Health policy analysis
in full colour


Our research methods help policy makers make fairer decisions with better health outcomes.

The problem. Existing analyses focus on a mythical average citizen.

The solution. We develop ways of analysing who gains and loses from health policies.

Find out more

Monitoring Fairness in the NHS

Latest tweets

Rajan Sharma (MUCHE) talks at CHE on 20 August re "Evaluating a universal newborn hearing screening program: tackling several methodological challenges using real-world data” https://t.co/XZyFncqYDo

We were delighted to host the 2019 @ODIdev Health Fellows Training Day at @CHEyork last week. It was a great day filled with fantastic discussion! You can read more about the event in our latest news post here: https://t.co/3TSLAGenRX

Via Karl Claxton @CHEyork @EconomicsatYork “Courage: We use estimates of health opportunity costs because you don’t pay for your health care, other people do, sometimes with their lives and the lives and dignity of their loved ones” @icer_review https://t.co/bNueIzgSq9

Load More...

New resources

2019

Publication details

Journal Social Science & Medicine
Date Accepted/In press - 21 Jun 2019
Date E-pub ahead of print - 10 Jul 2019
Date Published (current) - Aug 2019
Volume 235
Number of pages 10
Early online date 10/07/19
Original language English

Bibliographical note

© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. This is an author-produced version of the published paper. Uploaded in accordance with the publisher’s self-archiving policy.

Publication details

Journal Age and Ageing
Date Accepted/In press - 19 May 2019
Date E-pub ahead of print (current) - 12 Jul 2019
Early online date 12/07/19
Original language English

Bibliographical note

© 2019 Oxford University Press. This is an author-produced version of the published paper. Uploaded in accordance with the publisher’s self-archiving policy. Further copying may not be permitted; contact the publisher for details.

Publication details

Journal Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.)
Date Accepted/In press - 21 Mar 2019
Date E-pub ahead of print (current) - 21 May 2019
Number of pages 7
Early online date 21/05/19
Original language English

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Although U.K. and international guidelines recommend monotherapy, antipsychotic polypharmacy among patients with serious mental illness is common in clinical practice. However, empirical evidence on its effectiveness is scarce. Therefore, the authors estimated the effectiveness of antipsychotic polypharmacy relative to monotherapy in terms of health care utilization and mortality.

METHODS: Primary care data from Clinical Practice Research Datalink, hospital data from Hospital Episode Statistics, and mortality data from the Office of National Statistics were linked to compile a cohort of patients with serious mental illness in England from 2000 to 2014. The antipsychotic prescribing profile of 17,255 adults who had at least one antipsychotic drug record during the period of observation was constructed from primary care medication records. Survival analysis models were estimated to identify the effect of antipsychotic polypharmacy on the time to first occurrence of each of three outcomes: unplanned hospital admissions (all cause), emergency department (ED) visits, and mortality.

RESULTS: Relative to monotherapy, antipsychotic polypharmacy was not associated with increased risk of unplanned hospital admission (hazard ratio [HR]=1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.98-1.32), ED visit (HR=0.95; 95% CI=0.80-1.14), or death (HR=1.02; 95% CI=0.76-1.37). Relative to not receiving antipsychotic medication, monotherapy was associated with a reduced hazard of unplanned admissions to the hospital and ED visits, but it had no effect on mortality.

CONCLUSIONS: The study results support current guidelines for antipsychotic monotherapy in routine clinical practice. However, they also suggest that when clinicians have deemed antipsychotic polypharmacy necessary, health care utilization and mortality are not affected.

Bibliographical note

This is an author-produced version of the published paper. Uploaded in accordance with the publisher’s self-archiving policy. Further copying may not be permitted; contact the publisher for details.

More

EQUIPOL is supported by the University of York, the Wellcome Trust (Grant No. 205427/Z/16/Z) and the NIHR (SRF-2013-06-015).

Image Image Image