Developing palliative and end-of-life care research partnerships in the North East and North Cumbria: A report on the first year of the RIPEN network.

The purpose of this article is to share insights from the National Institute for Health and Care Research Clinical Research Network (NIHR CRN) in delivering research for Multiple Long Term Conditions (MLTC) and to highlight lessons of wider relevance across the research ecosystem. Designing health and care systems to be more responsive to the needs of people living with MLTC requires a considerable evidence base. When compared with research focused on a single disease area, research relating to MLTC raises unique considerations at the stages of planning, placing, and delivering research studies. Our article describes challenges associated with MLTC research outcomes and outlines different types of interventions to target MLTC, along with related research delivery considerations. Our article also raises important considerations for placing research in the most appropriate setting and highlights the vital role of robust feasibility studies, informed by the lived experience of patients and carers with MLTC, for ensuring that studies are conducted, recruited to, and completed in a timely and appropriate way. Increasing the evidence base for the prevention and management of MLTC is a necessity for our health and care system. This presents novel challenges that require collaboration between multiple stakeholders. The UK benefits from a unique research infrastructure, including support for the stages of planning and delivery of health and care research. As the health and care system moves towards bringing care closer to patients and service users, the appropriate selection of the health and care settings and research sites in which to deliver MLTC research, in addition to understanding and removing barriers to recruitment and participation for people with MLTCs, are important considerations to enable us to collectively respond to this challenge.

COVID-19 and the role of Voluntary, Community, and Social Enterprises in northern England in responding to the needs of marginalised communities: a qualitative focus group study

Background People living with multiple long-term conditions represent a significant concern for National Health Service policy and practice, and their care is a major theme in the 2019 National Health Service Long Term Plan. The Birmingham RAND and Cambridge Rapid Evaluation Centre team has undertaken a thematic synthesis of the 10 evaluations it has conducted from 2018 to 2023, exploring the needs, priorities and implications for people with multiple long-term conditions. Objectives The aims for this overarching study were to: (1) build a body of learning about service innovations in primary and community settings for people of all ages with multiple long-term conditions, focused on questions that matter most to people with multimorbidity; and (2) develop methodological insights about how rapid evaluation can be used to inform the scoping, testing and implementation of service innovations for people with multiple long-term conditions. Design The focus on multiple long-term conditions came from a Birmingham RAND and Cambridge Rapid Evaluation Centre prioritisation process undertaken in 2018 using James Lind Alliance methods. Cross-analysis of the findings from the 10 individual rapid evaluations was supplemented by (1) building aspects of multimorbidity into the design of later evaluations; (2) interviewing national and regional stakeholders (n=19) working in or alongside integrated care systems; (3) undertaking a rapid review of evidence on remote monitoring for people with multiple long-term conditions (19 papers included); and (4) testing overall insights with organisations representing patients and carers through a patient, public and professional engagement workshop with 10 participants plus members of the research team. Results While living with multiple long-term conditions is common and is the norm for people over the age of 50 using health and care services, it is not often a focus of health service provision or innovation, nor of research and evaluation activity. We discuss six themes emerging from the totality of the study: (1) our health system is mainly organised around single conditions and not multiple long-term conditions; (2) research calls and studies usually focus on single conditions and associated services; (3) building opportunities for engaged, informed individuals and carers and improved self-management; (4) the importance of measures that matter for patients and carers; (5) barriers to developing and implementing service innovations for people with multiple long-term conditions; and (6) what is needed to make patients with multiple long-term conditions a priority in healthcare planning and delivery. Limitations Care of people with multiple long-term conditions was not the principal focus of several of the rapid evaluations. While this was a finding in itself, it limited our learning about designing and implementing, as well as methodological approaches to evaluating, service innovations for people with multiple long-term conditions. Conclusions Through a thematic analysis of the portfolio of evaluations, we have deduced a set of suggested implications for how the needs of people with multiple long-term conditions can be better embedded in policy, research and practice. Future work Areas of uncertainty related to the care of people with multiple long-term conditions should be further explored, including developing and testing measures of patient experience of (un)co-ordinated care across settings, and interrogating the experience of health and care staff when working with people with multiple long-term conditions, to understand what works. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR134284) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 15. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

General practices are facing challenges such as rising patient demand and difficulties recruiting and retaining general practitioners. Greater use of digital technology has been advocated as a way of mitigating some of these challenges and improving patient access. This includes Digital First Primary Care, when a patient's first contact with primary care is through a digital route, either through a laptop or smartphone. The use of Digital First Primary Care has been expedited since COVID-19. There is little evidence of staff experiences of using Digital First Primary Care with more complex patients, such as those with multiple long-term conditions. To understand the experiences of those with multiple long-term conditions of Digital First Primary Care from the perspectives of healthcare professionals and stakeholders. This was a qualitative evaluation, comprised of four distinct work packages: Work package 1: Locating the study within the wider context, engaging with literature, and co-designing the study approach and research questions with patients. Work package 2: Interviews with health professionals working across general practice and key expert topic stakeholders, including academics and policy-makers. Work package 3: Analysis of data and generation of themes, and testing findings with patients. Work package 4: Synthesis, reporting and dissemination. The study commenced in January 2021 and in total 28 interviews were conducted with 14 health professionals and 15 stakeholders between January and August 2022. From the perspective of health professionals, Digital First Primary Care approaches could enable patients to speak with a clinician more quickly than traditional approaches. Those with multiple long-term conditions could submit healthcare readings from home, though health professionals felt patients may struggle navigating digital systems not designed to capture the nuances associated with living with multiple conditions. Clinicians expressed preferences for seeing patients face-to-face, particularly those with multiple long-term conditions, to identify non-verbal cues about a patient's health. Digital First Primary Care approaches provided an opportunity for clinicians to engage with the carers of patients living with multiple long-term conditions, yet there were concerns around obtaining consent and confidentiality. There remain debates among stakeholders about the nature and extent to which Digital First Primary Care impacts on staff workload. At the time of data collection, general practices were facing considerable pressure to deliver care and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. While it was originally intended that the study would include interviews with patients with multiple long-term conditions and their carers, none of the general practices that took part in the study were willing and/or able to recruit patients and carers in the time available. The rapid implementation of Digital First Primary Care, at a time of immense pressures, meant there has been little time for considering the impact on patients, including those with multiple long-term conditions. The impacts on care continuity depended largely on how surgeries implemented their approaches. Staff and stakeholders felt that Digital First Primary Care, as an additional route for accessing primary care, could be useful for patients with multiple long-term conditions but not at the expense of face-to-face consultations. Future research obtaining patient and carer views of digital-first approaches, understanding the impacts on carers and how approaches are designed with patients with more complex conditions in mind, is essential. This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 16/138/31) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 21. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

<p>Recent advances in causal machine learning and wider artificial intelligence (AI) methods could provide new insights into the natural histories and potential prevention of clusters of multiple long-term conditions or multimorbidity (MLTC-M). When combined with expertise in clinical practice, applied health research and social science, there is potential to systematically identify and map new clusters of disease, understand the trajectories of patients with these conditions throughout their life course, predict serious adverse outcomes, optimise therapies and consider the influence of wider determinants such as environmental, behavioural and psychosocial factors. The National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) recently funded multidisciplinary consortia to bring together AI specialists, experts in big data and MLTC-M in the first and second waves of this new programme. The so-called AIM consortia of researchers will spearhead the use of artificial intelligence methods and develop insights for the identification and subsequent prevention of MLTC-M. This consensus agreement is aimed at facilitating a community of learning within the AIM consortia, promoting cooperation, transparency and rigour in our approaches while maintaining high methodological standards and consistency in defining and reporting within our research. In bringing together these research collaborations, there is also an opportunity to foster shared learning, synergies and rapidly compare and validate new AI approaches across our respective studies. This step is critical to implementation on the pathway to patient and public benefit.</p>

HINARI: Providing Global Access to Health Care Information

Exploring secondary school staff views of potential interventions in the school food and drink environment: a qualitative study

<b>MRC-NIHR Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) Programme Logic Model</b><br /> <br /> Juliana Callaghan&sup1;, Robert Gray&sup1;, Louise Jones&sup2;, Adam Lockwood&sup1;, Danny McAuley&sup3;, John Norrie⁴, Danielle Preedy&sup1;, Sarah Thomas&sup1;, Insa Wemheuer&sup1;<br /> &sup1;National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), School of Healthcare Enterprise and Innovation, University of Southampton, &sup2;UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) Medical Research Council (MRC), &sup3;Queen's University of Belfast, ⁴The University of Edinburgh<br /> February 2023<br /> <br /> The EME Programme is a partnership between the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). The aim of the programme is to improve the health and wealth of the nation by funding clinical efficacy studies that test if an intervention or technology which has shown early promise in patients works as expected in a well-defined group of patients. This may include using such studies to understand treatment mechanisms. The programme plays a key role in translational research by testing novel or repurposed interventions/technologies and determining whether their development should progress to later-phase clinical trials, or inform new earlier-stage research. <a href="https://www.nihr.ac.uk/explore-nihr/funding-programmes/efficacy-and-mechanism-evaluation.htm">More information can be found on the programme page on the NIHR website</a>.<br /> <br /> A logic model is a graphical way to show how an activity, programme or intervention is expected to work and bring about the benefits and changes it intends to achieve. By summarising the core elements, a logic model can then be used to support programme planning, implementation and evaluation. NIHR logic models represent in a linear flow diagram the key activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts of each funding programme as a series of logical steps.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <b>Inputs</b><br /> The first step outlined in the logic model focuses on ‘inputs’, i.e., the resources needed to undertake programme activities. The inputs for the EME Programme are: <ul> <li>MRC and NIHR funding</li> <li>funding from the devolved nations</li> <li>NIHR coordinating centre resources</li> <li>stakeholder time</li> <li>the existing UK research infrastructure in terms of expertise, capacity and funding</li> </ul> <br /> <br /> <b>Activities&nbsp; </b><br /> Inputs feed into activities, the second stage of the logic model. Activities are the actions that NIHR and the funded research community undertake to help achieve the programme’s aims and objectives. Together, inputs and activities represent NIHR’s planned work.<br /> <br /> The initial focus for the programme is identification of key research questions, issues and programme priorities. A NIHR team develops targeted <a href="https://www.nihr.ac.uk/researchers/funding-opportunities/">funding opportunities</a> and activities through horizon scanning and collaboration with key stakeholders to stimulate activity or applications in an area of strategic priority. The programme also invites researcher-led proposals, which enables research into investigator-driven areas. All submitted project proposals are reviewed by harnessing detailed feedback from experts, including academics and other professional experts (for example, clinical staff and health care professionals) as well as patients, carers, service users, specific communities and/or members of the general public. A panel recommends high-quality research projects for funding according to set criteria.<br /> <br /> Funded projects are then actively monitored by a NIHR team that supports the project by providing advice and expertise regarding, for example, risks, appropriate methodologies, stakeholder management or patient and public involvement and engagement.<br /> <br /> NIHR support also includes guidance on the dissemination of research outputs. NIHR supports transparent research management and publication of knowledge, with information on and results of projects being openly accessible via the NIHR <a href="https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/">website</a> and <a href="https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/#/">NIHR Journals Library</a> that hosts the <a href="https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/EME/#/">NIHR EME journal</a>.<br /> <br /> Further, the EME Programme’s application and funding process ensures that funded research projects test interventions/technologies independently and rigorously for efficacy, as well as mechanistic insight. The research process often includes collecting samples, for example in the form of biobanks. By funding projects that follow on from clinical studies supported by the NIHR or other funders, the programme also actively supports researchers in reusing data or samples.<br /> <br /> The EME Programme also builds research capacity through initiatives to broaden, strengthen and upskill the translational research community. &nbsp;For example, the programme provides tailored funding opportunities and activities to support the development of early-career clinical trialists and to stimulate cross-sector and international collaboration.<br /> <br /> <br /> <b>Outputs </b><br /> The next step of the flow diagram focuses on the range of ‘outputs’ that result directly from the undertaken activities. For the EME Programme, these include: <ul> <li>academic outputs such as articles in the <a href="https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/eme/#/">NIHR EME journal</a> and other peer-reviewed journals,</li> <li>communications tailored to key audiences (e.g. patient groups, industry, policy-makers and health-care professionals)</li> <li>study data from the testing of interventions/technologies</li> <li>samples collected as part of the research</li> <li>new intellectual property (IP) being registered as a result of the funded research</li> </ul> <br /> <br /> <br /> <b>Cross-cutting activities</b><br /> Some activities that enable the intended change cut across several steps of the logic model: <ul> <li>Stakeholder collaboration: the programme works closely with stakeholders such as other funders, industrial partners, patients, carers, service users, specific communities and the public to support translational research across the ecosystem</li> <li>Targeted knowledge exchange and dissemination takes place across the project lifecycle</li> <li>Activities, outputs and outcomes produced through research contribute to an increasing pool of knowledge which feeds into and influences both the identification of new questions and methods for answering those questions.</li> </ul> <br /> <br /> <b>Outcomes</b><br /> Outcomes are the changes or benefits the programme intends to produce through its activities and by funding a portfolio of research. Due to the programme’s position on the translational pathway and its role being to inform further research, outcomes are typically seen on a short- to medium-term.<br /> <br /> <b>Scientific advancements</b><br /> Research outputs document and disseminate the scientific advancements made by NIHR-funded projects. Scientific advancements include improved knowledge of the potential health benefits of interventions/ technologies and their mechanisms of action. They also include methodological advancements in the field of clinical trials and mechanistic studies. Improved knowledge can also stimulate further research. For research funded by the EME Programme, this can occur in both directions of the research and development pathway, with, for example, research teams continuing to study the tested interventions/ technologies in later-phase clinical trials or the results stimulating further earlier stage research. This all contributes to the UK’s world-leading reputation in delivering translational health research.<br /> <br /> <b>More efficient and effective health research</b><br /> Developing sample banks and establishing the effectiveness of interventions and technologies results in more efficient and effective health research. For example, trials showing ‘no effect’ of the tested intervention/ technology leads to researchers switching to other approaches, which reduces waste in UK scientific research and increases the efficiency of investments in Phase II and Phase III trials. Involving patients, carers, service users, specific communities and/or members of the general public in all steps of the research process results in increased relevance of research to patient and public need. Increased international and cross-sector collaboration in research enables aligned and complementary research aims to be addressed and optimises delivery of the translational research ecosystem.<br /> <br /> <b>De-risking future investment in research</b><br /> In the medium-term, research funded by the EME programme is expected to result in the de-risking of future investment in research by establishing which interventions and technologies are effective, how they work, and progressing those that are effective for practical use as measured on the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) scale. Increased knowledge around interventions/technologies and their mechanisms of action can also enable increased investment in associated development.<br /> <br /> <b>Enhanced research capacity </b><br /> Research projects funded by the EME Programme also contribute to enhancing research capacity in the form of training and skill-building of project team members through specialist skills and career progression, for example. Working on EME-funded projects is also expected to improve understanding of and interest in translational research for both researchers and trial sites. Collectively, this is expected to result in increased trial activity, capacity and networks, which in turn contributes to international recognition of the UK’s research capabilities.<br /> <br /> <br /> <b>Impacts</b><br /> Impacts, or long-term outcomes, are the anticipated broader (direct and indirect) changes or benefits for organisations, communities, systems and wider society expected to result from the programme's contribution via its activities and portfolio of funded research. These are expected to become apparent in approximately 10-25 years.&nbsp;<br /> For the EME Programme, the overarching long-term benefits are further research and the development of new and repurposed interventions and technologies. These contribute to health benefits through new or repurposed interventions and technologies; improved wealth of the nation through job creation; more effective and efficient use of healthcare resources through targeted investment into promising interventions and technologies; and ultimately, to improving the health and wealth of the nation.&nbsp;<br /> <br /> <br /> <b>Contributions and acknowledgements</b><br /> The NIHR supports the principles of open research, including full and appropriate recognition of the many varied contributions to the creation of knowledge. To support this, we use the<a href="https://credit.niso.org/"> CRediT taxonomy</a> to accurately reflect how each team member has brought their knowledge and skills to the development and delivery of this work. Those that have contributed to this work are listed alphabetically.&nbsp; <ul> <li>Juliana Callaghan:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Writing – review &amp; editing</li> <li>Robert Gray:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Conceptualization, Writing – review &amp; editing&nbsp;</li> <li>Louise Jones:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Conceptualization</li> <li>Adam Lockwood:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Conceptualization, Project administration, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review &amp; editing</li> <li>Danny McAuley:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Conceptualization, Writing – review &amp; editing</li> <li>John Norrie:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Conceptualization, Writing – review &amp; editing</li> <li>Danielle Preedy: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Conceptualization, Writing – review &amp; editing</li> <li>Sarah Thomas:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Supervision</li> <li>Insa Wemheuer:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Project administration, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &amp; editing</li> </ul> <br /> In addition, we would specifically like to thank Rebecca Adler, Principal Consultant at NIRAS, and David Salisbury, Independent Consultant and NIRAS Associate, for facilitating the initial development of a Theory of Change for the EME Programme that formed the basis of developing the logic model presented in this document. We would also like to thank the Communications Team at the School of Healthcare Enterprise and Innovation, University of Southampton, for their advice and support in undertaking the visualisation of the model.&nbsp;<br /> <br /> The Logic Model presented in this document also builds on the following document:&nbsp;<br /> <br /> Rentel M C, Simpson K, Dav&eacute; A, Carter S, Blake M, Franke J, <i>et al.</i> A 10-year impact assessment of the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme: an independent mixed-method evaluation study. <i>Efficacy Mech Eval</i> 2021;8(20)<br /> <br /> <b>Competing interests&nbsp;</b><br /> This work has been undertaken as part of the delivery of the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), which is funded by the Department of Health and Social Care. The EME programme is a partnership between the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the NIHR. It is funded by the MRC and the NIHR, with contributions from the CSO in Scotland, Health and Care Research Wales and the HSC R&amp;D Division, Public Health Agency in Northern Ireland. All authors of this document have contributed to it as part of work paid for by the NIHR. No competing interests were disclosed.

Evaluation of the National Institute for Health and Care Research’s (NIHR) Global Health Research (GHR) Portfolio - Inception Report

From the outset, it’s worth highlighting that since the inception of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), specialist units now exist to promote good quality medical research by assisting in its design. In England, NIHR Research Design Services (RDS) have been commissioned in eight strategic health authority (SHA) regions, whilst the original Research and Development Support Units (RDSUs) in the other two SHA regions (North West and East Midlands) will continue to provide a similar service. The main purpose of these units is to help researchers develop and design high-quality research proposals for competitions for applied health or social care research. They have been developed with a focus on NHS based researchers applying to the NIHR Research for Patient Benefit Programme, however they also provide advice on other funding schemes. They are also supposed to off er access to a range of expertise in research design, including advice on research synthesis, study design and methodology (quantitative and qualitative), statistics, and economics, and to refer to other sources of expert advice on the applied health and social care research system. In summary these services should be a first port of call for most NHS-based researchers looking to develop a clinical research proposal into a substantial grant application. As many of the regional RDSs have only recently become operational, it is difficult to provide much information on how each RDS works. The general principle, however, is that these services should provide telephone, email, and face-to-face advice to researchers looking to develop a proposal. Many RDSs will provide face-to-face advice in hospitals across their region, or in other sites which should not be too far from where NHS staff are working. These services, which are free of charge, are provided by a variety of individuals with experience of NHS research, statistics, or health economics, some of whom will be active researchers who have been successful with grant applications. A telephone contact number or email address for each RDS can be obtained via the web link: http://www.nihrccf.org.uk/site/programmes/rds/default. cfm . Furthermore each RDS has a website which can be accessed via this link.

BackgroundWhile there has been a long recognition of the importance of race equality in health and care research, there is a lack of sustained action among research funding and research performing organisations to address racial equality in public involvement. This paper describes how the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) convened a Race Equality Public Action Group (REPAG), which co-developed with public contributors and stakeholders a Race Equality Framework – a tool for addressing racial equality in public involvement.MethodsThe REPAG, through meetings and discussions, defined the focus of the Framework, and developed an initial draft of the Framework. Public contributors identified the need for broader consultation with other public members. Three community consultation events with a total of 59 members of Black African-, Asian- and Caribbean-heritage communities were held to seek their views on health and care research generally and on the draft Framework specifically. The draft Framework was modified and piloted among 16 organisations delivering health and care research. Following feedback from the pilot, the Framework was modified and prepared for publication.ResultsThe Framework is designed as a self-assessment tool comprised of 50 questions pertaining to five domains of organisational activity: 1) individual responsibility, 2) leadership, 3) public partnerships, 4) recruitment, and 5) systems and processes. The questions were co-designed with REPAG public members and provide key concepts and elements of good practice that organisations should consider and address on their path to achieving racial competence. The accompanying materials provide implementation guidance with 20 detailed steps, case studies of actions taken in seven pilot organisations, and links to additional resources. The pilot demonstrated the feasibility of conducting a meaningful self-assessment over a period of three months and the usefulness of the results for developing longer-term action plans.ConclusionThe Framework represents the first self-assessment tool for addressing racial equality in public involvement. Co-design with REPAG public members enhanced its authenticity and practicality. Organisations in the field of health and care research and any other organisations that use partnerships with the public are encouraged to adopt the Framework.

Report of themes from community consultations on a pilot Race Equality Framework for health and care research organisations

Despite the availability of training and funding opportunities with the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), early career researchers (ECRs) invariably experience concern in sustaining an academic career in health research given the uncertainties of success following rejection from peer-reviewed funding bodies. The objective of this study was to consider what motivates ECRs when applying for funding to NIHR programmes and how they overcome funding setbacks. Eleven ECRs took part in a one-to-one virtual in-depth interview; the sample included more women (n=8) than men (n=3) and participants included pre-doctoral researchers (n=5), and both doctoral (n=2) and post-doctoral (n=4) ECRs. The interviews were analysed using the logic of a systems theory framework identifying factors impacting on ECRs occurring within an individual, within their social system and within their broader environment. The central themes that emerged from the data focussed on: (1) facilitators for ECRs to apply for NIHR funding; (2) exploring ECRs' setbacks and disappointments; (3) improving chances of funding; and (4) deciding to apply with a view to re-applying in future. The participants' responses provided an honest and frank reflection of the uncertainties and challenges as ECRs in the current climate. Further strategies to support ECRs could be facilitated through local NIHR infrastructure, mentorship, better access to local support networks and hard-wiring research into an organisation's strategic priorities.

It remains unclear how to meaningfully classify people living with multimorbidity (multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs)), beyond counting the number of conditions. This paper aims to identify clusters of MLTCs in different age groups and associated risks of adverse health outcomes and service use. Latent class analysis was used to identify MLTCs clusters in different age groups in three cohorts: Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank (SAIL) (n=1,825,289), UK Biobank (n=502,363), and the UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS) (n=49,186). Incidence rate ratios (IRR) for MLTC clusters were computed for: all-cause mortality, hospitalisations, and general practice (GP) use over 10 years, using <2 MLTCs as reference. Information on health outcomes and service use were extracted for a ten year follow up period (between 01st Jan 2010 and 31st Dec 2019 for UK Biobank and UKHLS, and between 01st Jan 2011 and 31st Dec 2020 for SAIL). Clustering MLTCs produced largely similar results across different age groups and cohorts. MLTC clusters had distinct associations with health outcomes and service use after accounting for LTC counts, in fully adjusted models. The largest associations with mortality, hospitalisations and GP use in SAIL were observed for the "Pain+" cluster in the age-group 18-36 years (mortality IRR=4.47, hospitalisation IRR=1.84; GP use IRR=2.87) and the "Hypertension, Diabetes & Heart disease" cluster in the age-group 37-54 years (mortality IRR=4.52, hospitalisation IRR=1.53, GP use IRR=2.36). In UK Biobank, the "Cancer, Thyroid disease & Rheumatoid arthritis" cluster in the age group 37-54 years had the largest association with mortality (IRR=2.47). Cardiometabolic clusters across all age groups, pain/mental health clusters in younger groups, and cancer and pulmonary related clusters in older age groups had higher risk for all outcomes. In UKHLS, MLTC clusters were not significantly associated with higher risk of adverse outcomes, except for the hospitalisation in the age-group 18-36 years. Personalising care around MLTC clusters that have higher risk of adverse outcomes may have important implications for practice (in relation to secondary prevention), policy (with allocation of health care resources), and research (intervention development and targeting), for people living with MLTCs. This study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR; Personalised Exercise-Rehabilitation FOR people with Multiple long-term conditions (multimorbidity)-NIHR202020).

Global health research for America's vital interest