No abstract

Study participants had high levels of substance misuse and anxiety. Some students' fitness to practice may be impaired as a result of their substance misuse or symptoms of psychological distress. Further efforts are needed to reduce substance misuse and to improve the mental well-being of students.

BackgroundAntidepressants are commonly prescribed. There are clear national guidelines in relation to treatment sequencing. The study examined trends and variation in antidepressant prescribing across English primary care.AimTo examine trends and variation in antidepressant prescribing in England, with a focus on: monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs); paroxetine; and dosulepin and trimipramine.Design & settingRetrospective longitudinal study using national and practice level data on antidepressant items prescribed per year (1998–2018) and per month (2010–2019).MethodClass- and drug-specific proportions were calculated at national and practice levels. Descriptive statistics were generated, percentile charts and maps were plotted, and conducted logistic regression analysis was conducted.ResultsAntidepressant prescriptions more than tripled between 1998 and 2018, from 377 items per 1000 population to 1266 per 1000. MAOI prescribing fell substantially, from 0.7% of all antidepressant items in 1998 to 0.1% in 2018. There was marked variation between practices in past year prescribing of paroxetine (median practice proportion [MPP] = 1.7%, interdecile range [IDR] = 0.7% to 3.3%) and dosulepin (MPP = 0.7%, IDR = 0% to 1.9%), but less for trimipramine (MPP = 0%, IDR = 0% to 0.2%).ConclusionRapid growth and substantial variation in antidepressant prescribing behaviour was found between practices. The causes could be explored using mixed-methods research. Interventions to reduce prescribing of specific antidepressants, such as dosulepin, could include review prompts, alerts at the time of prescribing, and clinician feedback through tools like OpenPrescribing.net.

We carried out an analysis of a serobehavioural study of men who have sex with men >19 years of age in Vancouver, Canada to examine HIV testing behaviour and use of risk reduction strategies by HIV risk category, as defined by routinely gathered clinical data. We restricted our analysis to those who self-identified as HIV-negative, completed a questionnaire, and provided a dried blood spot sample. Of 842 participants, 365 (43.3%) were categorised as lower-risk, 245 (29.1%) as medium-risk and 232 (27.6%) as higher-risk. The prevalence of undiagnosed HIV infection was low (lower 0.8%, medium 3.3%, higher 3.9%; p = 0.032). Participants differed by risk category in terms of having had an HIV test in the previous year (lower 46.5%, medium 54.6%, higher 67.0%; p < 0.001) and in their use of serosorting (lower 23.3%, medium 48.3%, higher 43.1%; p < 0.001) and only having sex with HIV-positive men if those men had low viral loads or were taking HIV medication (lower 5.1%, medium 4.8%, higher 10.9%; p = 0.021) as risk reduction strategies. These findings speak to the need to consider segmented health promotion services for men who have sex with men with differing risk profiles. Risk stratification could be used to determine who might benefit from tailored multiple health promotion interventions, including HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis.