Objective: The relationship between workplace absenteeism and adverse lifestyle factors (smoking, physical inactivity and poor dietary patterns) remains ambiguous. Reliance on self-reported absenteeism and obesity measures may contribute to this uncertainty. Using objective absenteeism and health status measures, the present study aimed to investigate what health status outcomes and lifestyle factors influence workplace absenteeism.Design: Cross-sectional data were obtained from a complex workplace dietary intervention trial, the Food Choice at Work Study.Setting: Four multinational manufacturing workplaces in Cork, Republic of Ireland.Subjects: Participants included 540 randomly selected employees from the four workplaces. Annual count absenteeism data were collected. Physical assessments included objective health status measures (BMI, midway waist circumference and blood pressure). FFQ measured diet quality from which DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) scores were constructed. A zero-inflated negative binomial (zinb) regression model examined associations between health status outcomes, lifestyle characteristics and absenteeism.Results: The mean number of absences was 2·5 (sd4·5) d. After controlling for sociodemographic and lifestyle characteristics, the zinb model indicated that absenteeism was positively associated with central obesity, increasing expected absence rate by 72 %. Consuming a high-quality diet and engaging in moderate levels of physical activity were negatively associated with absenteeism and reduced expected frequency by 50 % and 36 %, respectively. Being in a managerial/supervisory position also reduced expected frequency by 50 %.Conclusions: To reduce absenteeism, workplace health promotion policies should incorporate recommendations designed to prevent and manage excess weight, improve diet quality and increase physical activity levels of employees.

Elective repeat caesarean delivery (ERCD) rates have been increasing worldwide, thus prompting obstetric discourse on the risks and benefits for the mother and infant. Yet, these increasing rates also have major economic implications for the health care system. Given the dearth of information on the cost-effectiveness related to mode of delivery, the aim of this paper was to perform an economic evaluation on the costs and short-term maternal health consequences associated with a trial of labour after one previous caesarean delivery compared with ERCD for low risk women in Ireland. Using a decision analytic model, a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was performed where the measure of health gain was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over a six-week time horizon. A review of international literature was conducted to derive representative estimates of adverse maternal health outcomes following a trial of labour after caesarean (TOLAC) and ERCD. Delivery/procedure costs derived from primary data collection and combined both “bottom-up” and “top-down” costing estimations. Maternal morbidities emerged in twice as many cases in the TOLAC group than the ERCD group. However, a TOLAC was found to be the most-effective method of delivery because it was substantially less expensive than ERCD (€1,835.06 versus €4,039.87 per women, respectively), and QALYs were modestly higher (0.84 versus 0.70). Our findings were supported by probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Clinicians need to be well informed of the benefits and risks of TOLAC among low risk women. Ideally, clinician-patient discourse would address differences in length of hospital stay and postpartum recovery time. While it is premature advocate a policy of TOLAC across maternity units, the results of the study prompt further analysis and repeat iterations, encouraging future studies to synthesis previous research and new and relevant evidence under a single comprehensive decision model.

Background: ‘Implementation interventions’ refer to methods used to enhance the adoption and implementation of clinical interventions such as diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS). DRS is effective, yet uptake is often suboptimal. Despite most routine management taking place in primary care and the central role of health care professionals (HCP) in referring to DRS, few interventions have been developed for primary care. We aimed to develop a multifaceted intervention targeting both professionals and patients to improve DRS uptake as an example of a systematic development process combining theory, stakeholder involvement, and evidence. Methods: First, we identified target behaviours through an audit in primary care of screening attendance. Second, we interviewed patients (n = 47) and HCP (n = 30), to identify determinants of uptake using the Theoretical Domains Framework, mapping these to behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to develop intervention content. Thirdly, we conducted semi-structured consensus groups with stakeholders, specifically users of the intervention, i.e. patients (n = 15) and HCPs (n = 16), regarding the feasibility, acceptability, and local relevance of selected BCTs and potential delivery modes. We consulted representatives from the national DRS programme to check intervention ‘fit’ with existing processes. We applied the APEASE criteria (affordability, practicability, effectiveness, acceptability, side effects, and equity) to select the final intervention components, drawing on findings from the previous steps, and a rapid evidence review of operationalised BCT effectiveness. Results: We identified potentially modifiable target behaviours at the patient (consent, attendance) and professional (registration) level. Patient barriers to consent/attendance included confusion between screening and routine eye checks, and fear of a negative result. Enablers included a recommendation from friends/family or professionals and recognising screening importance. Professional barriers to registration included the time to register patients and a lack of readily available information on uptake in their local area/practice. Most operationalised BCTs were acceptable to patients and HCPs while the response to feasibility varied. After considering APEASE, the core intervention, incorporating a range of BCTs, involved audit/feedback, electronic prompts targeting professionals, HCP-endorsed reminders (face-to-face, by phone and letter), and an information leaflet for patients. Conclusions: Using the example of an intervention to improve DRS uptake, this study illustrates an approach to integrate theory with user involvement. This process highlighted tensions between theory-informed and stakeholder suggestions, and the need to apply the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF)/BCT structure flexibly. The final intervention draws on the trusted professional-patient relationship, leveraging existing services to enhance implementation of the DRS programme. Intervention feasibility in primary care will be evaluated in a randomised cluster pilot trial.

Aims: To identify the costs associated with nurse sensitive adverse events and the impact of these events on patients’ length of stay.Design: Retrospective cohort study using administrative hospital data.Methods: Data were sourced from patient discharge information (N = 5544) from six acute wards within three hospitals (July 2016–October 2017). A retrospective patient record review was undertaken by extracting data from the hospitals’ administrative systems on inpatient discharges, length of stay and diagnoses; eleven adverse events sensitive to nurse staffing were identified within the administrative system. A negative binomial regression is employed to assess the impact of nurse sensitive adverse events on length of stay.Results: Sixteen per cent of the sample (n = 897) had at least one nurse sensitive adverse event during their episode of care. The model revealed when age, gender, admission type and complexity are controlled for, each additional nurse sensitive adverse event experienced by a patient was associated with an increase in the length of stay beyond the national average by 0.48 days (p = .001). Applying this to the daily average cost of inpatient stay per patient (€1456), we estimate the average cost associated with each nurse sensitive adverse event to be €694. Extrapolating this nationally, the economic cost of nurse sensitive adverse events to the health service in Ireland is estimated to be €91.3 million annually.Conclusion: These potentially avoidable events are associated with a significant economic burden to health systems. The estimates provided here can be used to inform and prepare the way for future economic evaluations of nurse staffing initiatives that aim to improve care and safety.Impact: As many of these nurse sensitive adverse events are avoidable, in addition to patient benefits, there is a potential substantial financial return on investment from strategies such as improved nurse staffing that can reduce their occurrence.

During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, the delivery of life-saving and life-prolonging health services for oncology care and supporting services was delayed and, in some cases, completely halted, as national health services globally shifted their attention and resources towards the pandemic response. Prior to March 2020, telehealth was starting to change access to health services. However, the onset of the global pandemic may mark a tipping point for telehealth adoption in healthcare delivery. We conducted a systematic review of literature published between January 2020 and March 2021 examining the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on adult cancer patients. The review’s inclusion criteria focused on the economic, social, health, and psychological implications of COVID-19 on cancer patients and the availability of telehealth services emerged as a key theme. The studies reviewed revealed that the introduction of new telehealth services or the expansion of existing telehealth occurred to support and enable the continuity of oncology and related services during this extraordinary period. Our analysis points to several strengths and weaknesses associated with telehealth adoption and use amongst this cohort. Evidence indicates that while telehealth is not a panacea, it can offer a “bolstering” solution during a time of disruption to patients’ access to essential cancer diagnostic, treatment, and aftercare services. The innovative use of telehealth has created opportunities to reimagine the delivery of healthcare services beyond COVID-19.