Evidence of the possible health benefits of social connectedness is increasing. We aimed to examine poor social connectedness as a possible barrier to participation in preventive health services among older people (aged 53-69 years). We analysed data from a prospective cohort study of 5362 socially stratified births from the Medical Research Council National Survey of Health and Development enrolled in England, Scotland, and Wales in March 1946. At ages 68-69 years, participants reported participation in blood pressure and cholesterol measurement, eyesight and dental check-ups, influenza immunisation, and bowel and breast cancer screening. Our primary outcome measure summed participation across all these tests and services at ages 68-69 years. We tested associations between structural and functional social connectedness from ages 53 years to 69 years and total count of participation in these preventive services in Poisson models controlling for sex, education, occupational class, employment, chronic illnesses, and general practitioner consultations for health problems. 940 (44%) of 2132 participants attended all preventive services within the recommended timeframes. At ages 68-69 years, being unmarried or not cohabiting (incident rate ratio [IRR] 1·33, 95% CI 1·20-1·47) and small personal social networks (IRR 1·51, 1·32-1·71) were independently associated with non-participation in more services, with associations consistent across most services. High social relationship quality at ages 68-69 years (IRR 0·91, 95% CI 0·87-0·95) and increasing social relationship quality from ages 53 years to 69 years (IRR 0·93, 0·89-0·97) were associated with low risk of non-participation. Individuals with poor social connectedness appear to be at greater risk of not engaging in the full range of preventive services than individuals with good social connectedness. Improvement of access to social contacts and networks in older ages is already recommended for the maintenance of good mental health. This study suggests that social connectedness could also improve participation in a wide range of preventive health services, and hence could improve use of the health-care system and population health. UK Medical Research Council.

Background: Longer GP consultations are recommended as one way of improving care for people with multimorbidity. In Scotland, patients who are multimorbid and living in deprived areas do not have longer consultations, although their counterparts in the least deprived areas do. This example of the inverse care law has not been examined in England.Aim: To assess GP consultation length by socioeconomic deprivation and multimorbidity.Design and setting: Random sample of 1.2 million consultations from 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2016 for 190 036 adults in England drawn from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.Method: Consultation duration was derived from time of opening and closing the patient’s electronic record. Mean duration was estimated by multimorbidity level and type, adjusted for number of consultations and other patient and staff characteristics and patient and practice random effects.Results: Consultations lasted 10.9 minutes on average and mean duration increased with number of conditions. Patients with ≥6 conditions had 0.9 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.8 to 1.0) minutes longer than those with none. Patients who are multimorbid and with a mental health condition had 0.5 (CI = 0.4 to 0.5) minutes longer than patients who were not multimorbid. However, consultations were 0.5 (CI = 0.4 to 0.5) minutes shorter in the most compared with the least deprived fifth of areas at all levels of multimorbidity.Conclusion: GPs in England spend longer with patients who have more conditions, but, at all multimorbidity levels, those in deprived areas have less time per GP consultation. Further research is needed to assess the impact of consultation length on patient and system outcomes for those with multimorbidity.

Indicative evidence suggests that the prevalence of multiple long-term conditions (i.e., conditions that cannot be cured but can be managed with medication and other treatments) may be higher in people from minoritised ethnic groups when compared to people from the White majority population. Some studies also suggest that there are ethnic inequalities in healthcare use and care quality among people with multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs). The aims of this review are to (1) identify and describe the literature that reports on ethnicity and healthcare use and care quality among people with MLTCs in the UK and (2) examine how healthcare use and/or care quality for people with MLTCs compares across ethnic groups. We registered the protocol on PROSPERO (CRD42020220702). We searched the following databases up to December 2020: ASSIA, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Web of Science core collection. Reference lists of key articles were also hand-searched for relevant studies. The outcomes of interest were patterns of healthcare use and care quality among people with MLTCs for at least one minoritised ethnic group, compared to the White majority population in the UK. Two reviewers, L.B. and B.H., screened and extracted data from a random sample of studies (10%). B.H. independently screened and extracted data from the remaining studies. Of the 718 studies identified, 14 were eligible for inclusion. There was evidence indicating ethnic inequalities in disease management and emergency admissions among people with MLTCs in the five studies that counted more than two long-term conditions. Compared to their White counterparts, Black and Asian children and young people had higher rates of emergency admissions. Black and South Asian people were found to have suboptimal disease management compared to other ethnic groups. The findings suggest that for some minoritised ethnic group people with MLTCs there may be inadequate initiatives for managing health conditions and/or a need for enhanced strategies to reduce ethnic inequalities in healthcare. However, the few studies identified focused on a variety of conditions across different domains of healthcare use, and many of these studies used broad ethnic group categories. As such, further research focusing on MLTCs and using expanded ethnic categories in data collection is needed.

Background: GPs and patients value continuity of care. Ethnic differences in continuity could contribute to inequalities in experience and outcomes.Aim: To describe relational continuity of care in general practice by ethnicity and long-term conditions.Design and setting: In total, 381 474 patients in England were included from a random sample from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (January 2016 to December 2019).Method: Face-to-face, telephone, and online consultations with a GP were included. Continuity, measured by the Usual Provider of Care and Bice–Boxerman indices, was calculated for patients with ≥3 consultations. Ethnicity was taken from the GP record or linked Hospital Episode Statistics data, and long-term conditions were counted at baseline. Multilevel regression models were used to describe continuity by ethnicity sequentially adjusted for: a) the number of consultations, follow-up time, age, sex, and practice-level random intercept; b) socioeconomic deprivation in the patient’s residential area; and c) long-term conditions.Results: On full adjustment, 5 of 10 ethnic minority groups (Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Black African, Black Caribbean, and any other Black background) had lower continuity of care compared with White patients. Continuity was lower for patients in more deprived areas and younger patients but this did not account for ethnic differences in continuity. Differences by ethnicity were also seen in patients with ≥2 long-term conditions.Conclusion: Ethnic minority identity and socioeconomic deprivation have additive associations with lower continuity of care. Structural factors affecting demand for, and supply of, GPs should be assessed for their contribution to ethnic inequalities in relational continuity and other care quality domains.

Background: Multiple conditions are more prevalent in some minoritised ethnic groups and are associated with higher mortality rate but studies examining differential mortality once conditions are established is US-based. Our study tested whether the association between multiple conditions and mortality varies across ethnic groups in England. Methods and findings: A random sample of primary care patients from Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) was followed from 1^st January 2015 until 31^st December 2019. Ethnicity, usually self-ascribed, was obtained from primary care records if present or from hospital records. Long-term conditions were counted from a list of 32 that have previously been associated with greater primary care, hospital admissions, or mortality risk. Cox regression models were used to estimate mortality by count of conditions, ethnicity and their interaction, with adjustment for age and sex for 532,059 patients with complete data. During five years of follow-up, 5.9% of patients died. Each additional condition at baseline was associated with increased mortality. The direction of the interaction of number of conditions with ethnicity showed a statistically higher mortality rate associated with long-term conditions in Pakistani, Black African, Black Caribbean and Other Black ethnic groups. In ethnicity-stratified models, the mortality rate per additional condition at age 50 was 1.33 (95% CI 1.31,1.35) for White ethnicity, 1.43 (95% CI 1.26,1.61) for Black Caribbean ethnicity and 1.78 (95% CI 1.41,2.24) for Other Black ethnicity. Conclusions: The higher mortality rate associated with having multiple conditions is greater in minoritised compared with White ethnic groups. Research is now needed to identify factors that contribute to these inequalities. Within the health care setting, there may be opportunities to target clinical and self-management support for people with multiple conditions from minoritised ethnic groups.

Background: The daily management of long-term conditions falls primarily on individuals and informal carers, but the impact of household context on health and social care activity among people with multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs) is understudied. Aim: To test whether co-residence with a person with MLTCs (compared with a co-resident without MLTCs) is associated with utilisation and cost of primary, community, secondary health care, and formal social care. Design & setting: Linked data from health providers and local government in Barking and Dagenham for a retrospective cohort of people aged ≥50 years in two-person households in 2016–2018. Method: Two-part regression models were applied to estimate annualised use and cost of hospital, primary, community, mental health, and social care by MLTC status of individuals and co-residents, adjusted for age, sex, and deprivation. Applicability at the national level was tested using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Results: Forty-eight per cent of people with MLTCs in two-person households were co-resident with another person with MLTCs. They were 1.14 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.00 to 1.30) times as likely to have community care activity and 1.24 (95% CI = 0.99 to 1.54) times as likely to have mental health care activity compared with those co-resident with a healthy person. They had more primary care visits (8.5 [95% CI = 8.2 to 8.8] versus 7.9 [95% CI = 7.7 to 8.2]) and higher primary care costs. Outpatient care and elective admissions did not differ. Findings in national data were similar. Conclusion: Care utilisation for people with MLTCs varies by household context. There may be potential for connecting health and community service input across household members.