ObjectivesTo estimate and examine the direct healthcare costs of treating people with open venous leg ulcers in the UK.DesignCost-of-illness study.SettingA cross-sectional survey of nine National Health Service community locales over 2-week periods in 2015/2016.MethodsWe examined the resource use and prevalence of venous leg ulcer treatment in the community. Examination of variation in these obtained costs was performed by ordinary least squares regression. We used additional resource use information from a randomised control trial and extrapolated costs to the UK for an annual period.ResultsThe average 2-week per person cost of treating patients where a venous leg ulceration was the primary (most severe) wound was estimated at £166.39 (95% CI £157.78 to £175.00) with community staff time making up over half of this amount. Costs were higher where antimicrobial dressings were used and where wound care was delivered in the home. Among those with any recorded venous leg ulcer (primary and non-primary), we derived a point prevalence of 3.2 per 10 000 population and estimated that the annual prevalence could be no greater than 82.4 per 10 000 population. We estimated that the national cost of treating a venous leg ulcer was £102 million with a per person annual cost at £4787.70.ConclusionOur point prevalence figures are in line with the literature. However, our annual prevalence estimations and costs are far lower than those reported in recent literature which suggests that the costs of treating venous leg ulcers are lower than previously thought. Movement towards routinely collected and useable community care activity would help provide a transparent and deeper understanding of the scale and cost of wound care in the UK.

Background: Carers’ end-of-life caregiving greatly benefits society but little is known about the monetary value of this care. Aim: Within an end-of-life cancer setting: (1) to assess the feasibility and content validity of a post-bereavement measure of hours of care; and (2) to obtain a monetary value of this informal care and identify variation in this value among sub-groups. Design and setting: A census based cross-sectional survey of all cancer deaths from a 2-week period in England collected detailed data on caregiving activity (10 caregiving tasks and the time spent on each). We descriptively analyse the information carers provided in ‘other’ tasks to inform content validity. We assigned a monetary value of caregiving via the proxy good method and examined variation in the value via regression analysis. Results: The majority of carers (89.9%) were able to complete the detailed questions about hours and tasks. Only 153 carers reported engaging in ‘other’ tasks. The monetary value of caregiving at end-of-life was £948.86 per week with social and emotional support and symptom management tasks representing the largest proportion of this monetary valuation. Time of recall did not substantially relate to variation in the monetary value, whereas there was a stronger association for the relationship between the carer and recipient, carer gender and recipient daily living restrictions. Conclusion: The monetary valuation we produce for carers’ work is substantial, for example the weekly UK Carers’ Allowance only amounts to 7% of our estimated value of £948.86 per week. Our research provides further information on subgroup variation, and a valid carer time instrument and method to inform economic evaluation and policy.

ObjectiveTo test for differences in primary care family practitioner usage by sexual orientation.DesignMultivariate logistic analysis of pooled cross-sectional postal questionnaire responses to family practitioner usage.SettingPatient-reported use and experience of primary care in England, UK. Data from several waves of a postal questionnaire (General Practice Patient Survey) 2012–2014.Population2 807 320 survey responses of adults aged 18 years and over, registered with a family practitioner.Main outcome measuresProbability of a visit to a family practitioner within the past 3 months.ResultsLesbian women were 0.803 times (95% CI 0.755 to 0.854) less likely to have seen a family practitioner in the past 3 months relative to heterosexual women (bisexual women OR=0.887, 95% CI 0.817 to 0.963). Gay men were 1.218 times (95% CI 1.163 to 1.276) more likely to have seen a family practitioner relative to heterosexual men (bisexual men OR=1.084, 95% CI 0.989 to 1.188). Our results are robust to the timing of the family practitioner visit (0–3, 0–6, 0–12 months). Gay men were more likely to have seen a family practitioner than heterosexual men where the proportion of women practitioners in the practice was higher (OR=1.238, 95% CI 1.041 to 1.472).ConclusionsInequalities in the use of primary care across sexual orientation in England exist having conditioned on several measures of health status, demographic and family practitioner characteristics. The findings suggest these differences may be reduced by policies targeting a reduction of differences in patient acceptability of primary care. In particular, further research is needed to understand whether lower use among heterosexual men represents unmet need or overutilisation among gay men, and the barriers to practitioner use seemingly occurring due to the gender distribution of practices.