Data suggest poorer bereavement outcomes for lesbian, gay and bisexual people, but this has not been estimated in population-based research. This study compared bereavement outcomes for partners of same-gender and different-gender decedents.

In this population-based, cross-sectional survey of people bereaved of a civil partner or spouse 6–10 months previously, we used adjusted logistic and linear regression to investigate outcomes of interest: (1) positive screen on Inventory of Complicated Grief (ICG), (2) positive screen on General Health Questionnaire (GHQ), (3) grief intensity (ICG) and (4) psychiatric symptoms (GHQ-12).

Among 233 same-gender partners and 329 of different-gender partners, 66.1% [95% confidence interval (CI) 60.0–72.2] and 59.2% [95% CI (53.9–64.6)] respectively screened positive for complicated grief on the ICG, whilst 76.0% [95% CI (70.5–81.5)] and 69.3% [95% CI (64.3–74.3)] respectively screened positive on the GHQ-12. Same-gender bereaved partners were not significantly more likely to screen positive for complicated grief than different-gender partners [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.56, 95% CI (0.98–2.47)], p = 0.059, but same-gender bereaved partners were significantly more likely to screen for psychiatric caseness [aOR 1.67 (1.02, 2.71) p = 0.043]. We similarly found no significant association of partner gender with grief intensity [B = 1.86, 95% CI (−0.91to 4.63), p = 0.188], but significantly greater psychological distress for same-gender partners [B = 1.54, 95% CI (−0.69–2.40), p < 0.001].

Same-gender bereaved partners report significantly more psychological distress. In view of their poorer sub-clinical mental health, clinical and bereavement services should refine screening processes to identify those at risk of poor mental health outcomes.

To assess the sexual and reproductive health (SRH) needs of women admitted to a psychiatric intensive care unit (PICU), and acceptability of delivering specialist SRH assessments and interventions in this setting. Within a quality improvement framework, staff were trained, a clinical protocol developed and clinical interventions made accessible.

Thirty per cent of women were identified as having unmet SRH needs and proceeded to a specialist appointment, representing a 2.5-fold increase in unmet need detection. Forty-two per cent of women were assessed, representing a 3.5-fold increase in uptake. Twenty-one per cent of women initiated SRH interventions, of which 14% had all their SRH needs met. Staff, patients and carers highlighted the acceptability and importance of SRH care, if interventions were appropriately timed and patients’ individual risk profiles were considered. Barriers to access included lack of routine enquiry, illness acuity and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

SRH needs for PICU admissions are greater than previously realised. Providing a nurse-led SRH assessment is acceptable, feasible and beneficial for PICU patients.

To assess the sexual and reproductive health (SRH) needs of women admitted to a psychiatric intensive care unit (PICU), and acceptability of delivering specialist SRH assessments/interventions in this setting. Secondary aims were to explore the barriers to access and the feasibility of providing SRH assessments and interventions in the PICU.

A retrospective analysis of fifteen months’ activity data found that only 25 SRH referrals had been made across 205 PICU admissions. This low referral rate of 12% likely reflected pathway barriers and was unlikely to represent the actual clinical need in female PICU patients. A bi-monthly SRH in-reach clinic and a nurse led SRH referral pathway were implemented on the PICU over a seven-month period. Within a quality improvement framework, a staff training needs assessment was performed, training delivered, a protocol developed, staff attitudes explored, and patient and carer engagement sought.

A quality improvement approach streamlined SRH assessments on the PICU and resulted in 42% of women being assessed and a 3.5-fold increase in uptake. At least 30% of the women in the PICU had unmet SRH needs identified and proceeded to a specialist appointment. This amounts to a minimum 2.5-fold increase in SRH unmet need detection.

The most common SRH needs were complex gynaecological issues (such as period problems, pelvic pain, vaginal discharge), STI advice/testing and contraception advice/options. 21% of women initiated SRH interventions, and 14% completed all the interventions required for their needs. The most common interventions were in the areas of contraception advice/family planning and STI advice/testing.

Staff confidence on assessing SRH topics was identified as a barrier to access with a positive shift noted after bespoke SRH training was implemented and a protocol introduced: on a scale of 0-10 (with 10 being high), 81.3% of staff rated their confidence 8 or above in relation to discussing contraception/sexually transmitted infections (pre-training: 25.0%), and 93.8% in relation to discussing risky behaviours (pre-training: 18.8%). All 11 patient and carer participants felt it was important to have a forum to talk about SRH and 8 (72.7%) agreed it was important in the PICU.

Results identify that SRH needs for PICU admissions are greater than previously realised. Staff highlighted the acceptability and importance of SRH care, if interventions are appropriately timed and the patient's individual risk profile considered. Providing a nurse led referral pathway for an SRH in-reach clinic is acceptable, feasible and beneficial for PICU patients.

To compare two sexual and reproductive health (SRH) clinical pathways (a priority appointment at a mainstream SRH clinic versus assertive community outreach), and to explore how each improves access to care for people with psychotic mental illness, severe addictions and/or learning disability.

Observational, descriptive study of two clinical access pathways within SHRINE (Sexual and Reproductive Health Rights, Inclusion and Empowerment), a specialist SRH programme to improve SRH care for severely marginalised people.

The SHRINE programme delivers effective, ethical, accessible and user-centred SRH care for people with severe addiction, serious mental illness and/or learning disability in the deprived inner London boroughs of Lambeth and Southwark. These individuals often find accessing conventional SRH clinics very difficult. SHRINE clients can self-refer but most of them are referred by their health or social worker.

Clients or referrers indicate their preferred pathway: priority appointment at the mainstream clinic or assertive community outreach. The priority appointment pathway at Camberwell Sexual Health Centre (CSHC) is as flexible as possible, with minimal waiting times, reminders, invitation to bring a friend or care worker and active follow-up of non-attenders via key workers. Assertive community outreach can be in an addiction clinic, postnatal ward, mental health centre, psychiatric ward, outpatient clinic, homeless hostel or the client's home.

Time allocation for outreach and priority appointment-based care was 8 and 4 hours per week respectively. Care in both pathways was provided by senior doctors. Content of care was similar but facility for provision of gynaecological care including cervical smears and investigations for abnormal uterine bleeding e.g. pelvic ultrasound scans and endometrial biopsies were only available in the mainstream clinic setting at CSHC.

From May 2016 to December 2020 SHRINE received 1367 referrals from 125+ teams. We offered 1591 first or follow-up appointments of which 1369 (86%) were attended. A total of 1153 (84%) of our patient contacts occurred in the outreach setting where 93% the appointments were attended. Of the 358 appointments at CSHC 316 (60%) were attended.

Making clinic access as simple and convenient as possible is not a sufficient strategy to meet the SRH needs of marginalised people. To enable them to realise their human right to sexual and reproductive health we need to leave our clinics and meet our clients where they are. A combined model of outreach and priority access clinic pathways is essential for provision of SRH care for people with mental illness.

This study compared the level of education and tests from multiple cognitive domains as proxies for cognitive reserve.

The participants were educationally, ethnically, and cognitively diverse older adults enrolled in a longitudinal aging study. We examined independent and interactive effects of education, baseline cognitive scores, and MRI measures of cortical gray matter change on longitudinal cognitive change.

Baseline episodic memory was related to cognitive decline independent of brain and demographic variables and moderated (weakened) the impact of gray matter change. Education moderated (strengthened) the gray matter change effect. Non-memory cognitive measures did not incrementally explain cognitive decline or moderate gray matter change effects.

Episodic memory showed strong construct validity as a measure of cognitive reserve. Education effects on cognitive decline were dependent upon the rate of atrophy, indicating education effectively measures cognitive reserve only when atrophy rate is low. Results indicate that episodic memory has clinical utility as a predictor of future cognitive decline and better represents the neural basis of cognitive reserve than other cognitive abilities or static proxies like education.

We examined the association of generational status and age at immigration with later life cognitive outcomes in a diverse sample of Latinos and Asian Americans.

Baseline data were obtained from the Kaiser Healthy Aging and Diverse Life Experiences (KHANDLE) study, and a prospective cohort is initiated in 2017.

Older adults in Northern California.

Our cohort consisted of Asians (n = 411) and Latinos (n = 340) who were on average 76 years old (SD = 6.8).

We used multivariable linear regression models to estimate associations between generational status and age at immigration (collapsed into one five-level variable) with measures of verbal episodic memory, semantic memory, and executive function, adjusting for age, gender, race and ethnicity, and own- and parental education.

Generational status and age at immigration were associated with cognitive outcomes in a graded manner. Compared to third-generation or higher immigrants, first-generation immigration in adulthood was associated with lower semantic memory (β = −0.96; 95% CI: −1.12, −0.81) than immigration in adolescence (β = −0.68; 95% CI: −0.96, −0.41) or childhood (β = −0.28; 95% CI: −0.49, −0.06). Moreover, immigration in adulthood was associated with lower executive function (β = −0.63; 95% CI: −0.78, −0.48) than immigration in adolescence (β = −0.49; 95% CI: −0.75, −0.23). Similarly, compared to third-generation individuals, first-generation immigrants had lower executive functioning scores.

Our study supports the notion that sociocontextual influences in early life impact later life cognitive scores. Longitudinal studies are needed to further clarify how immigration characteristics affect cognitive decline.