The Do-Well study: protocol for a randomised controlled trial, economic and qualitative process evaluations of domiciliary welfare rights advice for socio-economically disadvantaged older people recruited via primary health care

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.

Translation and Validation: Chinese Version of the HIV-Related Social Support Scale

Purpose

Social support is increasingly recognized to be important in care of people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWH), we firstly translate and validate the disease-targeted social support instrument in Chinese and to explore the correlation with WHOQOL-HIV.

Patients and Methods

We established content validity for HIV-related social support scale (HSSS) and administered the resultant questionnaire to 310 PLWH. Descriptive statistics were generated for each of the variables of general characteristics; student t-test was used to compare the different groups.

Results

The HSSS demonstrated a high level of internal consistency, both within each subscale and with the total score; all Cronbach’s α values exceeded a priori threshold of ≥0.70. The HSSS cores were positively correlated with WHOQOL-HIV total scores (Pearson correlation: 0.39, P < 0.001). We also found that higher educational level, personal income, CD4 cell count, and shorter duration of antiretroviral therapy are significantly associated with a higher level of social support (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Social support may improve quality of life for PLWH, Chinese version of HIV-related social support scale can be used in future clinical practice.

Does domiciliary welfare rights advice improve health-related quality of life in independent-living, socio-economically disadvantaged people aged ≥60 years? Randomised controlled trial, economic and process evaluations in the North East of England

BACKGROUND

There are major socio-economic gradients in health that could be influenced by increasing personal resources. Welfare rights advice can enhance resources but has not been rigorously evaluated for health-related impacts.

METHODS

Randomised, wait-list controlled trial with individual allocation, stratified by general practice, of welfare rights advice and assistance with benefit entitlements, delivered in participants' homes by trained advisors. Control was usual care. Participants were volunteers sampled from among all those aged ≥60 years registered with general practices in socio-economically deprived areas of north east England. Outcomes at 24 months were: CASP-19 score (primary), a measure of health-related quality of life; changes in income, social and physical function, and cost-effectiveness (secondary). Intention to treat analysis compared outcomes using multiple regression, with adjustment for stratification and key covariates. Qualitative interviews with purposive samples from both trial arms were thematically analysed.

FINDINGS

Of 3912 individuals approached, 755 consented and were randomised (381 Intervention, 374 Control). Results refer to outcomes at 24 months, with data available on 562 (74.4%) participants. Intervention was received as intended by 335 (88%), with 84 (22%) awarded additional benefit entitlements; 46 did not receive any welfare rights advice, and none of these were awarded additional benefits. Mean CASP-19 scores were 42.9 (Intervention) and 42.4 (Control) (adjusted mean difference 0.3 [95%CI -0.8, 1.5]). There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes except Intervention participants reported receiving more care at home at 24m (53.7 (Intervention) vs 42.0 (Control) hours/week (adjusted mean difference 26.3 [95%CIs 0.8, 56.1]). Exploratory analyses did not support an intervention effect and economic evaluation suggested the intervention was unlikely to be cost-effective. Qualitative data from 50 interviews suggested there were improvements in quality of life among those receiving additional benefits.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no effects on health outcomes; fewer participants than anticipated received additional benefit entitlements, and participants were more affluent than expected. Our findings do not support delivery of domiciliary welfare rights advice to achieve the health outcomes assessed in this population. However, better intervention targeting may reveal worthwhile health impacts.

Randomised controlled trial with economic and process evaluations of domiciliary welfare rights advice for socioeconomically disadvantaged older people recruited via primary health care (the Do-Well study)

Background

Welfare rights advice services are effective at maximising previously unclaimed welfare benefits, but their impact on health has not been evaluated.

Objective

To establish the acceptability, cost-effectiveness and effect on health of a domiciliary welfare rights advice service targeting older people, compared with usual practice.

Design

A pragmatic, individually randomised, parallel-group, single-blinded, wait-list controlled trial, with economic and process evaluations. Data were collected by interview at baseline and 24 months, and by self-completion questionnaire at 12 months. Qualitative interviews were undertaken with purposive samples of 50 trial participants and 17 professionals to explore the intervention’s acceptability and its perceived impacts.

Setting

Participants’ homes in North East England, UK.

Participants

A total of 755 volunteers aged ≥ 60 years, living in their own homes, fluent in English and not terminally ill, recruited from the registers of 17 general practices with an Index of Multiple Deprivation within the most deprived two-fifths of the distribution for England, and with no previous access to welfare rights advice services.

Interventions

Welfare rights advice, comprising face-to-face consultations, active assistance with benefit claims and follow-up as required until no longer needed, delivered in participants’ own homes by a qualified welfare rights advisor. Control group participants received usual care until the 24-month follow-up, after which they received the intervention.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome was health-related quality of life (HRQoL), assessed using the CASP-19 (Control, Autonomy, Self-realisation and Pleasure) score. The secondary outcomes included general health status, health behaviours, independence and hours per week of care, mortality and changes in financial status.

Results

A total of 755 out of 3912 (19%) general practice patients agreed to participate and were randomised (intervention,n = 381; control,n = 374). In the intervention group, 335 participants (88%) received the intervention. A total of 605 (80%) participants completed the 12-month follow-up and 562 (75%) completed the 24-month follow-up. Only 84 (22%) intervention group participants were awarded additional benefits. There was no significant difference in CASP-19 score between the intervention and control groups at 24 months [adjusted mean difference 0.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.8 to 1.5], but a significant increase in hours of home care per week in the intervention group (adjusted difference 26.3 hours/week, 95% CI 0.8 to 56.1 hours/week). Exploratory analyses found a weak positive correlation between CASP-19 score and the amount of time since receipt of the benefit (0.39, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.58). The qualitative data suggest that the intervention was acceptable and that receipt of additional benefits was perceived by participants and professionals as having had a positive impact on health and quality of life. The mean cost was £44 per participant, the incremental mean health gain was 0.009 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (95% CI –0.038 to 0.055 QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £1914 per QALY gained.

Conclusions

The trial did not provide sufficient evidence to support domiciliary welfare rights advice as a means of promoting health among older people, but it yielded qualitative findings that suggest important impacts on HRQoL. The intervention needs to be better targeted to those most likely to benefit.

Future work

Further follow-up of the trial could identify whether or not outcomes diverge among intervention and control groups over time. Research is needed to better understand how to target welfare rights advice to those most in need.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN37380518.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full inPublic Health Research; Vol. 7, No. 3. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The authors also received a grant of £28,000 from the North East Strategic Health Authority in 2012 to cover the costs of intervention delivery and training as well as other non-research costs of the study.

Searching and synthesising 'grey literature' and 'grey information' in public health: critical reflections on three case studies

BACKGROUND

Grey literature includes a range of documents not controlled by commercial publishing organisations. This means that grey literature can be difficult to search and retrieve for evidence synthesis. Much knowledge and evidence in public health, and other fields, accumulates from innovation in practice. This knowledge may not even be of sufficient formality to meet the definition of grey literature. We term this knowledge 'grey information'. Grey information may be even harder to search for and retrieve than grey literature.

METHODS

On three previous occasions, we have attempted to systematically search for and synthesise public health grey literature and information-both to summarise the extent and nature of particular classes of interventions and to synthesise results of evaluations. Here, we briefly describe these three 'case studies' but focus on our post hoc critical reflections on searching for and synthesising grey literature and information garnered from our experiences of these case studies. We believe these reflections will be useful to future researchers working in this area.

RESULTS

Issues discussed include search methods, searching efficiency, replicability of searches, data management, data extraction, assessing study 'quality', data synthesis, time and resources, and differentiating evidence synthesis from primary research.

CONCLUSIONS

Information on applied public health research questions relating to the nature and range of public health interventions, as well as many evaluations of these interventions, may be predominantly, or only, held in grey literature and grey information. Evidence syntheses on these topics need, therefore, to embrace grey literature and information. Many typical systematic review methods for searching, appraising, managing, and synthesising the evidence base can be adapted for use with grey literature and information. Evidence synthesisers should carefully consider the opportunities and problems offered by including grey literature and information. Enhanced incentives for accurate recording and further methodological developments in retrieval will facilitate future syntheses of grey literature and information.

A decade of research using the CASP scale: key findings and future directions

Since the publication of A Measure of Quality of Life in Early Old Age: The Theory, Development and Properties of a Needs Satisfaction Model (CASP-19) just over 10 years ago, the scale has gone on to be used in a wide variety of studies in over 20 countries across the world and the original paper has become the most highly cited paper for Aging and Mental Health. Therefore it was felt that it was a good time to look back and reflect on the developments in the use of the scale as well as to look forward to what new research is being done and could be done with the measure. To this end we are extremely grateful for the editors for allowing us to bring together a collection of papers that represent cutting edge research using the CASP scale. These papers cover a wide variety of issues, from working conditions to religiosity, from a range of countries, covering Western and Eastern Europe as well as Africa. Each makes an important individual contribution to our understanding of the factors that influence quality of life in later life as well as pointing to the limitations of the measure and future work that can be done in this area.