To examine associations between diet and risk of developing gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

Prospective cohort with a median follow-up of 15·8 years. Baseline diet was measured using a FFQ. GERD was defined as self-reported current or history of daily heartburn or acid regurgitation beginning at least 2 years after baseline. Sex-specific logistic regressions were performed to estimate OR for GERD associated with diet quality scores and intakes of nutrients, food groups and individual foods and beverages. The effect of substituting saturated fat for monounsaturated or polyunsaturated fat on GERD risk was examined.

Melbourne, Australia.

A cohort of 20 926 participants (62 % women) aged 40–59 years at recruitment between 1990 and 1994.

For men, total fat intake was associated with increased risk of GERD (OR 1·05 per 5 g/d; 95 % CI 1·01, 1·09; P = 0·016), whereas total carbohydrate (OR 0·89 per 30 g/d; 95 % CI 0·82, 0·98; P = 0·010) and starch intakes (OR 0·84 per 30 g/d; 95 % CI 0·75, 0·94; P = 0·005) were associated with reduced risk. Nutrients were not associated with risk for women. For both sexes, substituting saturated fat for polyunsaturated or monounsaturated fat did not change risk. For both sexes, fish, chicken, cruciferous vegetables and carbonated beverages were associated with increased risk, whereas total fruit and citrus were associated with reduced risk. No association was observed with diet quality scores.

Diet is a possible risk factor for GERD, but food considered as triggers of GERD symptoms might not necessarily contribute to disease development. Potential differential associations for men and women warrant further investigation.

The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) is the most commonly used measure to screen for depression in primary care but there is still lack of clarity about its accuracy and optimal scoring method.

To determine via meta-analysis the diagnostic accuracy of the PHQ-9-linear, PHQ-9-algorithm and PHQ-2 questions to detect major depressive disorder (MDD) among adults.

We systematically searched major electronic databases from inception until June 2015. Articles were included that reported the accuracy of PHQ-9 or PHQ-2 questions for diagnosing MDD in primary care defined according to standard classification systems. We carried out a meta-analysis, meta-regression, moderator and sensitivity analysis.

Overall, 26 publications reporting on 40 individual studies were included representing 26 902 people (median 502, s.d.=693.7) including 14 760 unique adults of whom 14.3% had MDD. The methodological quality of the included articles was acceptable. The meta-analytic area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the PHQ-9-linear and the PHQ-2 was significantly higher than the PHQ-9-algorithm, a difference that was maintained in head-to-head meta-analysis of studies. Our best estimates of sensitivity and specificity were 81.3% (95% CI 71.6–89.3) and 85.3% (95% CI 81.0–89.1), 56.8% (95% CI 41.2–71.8) and 93.3% (95% CI 87.5–97.3) and 89.3% (95% CI 81.5–95.1) and 75.9% (95% CI 70.1–81.3) for the PHQ-9-linear, PHQ-9-algorithm and PHQ-2 respectively. For case finding (ruling in a diagnosis), none of the methods were suitable but for screening (ruling out non-cases), all methods were encouraging with good clinical utility, although the cut-off threshold must be carefully chosen.

The PHQ can be used as an initial first step assessment in primary care and the PHQ-2 is adequate for this purpose with good acceptability. However, neither the PHQ-2 nor the PHQ-9 can be used to confirm a clinical diagnosis (case finding).

• Understand the concept of parity of esteem

• Be aware of the current inequalities in mental healthcare

• Appreciate how parity of esteem may be improved

There is a higher mortality rate due to cancer in people with mental illness and previous work suggests suboptimal medical care in this population. It remains unclear if this extends to breast cancer population screening.

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to establish if women with a mental health condition are less likely to receive mammography screening compared with those without mental ill health.

Major electronic databases were searched from inception until February 2014. We calculated odds ratios (OR) with a random effects meta-analysis comparing mammography screening rates among women with and without a mental illness. Results were stratified according to primary diagnosis including any mental illness, mood disorders, depression, severe mental illness (SMI), distress and anxiety.

We identified 24 publications reporting breast cancer screening practices in women with mental illness (n = 715 705). An additional 5 studies investigating screening for those with distress (n = 21 491) but no diagnosis of mental disorder were identified. The pooled meta-analysis showed significantly reduced rates of mammography screening in women with mental illness (OR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.66–0.77), mood disorders (OR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.76–0.90) and particularly SMI (OR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.45–0.65). No disparity was evident among women with distress alone.

Rates of mammography screening are lower in women with mental illness, particularly women with SMI, and this is not explained by the presence of emotional distress. Disparities in medical care due to mental illness clearly extend into preventive population screening.

To examine research productivity of staff working across 57 National Health Service (NHS) mental health trusts in England. We examined research productivity between 2010 and 2012, including funded portfolio studies and all research (funded and unfunded).

Across 57 trusts there were 1297 National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) studies in 2011/2012, involving 46140 participants and in the same year staff in these trusts published 1334 articles (an average of only 23.4 per trust per annum). After correcting for trust size and budget, the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust was the most productive. In terms of funded portfolio studies, Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust as well as South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust and Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust had the strongest performance in 2011/2012.

Trusts should aim to capitalise on valuable staff resources and expertise and better support and encourage research in the NHS to help improve clinical services.

The Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination (ACE) and its Revised version (ACE-R) are relatively new screening tools for cognitive impairment that may improve upon the well-known Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and other brief batteries. We systematically reviewed diagnostic accuracy studies of ACE and ACE-R.

Published studies comparing ACE, ACE-R and MMSE were comprehensively sought and critically appraised. A meta-analysis of suitable studies was conducted.

Of 61 possible publications identified, meta-analysis of qualifying studies encompassed 5 for ACE (1,090 participants) and 5 for ACE-R (1156 participants); of these, 9 made direct comparisons with the MMSE. Sensitivity and specificity of the ACE were 96.9% (95% CI = 92.7% to 99.4%) and 77.4% (95% CI = 58.3% to 91.8%); and for the ACE-R were 95.7% (95% CI = 92.2% to 98.2%) and 87.5% (95% CI = 63.8% to 99.4%). In a modest prevalence setting, such as primary care or general hospital settings where the prevalence of dementia may be approximately 25%, overall accuracy of the ACE (0.823) was inferior to ACE-R (0.895) and MMSE (0.882). In high prevalence settings such as memory clinics where the prevalence of dementia may be 50% or higher, overall accuracy again favored ACE-R (0.916) over ACE (0.872) and MMSE (0.895).

The ACE-R has somewhat superior diagnostic accuracy to the MMSE while the ACE appears to have inferior accuracy. The ACE-R is recommended in both modest and high prevalence settings. Accuracy of newer versions of the ACE remain to be determined.

There is some concern that patients with mental illness may be in receipt of inferior medical care, including prescribed medication for medical conditions.

We aimed to quantify possible differences in the prescription of medication for medical conditions in those with v. without mental illness.

Systematic review and random effects meta-analysis with a minimum of three independent studies to warrant pooling by drug class.

We found 61 comparative analyses (from 23 publications) relating to the prescription of 12 classes of medication for cardiovascular health, diabetes, cancer, arthritis, osteoporosis and HIV in a total sample of 1931 509 people, in those with severe mental illness the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for an equitable prescription was 0.74 (95% CI 0.63-0.86), with lower than expected prescriptions for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ACE/ ARBs), beta-blockers and statins. People with affective disorder had an odds ratio of 0.75 (95% CI 0.55-1.02) but this was not significant. Individuals with a history of other (miscellaneous) mental illness had an odds ratio of 0.95 (95% CI 0.92-0.98) of comparable medication with lower receipt of ACE/ARBs but not highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) medication. Results were significant in both adjusted and unadjusted analyses.

Individuals with severe mental illness (including schizophrenia) appear to be prescribed significantly lower quantities of several common medications for medical disorders, largely for cardiovascular indications, although further work is required to clarify to what extent this is because of prescriber intent.

Clinicians have considerable difficulty identifying and helping those people with alcohol problems but no previous study has looked at this systematically.

To determine clinicians' ability to routinely identify broadly defined alcohol problems.

Data were extracted and rated by two authors, according to PRISMA standard and QUADAS criteria. Studies that examined the diagnostic accuracy of clinicians' opinion regarding the presence of alcohol problems as well as their written notation were evaluated.

A comprehensive search identified 48 studies that looked at the routine ability of clinicians to identify alcohol problems (12 in primary care, 31 in general hospitals and 5 in psychiatric settings). A total of 39 examined alcohol use disorder, 5 alcohol dependence and 4 intoxication. We separated studies into those using self-report and those using interview. The diagnostic sensitivity of primary care physicians (general practitioners) in the identification of alcohol use disorder was 41.7% (95% CI 23.0–61.7) but alcohol problems were recorded correctly in only 27.3% (95% CI 16.9–39.1) of primary care records. Hospital staff identified 52.4% (95% CI 35.9–68.7) of cases and made correct notations in 37.2% (95% CI 28.4–46.4) of case notes. Mental health professionals were able to correctly identify alcohol use disorder in 54.7% (95% CI 16.8–89.6) of cases. There were limited data regarding alcohol dependency and intoxication. Hospital staff were able to detect 41.7% (95% CI 16.5–69.5) of people with alcohol dependency and 89.8% (95% CI 70.4–99.4) of those acutely intoxicated. Specificity data were sparse.

Clinicians may consider simple screening methods such as self-report tools rather than relying on unassisted clinical judgement but the added value of screening over and above clinical diagnosis remains unclear.