BackgroundReducing sitting time as well as increasing physical activity in inactive people is beneficial for their health. This paper investigates the effectiveness of the European Fans in Training (EuroFIT) programme to improve physical activity and sedentary time in male football fans, delivered through the professional football setting.Methods and findingsA total of 1,113 men aged 30–65 with self-reported body mass index (BMI) ≥27 kg/m2 took part in a randomised controlled trial in 15 professional football clubs in England, the Netherlands, Norway, and Portugal. Recruitment was between September 19, 2015, and February 2, 2016. Participants consented to study procedures and provided usable activity monitor baseline data. They were randomised, stratified by club, to either the EuroFIT intervention or a 12-month waiting list comparison group. Follow-up measurement was post-programme and 12 months after baseline. EuroFIT is a 12-week, group-based programme delivered by coaches in football club stadia in 12 weekly 90-minute sessions. Weekly sessions aimed to improve physical activity, sedentary time, and diet and maintain changes long term. A pocket-worn device (SitFIT) allowed self-monitoring of sedentary time and daily steps, and a game-based app (MatchFIT) encouraged between-session social support. Primary outcome (objectively measured sedentary time and physical activity) measurements were obtained for 83% and 85% of intervention and comparison participants. Intention-to-treat analyses showed a baseline-adjusted mean difference in sedentary time at 12 months of −1.6 minutes/day (97.5% confidence interval [CI], −14.3–11.0; p = 0.77) and in step counts of 678 steps/day (97.5% CI, 309–1.048; p < 0.001) in favor of the intervention. There were significant improvements in diet, weight, well-being, self-esteem, vitality, and biomarkers of cardiometabolic health in favor of the intervention group, but not in quality of life. There was a 0.95 probability of EuroFIT being cost-effective compared with the comparison group if society is willing to pay £1.50 per extra step/day, a maximum probability of 0.61 if society is willing to pay £1,800 per minute less sedentary time/day, and 0.13 probability if society is willing to pay £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). It was not possible to blind participants to group allocation. Men attracted to the programme already had quite high levels of physical activity at baseline (8,372 steps/day), which may have limited room for improvement. Although participants came from across the socioeconomic spectrum, a majority were well educated and in paid work. There was an increase in recent injuries and in upper and lower joint pain scores post-programme. In addition, although the five-level EuroQoL questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) is now the preferred measure for cost-effectiveness analyses across Europe, baseline scores were high (0.93), suggesting a ceiling effect for QALYs.ConclusionParticipation in EuroFIT led to improvements in physical activity, diet, body weight, and biomarkers of...

Background: There is continuing concern about effects of concussion in athletes,

A quarter of patients hospitalised with HF had a need for SPC and were identified by a low KCCQ score on admission. Those with SPC need spent many fewer DAOH and their DAOH were of significantly worse quality. Very few patients with SPC needs accessed SPC services.

Background: In the UK, general practitioners/family physicians receive pay for perfor-

BackgroundWe investigated demographic and clinical predictors of lower participation in bowel screening relative to breast and cervical screening.MethodsData linkage study of routinely collected clinical data from 430,591 women registered with general practices in the Greater Glasgow & Clyde Health Board. Participation in the screening programmes was measured by attendance at breast or cervical screening or the return of a bowel screening kit.Results72.6% of 159,993 women invited attended breast screening, 80.7% of 309,899 women invited attended cervical screening and 61.7% of 180,408 women invited completed bowel screening. Of the 68,324 women invited to participate in all three screening programmes during the study period, 52.1% participated in all three while 7.2% participated in none. Women who participated in breast (OR = 3.34 (3.21, 3.47), p < 0.001) or cervical (OR = 3.48 (3.32, 3.65), p < 0.001) were more likely to participate in bowel screening.ConclusionParticipation in bowel screening was lower than breast or cervical for this population although the same demographic factors were associated with uptake, namely lower social deprivation, increasing age, low levels of comorbidity and prior non-malignant neoplasms. As women who complete breast and cervical are more likely to also complete bowel screening, interventions at these procedures to encourage bowel screening participation should be explored.

ObjectivesTo investigate mortality in adults with intellectual disabilities: rates, causes, place, demographic and clinical predictors.DesignCohort study with record linkage to death data.SettingGeneral community.Participants961/1023 (94%) adults (16–83 years; mean=44.1 years; 54.6% male) with intellectual disabilities, clinically examined in 2001–2004; subsequently record-linked to their National Health Service number, allowing linkage to death certificate data, 2018.Outcome measuresStandardised mortality ratios (SMRs), underlying and all contributing causes of death, avoidable deaths, place, and demographic and clinical predictors of death.Results294/961 (30.6%) had died; 64/179 (35.8%) with Down syndrome, 230/783 (29.4%) without Down syndrome. SMR overall=2.24 (1.98, 2.49); Down syndrome adults=5.28 (3.98, 6.57), adults without Down syndrome=1.93 (1.68, 2.18); male=1.69 (1.42, 1.95), female=3.48 (2.90, 4.06). SMRs decreased as age increased. More severe intellectual disabilities increased SMR, but ability was not retained in the multivariable model. SMRs were higher for most International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision chapters. For adults without Down syndrome, aspiration/reflux/choking and respiratory infection were the the most common underlying causes of mortality; for Down syndrome adults ‘Down syndrome’, and dementia were most common. Amenable deaths (29.8%) were double that in the general population (14%); 60.3% died in hospital. Mortality risk related to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy/tube fed, Down syndrome, diabetes, lower respiratory tract infection at cohort-entry, smoking, epilepsy, hearing impairment, increasing number of prescribed drugs, increasing age. Bowel incontinence reduced mortality risk.ConclusionsAdults with intellectual disabilities with and without Down syndrome have different SMRs and causes of death which should be separately reported. Both die younger, from different causes than other people. Some mortality risks are similar to other people, with earlier mortality reflecting more multimorbidity; amenable deaths are also common. This should inform actions to reduce early mortality, for example, training to avoid aspiration/choking, pain identification to address problems before they are advanced, and reasonable adjustments to improve healthcare quality.

ObjectiveTo evaluate cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in outpatients with coronary artery disease (CAD) living alone compared with those living with others.MethodsThe prospeCtive observational LongitudinAl RegIstry oF patients with stable coronarY artery disease (CLARIFY) included outpatients with stable CAD. CLARIFY enrolled participants in 45 countries from November 2009 to July 2010, with 5 years of follow-up. Living arrangement was documented at baseline. The primary outcome was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) defined as CV death, myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke.ResultsAmong 32 367 patients, 3648 patients were living alone (11.3%). After multivariate adjustment, there were no residual differences in MACE among patients living alone compared with those living with others (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.18, p=0.52); however, there was significant heterogeneity in the exposure effect by sex (Pinteraction<0.01). Specifically, men living alone were at higher risk for MACE (HR 1.17, 95% CI 1.002 to 1.36, p=0.047) as opposed to women living alone (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.04, p=0.1), predominantly driven by a heterogeneous effect by sex on MI (Pinteraction=0.006). There was no effect modification for MACE by age group (Pinteraction=0.3), although potential varying effects by age for MI (Pinteraction=0.046) and stroke (Pinteraction=0.05).ConclusionsLiving alone was not associated with an independent increase in MACE, although significant sex-based differences were apparent. Men living alone may have a worse prognosis from CV disease than women; further analyses are needed to elucidate the mechanisms underlying this difference.Trial registration numberISRCTN43070564.

IntroductionLaxatives are commonly used to treat opioid-induced constipation, the commonest and most bothersome complication of opioids. However, laxatives have a nonspecific action and do not target underlying mechanisms of opioid-induced constipation; their use is associated with abdominal symptoms that negatively impact quality of life.ObjectiveTo assess the effects of laxatives in patients taking opioids for chronic pain.MethodsOne hundred ninety-eight UK patients who had taken opioid analgesics for at least one month completed a cross-sectional online or telephone survey. Questions addressed their pain condition, medication, and laxative use (including efficacy and side effects). The survey also assessed bowel function using the Bowel Function Index.ResultsSince starting their current opioid, 134 of 184 patients (73%) had used laxatives at some point and 122 (91%) of these were currently taking them. The most common laxatives were osmotics and stimulants. Laxative side effects were reported in 75%, most commonly gas, bloating/fullness, and a sudden urge to defecate. Side effects were more common in patients less than 40 years of age. Approximately half of patients said laxatives interfered with work and social activities, and one-fifth needed an overnight hospital stay because of their pain condition and/or constipation. Laxatives did not improve the symptoms of constipation, as assessed by the Bowel Function Index. Constipation was not related to opioid strength, dose of opioid, or number of laxatives taken.ConclusionsUse of laxatives to treat opioid-induced constipation is often ineffective and associated with side effects. Instead of relieving the burden of opioid-induced constipation, laxative use is associated with a negative impact.