BackgroundThere are now effective drugs to prevent cardiovascular disease and guidelines recommend their use. Patients do not always choose to accept preventive medication at levels of risk reduction recommended in guidelines. The purpose of the study was to identify and explore the attitudes of patients and general practitioners towards preventative medication for cardiovascular disease (CVD) after they have received information about it; to identify implications for practice and prescribing.MethodsQualitative interviews with GPs and patients following presentation of in depth information about CVD risks and the absolute effects of medication. Setting: GP practices in Birmingham, United Kingdom.ResultsIn both populations: wide variation on attitudes to preventative medication; concerns about unnecessary drug taking & side effects; preferring to consider lifestyle changes first. In patient population: whatever their attitudes to medication were, the vast majority explained that they would ultimately do what their GP recommended; there was some misunderstanding of the distinction between curative and preventative medication. A common theme was the degree of trust in their doctors' judgement and recommendations, which contrasted with scepticism of the role of pharmaceutical companies and academics. Scepticism in guidelines was also common among doctors although many nevertheless recommended treatment for their patientsConclusionsA guideline approach to prescribing preventative medication could be against the interests and preferences of the patient. GPs must take extra care to explain what preventative medication is and why it is recommended, attempt to discern preferences and make recommendations balancing these potentially conflicting concerns.

ObjectiveTo examine the extent, nature and quality of literature on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of imprisoned people and prison staff.DesignScoping review.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Global Health, Cochrane, PsycINFO, PsychExtra, Web of Science and Scopus were searched for any paper from 2019 onwards that focused on the mental health impact of COVID-19 on imprisoned people and prison staff. A grey literature search focused on international and government sources and professional bodies representing healthcare, public health and prison staff was also performed. We also performed hand searching of the reference lists of included studies.Eligibility criteria for selection of studiesAll papers, regardless of study design, were included if they examined the mental health of imprisoned people or prison staff specifically during the COVID-19 pandemic. Imprisoned people could be of any age and from any countries. All languages were included. Two independent reviewers quality assessed appropriate papers.ResultsOf 647 articles found, 83 were eligible for inclusion, the majority (58%) of which were opinion pieces. The articles focused on the challenges to prisoner mental health. Fear of COVID-19, the impact of isolation, discontinuation of prison visits and reduced mental health services were all likely to have an adverse effect on the mental well-being of imprisoned people. The limited research and poor quality of articles included mean that the findings are not conclusive. However, they suggest a significant adverse impact on the mental health and well-being of those who live and work in prisons.ConclusionsIt is key to address the mental health impacts of the pandemic on people who live and work in prisons. These findings are discussed in terms of implications for getting the balance between infection control imperatives and the fundamental human rights of prison populations.

Psychiatric patients may try (or express a desire) to injure themselves in hospital in order to cope with overwhelming emotional pain. Some health care practitioners and patients propose allowing a controlled amount of self-injury to occur in inpatient facilities, so as to prevent escalation of distress. Is this approach an example of professional assistance with harm? Or, is the approach more likely to minimise harm, by ensuring safer self-injury? In this article, I argue that health care practitioners who use harm-minimisation can be considered to be helping physical injury to occur, although they do not encourage the act. I consider why there are compelling reasons to believe that a patient who self-injures is not maximally autonomous in relation to that choice. However, I then move onto argue that allowing a degree of self-injury may enable engagement with psychotherapy (enhancing autonomy) and behavioural change. In these circumstances, allowing injury (with precautions) may not be harm, all things considered.

IntroductionSelf-harm in prison is a major public health concern. Less than 5% of UK prisoners are women, but they carry out more than a fifth of prison self-harm. Scars resulting from self-harm can be traumatising and stigmatising, yet there has been little focus on recovery of women prisoners with self-harm scarring. Medical skin camouflage (MSC) clinics treat individuals with disfiguring skin conditions, with evidence of improved well-being, self-esteem and social interactions. Only one community study has piloted the use of MSC for self-harm scarring.Methods and analysisWe describe an acceptability and feasibility pilot randomised controlled trial; the first to examine MSC for women prisoners who self-harm. We aim to randomise 20–25 women prisoners to a 6-week MSC intervention and 20–25 to a waitlist control (to receive the MSC after the study period). We aim to train at least 6–10 long-term prisoners with personal experience of self-harm to deliver the intervention. Before and after intervention, we will pilot collection of women-centred outcomes, including quality of life, well-being and self-esteem. We will pilot collection of self-harm incidents during the intervention, resources used to manage/treat self-harm and follow-up of women at 12 weeks from baseline. Data on recruitment, retention and dropout will be recorded. We aim for the acceptability of the intervention to prison staff and women prisoners to be explored in qualitative interviews and focus groups.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for COVER has been granted by the North East–York Research Ethics Committee (REC) for phases 1 and 2 (reference: 16/NE/0030) and West of Scotland REC 3 for phases 3 and 4 (reference: 16/WS/0155). Informed consent will be the primary consideration; it will be made clear that participation will have no effect on life in prison or eligibility for parole. Due to the nature of the study, disclosures of serious self-harm may need to be reported to prison officials. We aim for findings to be disseminated via events at the study prison, presentations at national/international conferences, journal publications, prison governor meetings and university/National Health Service trust communications.Trial registration number NCT02638974; Pre-results.

No abstract