Digital health, cardiometabolic disease and ethnicity: an analysis of United Kingdom government policies from 2010 to 2022.

Recent health policies in the United Kingdom (UK) and internationally have focussed on digitisation of healthcare. We examined UK policies for evidence of government action addressing health inequalities and digital health, using cardiometabolic disease as an exemplar. Using a systematic search methodology, we identified 87 relevant policy documents published between 2010 and 2022. We found increasing emphasis on digital health, including for prevention, diagnosis and management of cardiometabolic disease. Several policies also focused on tackling health inequalities and improving digital access. The COVID-19 pandemic amplified inequalities. No policies addressed ethnic inequalities in digital health for cardiometabolic disease, despite high prevalence in minority ethnic communities. Our findings suggest that creating opportunities for digital inclusion and reduce longer-term health inequalities, will require future policies to focus on: the heterogeneity of ethnic groups; cross-sectoral disadvantages which contribute to disease burden and digital accessibility; and disease-specific interventions which lend themselves to culturally tailored solutions.

OpenSAFELY NHS Service Restoration Observatory 2: changes in primary care clinical activity in England during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted healthcare activity across a broad range of clinical services. The NHS stopped non-urgent work in March 2020, later recommending services be restored to near-normal levels before winter where possible. AIM: To describe changes in the volume and variation of coded clinical activity in general practice across six clinical areas: cardiovascular disease, diabetes, mental health, female and reproductive health, screening and related procedures, and processes related to medication. DESIGN AND SETTING: With the approval of NHS England, a cohort study was conducted of 23.8 million patient records in general practice, in situ using OpenSAFELY. METHOD: Common primary care activities were analysed using Clinical Terms Version 3 codes and keyword searches from January 2019 to December 2020, presenting median and deciles of code usage across practices per month. RESULTS: Substantial and widespread changes in clinical activity in primary care were identified since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, with generally good recovery by December 2020. A few exceptions showed poor recovery and warrant further investigation, such as mental health (for example, for 'Depression interim review' the median occurrences across practices in December 2020 was down by 41.6% compared with December 2019). CONCLUSION: Granular NHS general practice data at population-scale can be used to monitor disruptions to healthcare services and guide the development of mitigation strategies. The authors are now developing real-time monitoring dashboards for the key measures identified in this study, as well as further studies using primary care data to monitor and mitigate the indirect health impacts of COVID-19 on the NHS.

Ethnic minority representation in UK COVID-19 trials: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted health disparities affecting ethnic minority communities. There is growing concern about the lack of diversity in clinical trials. This study aimed to assess the representation of ethnic groups in UK-based COVID-19 randomised controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken. A search strategy was developed for MEDLINE (Ovid) and Google Scholar (1st January 2020-4th May 2022). Prospective COVID-19 RCTs for vaccines or therapeutics that reported UK data separately with a minimum of 50 participants were eligible. Search results were independently screened, and data extracted into proforma. Percentage of ethnic groups at all trial stages was mapped against Office of National Statistics (ONS) statistics. Post hoc DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis of percentages and a meta-regression assessing recruitment over time were conducted. Due to the nature of the review question, risk of bias was not assessed. Data analysis was conducted in Stata v17.0. A protocol was registered (PROSPERO CRD42021244185). RESULTS: In total, 5319 articles were identified; 30 studies were included, with 118,912 participants. Enrolment to trials was the only stage consistently reported (17 trials). Meta-analysis showed significant heterogeneity across studies, in relation to census-expected proportions at study enrolment. All ethnic groups, apart from Other (1.7% [95% CI 1.1-2.8%] vs ONS 1%) were represented to a lesser extent than ONS statistics, most marked in Black (1% [0.6-1.5%] vs 3.3%) and Asian (5.8% [4.4-7.6%] vs 7.5%) groups, but also apparent in White (84.8% [81.6-87.5%] vs 86%) and Mixed 1.6% [1.2-2.1%] vs 2.2%) groups. Meta-regression showed recruitment of Black participants increased over time (p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Asian, Black and Mixed ethnic groups are under-represented or incorrectly classified in UK COVID-19 RCTs. Reporting by ethnicity lacks consistency and transparency. Under-representation in clinical trials occurs at multiple levels and requires complex solutions, which should be considered throughout trial conduct. These findings may not apply outside of the UK setting.

Frameworks for Implementation, Uptake, and Use of Cardiometabolic Disease-Related Digital Health Interventions in Ethnic Minority Populations: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Digital health interventions have become increasingly common across health care, both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health inequalities, particularly with respect to ethnicity, may not be considered in frameworks that address the implementation of digital health interventions. We considered frameworks to include any models, theories, or taxonomies that describe or predict implementation, uptake, and use of digital health interventions. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess how health inequalities are addressed in frameworks relevant to the implementation, uptake, and use of digital health interventions; health and ethnic inequalities; and interventions for cardiometabolic disease. METHODS: SCOPUS, PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and gray literature were searched to identify papers on frameworks relevant to the implementation, uptake, and use of digital health interventions; ethnically or culturally diverse populations and health inequalities; and interventions for cardiometabolic disease. We assessed the extent to which frameworks address health inequalities, specifically ethnic inequalities; explored how they were addressed; and developed recommendations for good practice. RESULTS: Of 58 relevant papers, 22 (38%) included frameworks that referred to health inequalities. Inequalities were conceptualized as society-level, system-level, intervention-level, and individual. Only 5 frameworks considered all levels. Three frameworks considered how digital health interventions might interact with or exacerbate existing health inequalities, and 3 considered the process of health technology implementation, uptake, and use and suggested opportunities to improve equity in digital health. When ethnicity was considered, it was often within the broader concepts of social determinants of health. Only 3 frameworks explicitly addressed ethnicity: one focused on culturally tailoring digital health interventions, and 2 were applied to management of cardiometabolic disease. CONCLUSIONS: Existing frameworks evaluate implementation, uptake, and use of digital health interventions, but to consider factors related to ethnicity, it is necessary to look across frameworks. We have developed a visual guide of the key constructs across the 4 potential levels of action for digital health inequalities, which can be used to support future research and inform digital health policies.

'What is the risk to me from COVID-19?': Public involvement in providing mortality risk information for people with 'high-risk' conditions for COVID-19 (OurRisk.CoV).

Patients and public have sought mortality risk information throughout the pandemic, but their needs may not be served by current risk prediction tools. Our mixed methods study involved: (1) systematic review of published risk tools for prognosis, (2) provision and patient testing of new mortality risk estimates for people with high-risk conditions and (3) iterative patient and public involvement and engagement with qualitative analysis. Only one of 53 (2%) previously published risk tools involved patients or the public, while 11/53 (21%) had publicly accessible portals, but all for use by clinicians and researchers.Among people with a wide range of underlying conditions, there has been sustained interest and engagement in accessible and tailored, pre- and postpandemic mortality information. Informed by patient feedback, we provide such information in 'five clicks' (https://covid19-phenomics.org/OurRiskCoV.html), as context for decision making and discussions with health professionals and family members. Further development requires curation and regular updating of NHS data and wider patient and public engagement.

Evaluating the utility of synthetic COVID-19 case data.

BACKGROUND: Concerns about patient privacy have limited access to COVID-19 datasets. Data synthesis is one approach for making such data broadly available to the research community in a privacy protective manner. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the utility of synthetic data by comparing analysis results between real and synthetic data. METHODS: A gradient boosted classification tree was built to predict death using Ontario's 90 514 COVID-19 case records linked with community comorbidity, demographic, and socioeconomic characteristics. Model accuracy and relationships were evaluated, as well as privacy risks. The same model was developed on a synthesized dataset and compared to one from the original data. RESULTS: The AUROC and AUPRC for the real data model were 0.945 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.941-0.948] and 0.34 (95% CI, 0.313-0.368), respectively. The synthetic data model had AUROC and AUPRC of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.936-0.944) and 0.313 (95% CI, 0.286-0.342) with confidence interval overlap of 45.05% and 52.02% when compared with the real data. The most important predictors of death for the real and synthetic models were in descending order: age, days since January 1, 2020, type of exposure, and gender. The functional relationships were similar between the two data sets. Attribute disclosure risks were 0.0585, and membership disclosure risk was low. CONCLUSIONS: This synthetic dataset could be used as a proxy for the real dataset.