Co-located welfare advice in general practice: A realist qualitative study

A participatory evaluation of legal support in the context of health-focused peer advocacy with people who are homeless in London, UK

Legal problems can be cause and consequence of ill-health and homelessness, necessitating efforts to integrate responses to these challenges. How to respond to legal issues within the context of health services for people who are homeless is though unclear. Groundswell piloted providing legal support to peer advocates (who have current or past experience of homelessness) and clients currently homeless in addition to their health-focused work. A participatory action-research design evaluated the emerging programme. Groundswell staff, both researchers and those involved in service delivery, co-led the research alongside an external researcher. Qualitative methods were used to understand the experiences of legal support. We interviewed peer advocates and volunteers (n = 8), Groundswell clients (n = 3) and sector stakeholders (n = 3). Interviews were linked to regular reflective recorded meetings (n = 7) where Groundswell staff and researchers discussed the programme and the evaluation. Data were analysed thematically. The findings focus on three themes. First, peer advocates' and clients' legal needs involve an experience of being overwhelmed by system complexity. Second, the legal support to peer advocates aided in brokering and signposting to other legal support, in the context of a supportive organisational culture. Third, support to clients can be effective, although the complexity of legal need undermines potential for sustainable responses. In conclusion, legal support for peer advocates should be developed by Groundswell and considered by other similar agencies. Legal support to people who are currently street homeless requires significant resources and so health-focused third-sector organisations maybe unable to offer effective support. Other modes of integration should be pursued. Findings also have implications for how the third sector relates to the government agencies implicated in the legal challenges facing people who are homeless.

A review of the effectiveness and experiences of welfare advice services co-located in health settings: A critical narrative systematic review

We conducted a narrative systematic review to assess the health, social and financial impacts of co-located welfare services in the UK and to explore the effectiveness of and facilitators and barriers to successful implementation of these services, in order to guide future policy and practice. We searched Medline, EMBASE and other literature sources, from January 2010 to November 2020, for literature examining the impact of co-located welfare services in the UK on any outcome. The review identified 14 studies employing a range of study designs, including: one non-randomised controlled trial; one pilot randomised controlled trial; one before-and-after-study; three qualitative studies; and eight case studies. A theory of change model, developed a priori, was used as an analytical framework against which to map the evidence on how the services work, why and for whom. All studies demonstrated improved financial security for participants, generating an average of £27 of social, economic and environmental return per £1 invested. Some studies reported improved mental health for individuals accessing services. Several studies attributed subjective improvements in physical health to the service addressing key social determinants of health. Benefits to the health service were also demonstrated through reduced workload for healthcare professionals. Key components of a successful service included co-production during service development and ongoing enhanced multi-disciplinary collaboration. Overall, this review demonstrates improved financial security for participants and for the first time models the wider health and welfare benefits for participants and for health service from these services. However, given the generally poor scientific quality of the studies, care must be taken in drawing firm conclusions. There remains a need for more high quality research, using experimental methods and larger sample sizes, to further build upon this evidence base and to measure the strength of the proposed theoretical pathways in this area.

The TANDEM trial: protocol for the process evaluation of a randomised trial of a complex intervention for anxiety and/or depression in people living with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

BACKGROUND

TANDEM is a randomised controlled trial of a complex healthcare intervention to improve the psychological and physical health of people living with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and anxiety and/or depression. Based on health psychology theory set out in a logic model, respiratory health professionals were recruited and trained to deliver a cognitive behavioural approach intervention (The TANDEM intervention) under the supervision of senior cognitive behavioural practitioners. Here, we describe the protocol for the process evaluation commissioned alongside the trial. A realist approach that includes attention to describing contexts and mechanisms has been adopted.

METHODS

We set up a multi-disciplinary team to develop and deliver the process evaluation. The mixed-methods design incorporates quantitative process data; monitoring of intervention fidelity; qualitative interviews with patients, carers, health professionals (facilitators) and clinical supervisors about their perspectives on acceptability of the intervention; and exploration with all stakeholders (including management/policy-makers) on future implementation. Normalisation process theory (NPT) will inform data collection and interpretation with a focus on implementation. Quantitative process data will be analysed descriptively. Qualitative interview data will be analysed before the trial outcomes are known using analytic induction and constant comparison to develop themes. Findings from the different elements will be reported separately and then integrated.

CONCLUSION

Detailed description and analysis of study processes in a research trial such as TANDEM enables research teams to describe study contexts and mechanisms and to examine the relationship with outcomes. In this way, learning from the trial goes beyond the randomised control trial (RCT) model where effectiveness is prioritised and makes it possible to explore issues arising for post-trial study implementation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN ISRCTN59537391 . Registered on 20 March 2017. Trial protocol version 6.0, 22 April 2018. Process evaluation protocol version 4.0, 1 November 2020.

Legal needs of adults with life-limiting illness: what are they and how are they managed? A qualitative multiagency stakeholder exercise

Objective

Little is known about legal needs in the context of life-limiting illness, particularly the need for advice concerning legal arrangements, rights and entitlements. This UK-based multiagency stakeholder engagement exercise scoped legal needs associated with life-limiting illness and identified support structures, gaps and opportunities for practice improvement.

Method and analysis

Snowball sampling generated a stakeholder group from a wide range of regional and national organisations involved in care of people with life-limiting illness, spanning health, social care, legal support, advice, charities, prison services as well as patient and carer representatives. A coproduced survey of three open questions generated qualitative data, interpreted by thematic analysis.

Results

Stakeholders reported a broad spectrum of problems and needs raising legal issues, with no consistency of definition. A classification is proposed, identifying matters concerning rights and entitlements of patients/carers in day-to-day life and decisions around care, both immediate and in the future, as well as professional responsibilities in delivering personalised care. The support structures identified were predominantly online literature, although there was some availability of remote and face-to-face services. Limited awareness of the issues, variable service configuration, fragmentation of care and inequitable access were identified as barriers to support. Stakeholders recognised the need for education and closer multiagency working.

Conclusions

‘Legal needs’ incorporate wide-ranging issues, but there is inconsistency in perceptions among stakeholders. Practice is variable, risking unmet need. Opportunities for improvement include more formal integration of social welfare legal services in the health context, generating clearer pathways for assessment and management.

Health-justice partnerships: innovation in service delivery to support mental health

Purpose

This paper aims to introduce the concept of “health-justice partnership” (HJP), the provision of legal assistance for social welfare issues in health-care settings. It discusses the role of these partnerships in supporting health and care for people with mental health issues.

Design/methodology/approach

The authors describe an example of an HJP; discuss the rationale and evidence for this approach in relation to mental health; and reflect on implementation challenges and future directions in the UK. The authors draw on both health and legal literature to frame the discussion.

Findings

Social welfare legal needs have negative impacts on mental well-being and are more likely to occur among people with mental health conditions. Integrating legal assistance with healthcare services can improve access to support for those with unmet need. High-quality research has demonstrated positive impacts for mental health and well-being as a result of HJP interventions. Both further research and wider strategies are required to support implementation of HJPs in practice.

Originality/value

Legal assistance is rarely positioned as a health intervention, yet it is an effective tool to address social welfare issues that are harmful to mental health and to which people experiencing mental health are at greater risk. This paper highlights the importance of the HJP movement as an approach for supporting people with mental health issues.

Should GPs ask patients about their financial concerns? Exploration through collaborative research

Objective: Health services should arguably be concerned about the financial situation of patients since health problems can cause financial concerns, which in turn can cause health problems. In this study, we explored the role of the general practitioner (GP) as a potential early discoverer of financial problems who can refer at-risk patients to financial counselling services.Design: A collaborative health service research experiment. For four weeks, GPs asked their patients predefined questions about financial concerns and health, by anonymous data mapping. GPs shared their experiences with the researchers after the experiment.Setting: One GP office in Norway.Subjects: A total of 565 patients were included in data mapping by 8 GPs.Main outcome measures: Patient prevalence data and GPs experimental data of patients' health problems that caused financial concerns and financial concerns that affected patients' health.Results: Of 565 GP patients, 11% (n = 63) indicated that they had health problems causing them financial concerns, or vice versa; 9% of patients reported health problems causing financial concerns and 8% of patients reported financial concerns that affected their health. Through the data mapping experiment GPs became aware of financial concerns of their patients and by this expanded and improved their therapeutic toolbox. Several months after the experiment the GPs reported that more patients received financial counselling since the GPs asked their patients about financial problems more often than before and because the patients had heard that GPs cared about such problems.Conclusion: Our results suggest that GPs can be early discoverers of financial problems interacting with their patients' health. When there are no clear medical explanations for the health problems that prompted the consultation, the best therapy may thus be financial counselling.Key pointsMany people live on the edge of financial ruin and struggle to keep track of their finances, but limited research exists that investigates associations between finance and health.In a collaborative health services research experiment 11% of the patients at a Norwegian GP office had health problems that caused them financial concerns, or vice versa.GPs found it helpful to ask patients about their financial concerns when no clear medical explanations for their health problems was found. Then free financial counselling services could be offered.

Impact of co-located welfare advice in healthcare settings: prospective quasi-experimental controlled study

BackgroundEvaluations of primary healthcare co-located welfare advice services have been methodologically limited.AimsTo examine the impact and cost-consequences of co-located benefits and debt advice on mental health and service use.MethodProspective, controlled quasi-experimental study in eight intervention and nine comparator sites across North Thames. Changes in the proportion meeting criteria for common mental disorder (CMD, 12-item General Health Questionnaire); well-being scores (Shortened Warwick and Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale), 3-month GP consultation rate and financial strain were measured alongside funding costs and financial gains.ResultsRelative to controls, CMD reduced among women (ratio of odds ratios (rOR) = 0.37, 95% CI 0.20-0.70) and Black advice recipients (rOR = 0.09, 95% CI 0.03-0.28). Individuals whose advice resulted in positive outcomes demonstrated improved well-being scores (β coefficient 1.29, 95% CI 0.25-2.32). Reductions in financial strain (rOR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.23-0.77) but no changes in 3-month consultation rate were found. Per capita, advice recipients received £15 per £1 of funder investment.ConclusionsCo-located welfare advice improves short-term mental health and well-being, reduces financial strain and generates considerable financial returns.