Despite promising steps towards the elimination of hepatitis C virus (HCV) in the UK, several indicators provide a cause for concern for future disease burden. We aimed to improve understanding of geographical variation in HCV-related severe liver disease and historic risk factor prevalence among clinic attendees in England and Scotland. We used metadata from 3829 HCV-positive patients consecutively enrolled into HCV Research UK from 48 hospital centres in England and Scotland during 2012–2014. Employing mixed-effects statistical modelling, several independent risk factors were identified: age 46–59 y (ORadj 3.06) and ≥60 y (ORadj 5.64) relative to <46 y, male relative to female sex (ORadj 1.58), high BMI (ORadj 1.73) and obesity (ORadj 2.81) relative to normal BMI, diabetes relative to no diabetes (ORadj 2.75), infection with HCV genotype (GT)-3 relative to GT-1 (ORadj 1.75), route of infection through blood products relative to injecting drug use (ORadj 1.40), and lower odds were associated with black ethnicity (ORadj 0.31) relative to white ethnicity. A small proportion of unexplained variation was attributed to differences between hospital centres and local health authorities. Our study provides a baseline measure of historic risk factor prevalence and potential geographical variation in healthcare provision, to support ongoing monitoring of HCV-related disease burden and the design of risk prevention measures.

In recent years, a variety of efforts have been made in political science to enable, encourage, or require scholars to be more open and explicit about the bases of their empirical claims and, in turn, make those claims more readily evaluable by others. While qualitative scholars have long taken an interest in making their research open, reflexive, and systematic, the recent push for overarching transparency norms and requirements has provoked serious concern within qualitative research communities and raised fundamental questions about the meaning, value, costs, and intellectual relevance of transparency for qualitative inquiry. In this Perspectives Reflection, we crystallize the central findings of a three-year deliberative process—the Qualitative Transparency Deliberations (QTD)—involving hundreds of political scientists in a broad discussion of these issues. Following an overview of the process and the key insights that emerged, we present summaries of the QTD Working Groups’ final reports. Drawing on a series of public, online conversations that unfolded at www.qualtd.net, the reports unpack transparency’s promise, practicalities, risks, and limitations in relation to different qualitative methodologies, forms of evidence, and research contexts. Taken as a whole, these reports—the full versions of which can be found in the Supplementary Materials—offer practical guidance to scholars designing and implementing qualitative research, and to editors, reviewers, and funders seeking to develop criteria of evaluation that are appropriate—as understood by relevant research communities—to the forms of inquiry being assessed. We dedicate this Reflection to the memory of our coauthor and QTD working group leader Kendra Koivu.1