Glastonbury Festival: Medical Care at the World's Largest Greenfield Music Festival.

INTRODUCTION: Music festivals have become an increasingly popular form of mass-gathering event, drawing an increasing number of attendees across the world each year. While festivals exist to provide guests with an enjoyable experience, there have been instances of serious illness, injury, and in some cases death. Large crowds, prolonged exposure to loud music, and high rates of drug and alcohol consumption can pose a dangerous environment for guests as well as those looking after them. METHODS: A retrospective review of electronic patient records (EPRs) at the 2022 Glastonbury Festival was undertaken. All patients who attended medical services on-site during the festival and immediately after were included. Patient demographics, diagnosis, treatment received, and discharge destination were obtained and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 2,828 patients received on-site medical care. The patient presentation rate (PPR) was 13.47 and the transport-to-hospital rate (TTHR) was 0.30 per 1,000 guests. The most common diagnoses were joint injuries, gastrointestinal conditions, and blisters. Only 164 patients (5.48%) were diagnosed as being intoxicated. Overall, 552 patients (19.52%) were prescribed a medication to take away and 268 (9.48%) had a dressing for a minor wound. One patient (0.04%) underwent a general anesthetic and no patients required cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Most patients were discharged back to the festival site (2,563; 90.66%). DISCUSSION: Minor conditions were responsible for many presentations and most patients only required mild or non-invasive interventions, after which they could be safely discharged back to the festival. Older adults were diagnosed with a different frequency of conditions compared to the overall study population, something not reported previously. Intoxicated patients only accounted for a very small amount of the medical workload.

A pragmatic randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of family therapy versus treatment as usual for young people seen after second or subsequent episodes of self-harm: the Self-Harm Intervention - Family Therapy (SHIFT) trial.

BACKGROUND: Self-harm in adolescents is common and repetition rates high. There is limited evidence of the effectiveness of interventions to reduce self-harm. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of family therapy (FT) compared with treatment as usual (TAU). DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, individually randomised controlled trial of FT compared with TAU. Participants and therapists were aware of treatment allocation; researchers were blind to allocation. SETTING: Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) across three English regions. PARTICIPANTS: Young people aged 11-17 years who had self-harmed at least twice presenting to CAMHS following self-harm. INTERVENTIONS: Eight hundred and thirty-two participants were randomised to manualised FT delivered by trained and supervised family therapists (n = 415) or to usual care offered by local CAMHS following self-harm (n = 417). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of repetition of self-harm leading to hospital attendance 18 months after randomisation. RESULTS: Out of 832 young people, 212 (26.6%) experienced a primary outcome event: 118 out of 415 (28.4%) randomised to FT and 103 out of 417 (24.7%) randomised to TAU. There was no evidence of a statistically significant difference in repetition rates between groups (the hazard ratio for FT compared with TAU was 1.14, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.49; p = 0.3349). FT was not found to be cost-effective when compared with TAU in the base case and most sensitivity analyses. FT was dominated (less effective and more expensive) in the complete case. However, when young people's and caregivers' quality-adjusted life-year gains were combined, FT incurred higher costs and resulted in better health outcomes than TAU within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness range. Significant interactions with treatment, indicating moderation, were detected for the unemotional subscale on the young person-reported Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits (p = 0.0104) and the affective involvement subscale on the caregiver-reported McMaster Family Assessment Device (p = 0.0338). Caregivers and young people in the FT arm reported a range of significantly better outcomes on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Self-reported suicidal ideation was significantly lower in the FT arm at 12 months but the same in both groups at 18 months. No significant unexpected adverse events or side effects were reported, with similar rates of expected adverse events across trial arms. CONCLUSIONS: For adolescents referred to CAMHS after self-harm, who have self-harmed at least once before, FT confers no benefits over TAU in reducing self-harm repetition rates. There is some evidence to support the effectiveness of FT in reducing self-harm when caregivers reported poor family functioning. When the young person themselves reported difficulty expressing emotion, FT did not seem as effective as TAU. There was no evidence that FT is cost-effective when only the health benefits to participants were considered but there was a suggestion that FT may be cost-effective if health benefits to caregivers are taken into account. FT had a significant, positive impact on general emotional and behavioural problems at 12 and 18 months. LIMITATIONS: There was significant loss to follow-up for secondary outcomes and health economic analyses; the primary outcome misses those who do not attend hospital following self-harm; and the numbers receiving formal FT in the TAU arm were higher than expected. FUTURE WORK: Evaluation of interventions targeted at subgroups of those who self-harm, longer-term follow-up and methods for evaluating health benefits for family groups rather than for individuals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN59793150. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 12. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Effectiveness of systemic family therapy versus treatment as usual for young people after self-harm: a pragmatic, phase 3, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Self-harm in adolescents is common and repetition occurs in a high proportion of these cases. Scarce evidence exists for effectiveness of interventions to reduce self-harm. METHODS: This pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial of family therapy versus treatment as usual was done at 40 UK Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) centres. We recruited young people aged 11-17 years who had self-harmed at least twice and presented to CAMHS after self-harm. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive manualised family therapy delivered by trained and supervised family therapists or treatment as usual by local CAMHS. Participants and therapists were aware of treatment allocation; researchers were masked. The primary outcome was hospital attendance for repetition of self-harm in the 18 months after group assignment. Primary and safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN59793150. FINDINGS: Between Nov 23, 2009, and Dec 31, 2013, 3554 young people were screened and 832 eligible young people consented to participation and were randomly assigned to receive family therapy (n=415) or treatment as usual (n=417). Primary outcome data were available for 795 (96%) participants. Numbers of hospital attendances for repeat self-harm events were not significantly different between the groups (118 [28%] in the family therapy group vs 103 [25%] in the treatment as usual group; hazard ratio 1·14 [95% CI 0·87-1·49] p=0·33). Similar numbers of adverse events occurred in both groups (787 in the family therapy group vs 847 in the treatment as usual group). INTERPRETATION: For adolescents referred to CAMHS after self-harm, having self-harmed at least once before, our family therapy intervention conferred no benefits over treatment as usual in reducing subsequent hospital attendance for self-harm. Clinicians are therefore still unable to recommend a clear, evidence-based intervention to reduce repeated self-harm in adolescents. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Searching for religion and mental health studies required health, social science, and grey literature databases.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the optimal databases to search for studies of faith-sensitive interventions for treating depression. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We examined 23 health, social science, religious, and grey literature databases searched for an evidence synthesis. Databases were prioritized by yield of (1) search results, (2) potentially relevant references identified during screening, (3) included references contained in the synthesis, and (4) included references that were available in the database. We assessed the impact of databases beyond MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO by their ability to supply studies identifying new themes and issues. We identified pragmatic workload factors that influence database selection. RESULTS: PsycINFO was the best performing database within all priority lists. ArabPsyNet, CINAHL, Dissertations and Theses, EMBASE, Global Health, Health Management Information Consortium, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Sociological Abstracts were essential for our searches to retrieve the included references. Citation tracking activities and the personal library of one of the research teams made significant contributions of unique, relevant references. Religion studies databases (Am Theo Lib Assoc, FRANCIS) did not provide unique, relevant references. CONCLUSION: Literature searches for reviews and evidence syntheses of religion and health studies should include social science, grey literature, non-Western databases, personal libraries, and citation tracking activities.