleaners, security guards and caterers. They can acquire COVID-19, thereby putting themselves at risk, and transmit COVID-19 to patients and other NHS staff.
Read the full article in the Journal of the Royal Society Medicine.

Protecting healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic

My editorial in the British Journal of General Practice discusses how we can protect healthcare workers during the Covid-19 pandemic. Some of the key steps we can take include:
1. Maximise remote working
2. Implement good infection control
3. Use PPE effectively.
4. Risk assessment for staff based on age and medical history
Too many health and care workers have died and we must take urgent action to protect them. When we protect staff, we also protect patients because we reduce the risk of hospital acquired infection.
Read the full article in the British Journal of General Practice.