BackgroundThe publication of clinical prediction rules (CPRs) studies has risen significantly. It is unclear if this reflects increasing usage of these tools in clinical practice or how this may vary across clinical areas. AimTo review clinical guidelines in selected areas and survey GPs in order to explore CPR usefulness in the opinion of experts and use at the point of care. Design and settingA review of clinical guidelines and survey of UK GPs. MethodClinical guidelines in eight clinical domains with published CPRs were reviewed for recommendations to use CPRs including primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, transient ischaemic attack (TIA) and stroke, diabetes mellitus, fracture risk assessment in osteoporosis, lower limb fractures, breast cancer, depression, and acute infections in childhood. An online survey of 401 UK GPs was also conducted. ResultsGuideline review: Of 7637 records screened by title and/or abstract, 243 clinical guidelines met inclusion criteria. CPRs were most commonly recommended in guidelines regarding primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (67%) and depression (67%). There was little consensus across various clinical guidelines as to which CPR to use preferentially. Survey: Of 401 responders to the GP survey, most were aware of and applied named CPRs in the clinical areas of cardiovascular disease and depression. The commonest reasons for using CPRs were to guide management and conform to local policy requirements. ConclusionGPs use CPRs to guide management but also to comply with local policy requirements. Future research could focus on which clinical areas clinicians would most benefit from CPRs and promoting the use of robust, externally validated CPRs.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the stark health inequities affecting minority ethnic populations in Europe. However, research on ethnic inequities and healthcare utilisation in children has seldom entered the policy discourse. A scoping review was conducted in the UK, summarising and appraising the quantitative evidence on ethnic differences (unequal) and inequities (unequal and unfair or disproportionate to healthcare needs) in paediatric healthcare utilisation. Methods Embase, Medline and grey literature sources were searched for studies published 2001-2021. Studies that found differences and inequities were mapped by ethnic group and healthcare utilisation outcome. They were appraised using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisal checklists. The distribution of studies was described across various methodological parameters. Results Of the 61 included studies, most found evidence of ethnic variations in healthcare utilisation (n = 54, 89%). Less than half attempted to distinguish between ethnic differences and inequities (n = 27, 44%). Studies were concentrated on primary and preventive care and hospitalisation, with minimal evidence on emergency and outpatient care. The quality of studies was often limited by a lack of theory underpinning analytical decisions, resulting in conflation of difference and inequity, and heterogeneity in ethnic classification. The majority of studies examined children's ethnicity but overlooked parent/caregiver ethnicity, and also didn't investigate patterns across age, year or location. Conclusions To improve the validity, generalisability and comparability of research on ethnicity and paediatric healthcare utilisation, findings from this scoping review were used to develop recommendations for future research. These lessons could be applied more broadly across the European context to improve evidence generation and evidence-based policy-making to reduce inequities in healthcare. Key messages • Quantitative studies of ethnicity and paediatric healthcare utilisation in the UK lack the use of sound theoretical frameworks, and often do not distinguish between ethnic differences and inequities. • The quality of future studies can be improved with greater attention to how ethnicity is classified and analysed, alongside specific considerations for examining healthcare utilisation in children.