Self-harm, in-person bullying and cyberbullying in secondary school-aged children: A data linkage study in Wales.

INTRODUCTION: Although the evidence base on bullying victimization and self-harm in young people has been growing, most studies were cross-sectional, relied on self-reported non-validated measures of self-harm, and did not separate effects of in-person and cyberbullying. This study aimed to assess associations of self-harm following in-person bullying at school and cyberbullying victimization controlling for covariates. METHODS: School survey data from 11 to 16 years pupils collected in 2017 from 39 Welsh secondary schools were linked to routinely collected data. Inverse probability weighting was performed to circumvent selection bias. Survival analyses for recurrent events were conducted to evaluate relative risks (adjusted hazard ratios [AHR]) of self-harm among bullying groups within 2 years following survey completion. RESULTS: A total of 35.0% (weighted N = 6813) of pupils reported being bullied, with 18.1%, 6.4% and 10.5% being victims of in-person bullying at school only, cyberbullying only and both in-person bullying at school and cyberbullying respectively. Adjusting for covariates, effect sizes for self-harm were significant after being in-person bullied at school only (AHR = 2.2 [1.1-4.3]) and being both in-person bullied at school and cyberbullied (AHR = 2.2 [1.0-4.7]) but not being cyberbullied only (AHR = 1.2 [0.4-3.3]). Feeling lonely during recent summer holidays was also a robust predictor (AHR = 2.2 [1.2-4.0]). CONCLUSIONS: We reaffirm the role of in-person bullying victimization on self-harm. Pupils were twice as likely to self-harm following in-person bullying as their nonvictimised peers. Interventions for young people that minimize the potential impacts of bullying on self-harm should also include strategies to prevent loneliness.

Implementation of non-invasive prenatal testing within a national UK antenatal screening programme: Impact on women's choices.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the implementation of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) on pregnant women's choices in a national NHS antenatal screening programme for Down's syndrome, Edwards' syndrome and Patau's syndrome. METHOD: An observational study of all pregnant women with a singleton pregnancy and higher chance (≤1:150) combined or quadruple screening result from 30 April 2018 to 25 September 2020 in Wales, UK. Pregnant women's journey through the pathway was determined including uptake of NIPT, performance of NIPT in a non-research setting and invasive procedures performed. RESULTS: Of the 1273 women with a higher chance initial screening, 1073 (84%) chose NIPT contingent test, 174 (14%) no further testing and 26 (2%) invasive procedure. There were 1001 (93%) low chance NIPT results; 11 (1%) failed results and 61 (6%) high chance results. Average annual incidence of 27 invasive procedures undertaken compared to 229 pre-NIPT implementation, a nearly ninefold reduction. Down's syndrome annual live birth rate remained unchanged across the implementation period. DISCUSSION: This study demonstrates that NIPT contingent screening was highly acceptable to women with a resulting reduction in invasive procedures performed. CONCLUSION: The high uptake of NIPT in NHS antenatal screening pathway conditions should inform planning for other national screening programmes.

SARS-CoV-2 sero-prevalence in the workforces of three large workplaces in South Wales: a sero-epidemiological study.

BACKGROUND: Sero-prevalence studies quantify the proportion of a population that has antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, and can be used to identify the extent of the COVID-19 pandemic at a population level. The aim of the study was to assess the sero-prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the workforce at three workplaces: a food factory, non-food factory and call-centre. METHODS: Nine hundred ninety-three participants were recruited from three workplaces in South Wales. Participants completed a questionnaire and had a lateral flow point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 antibody test administered by a healthcare professional. The data were analysed using multivariable logistic regression, both using complete records only and following multiple imputation. RESULTS: The sero-prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies ranged from 4% (n = 17/402) in the non-food factory to 10% (n = 28/281) in the food factory (OR 2.93; 95% CI 1.26 to 6.81). After taking account of confounding factors evidence of a difference remained (cOR comparing food factory to call centre (2.93; 95% CI 1.26 to 6.81) and non-food factory (3.99; 95% CI 1.97 to 8.08) respectively). The SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence also varied between roles within workplaces. People working in office based roles had a 2.23 times greater conditional odds (95% CI 1.02 to 4.87) of being positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies than those working on the factory floor. CONCLUSION: The sero-prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies varied by workplace and work role. Whilst it is not possible to state whether these differences are due to COVID-19 transmission within the workplaces, it highlights the importance of considering COVID-19 transmission in a range of workplaces and work roles.