The link between cognitive health and neighbourhood: perceptions of the public, and of policy-makers, about problems and solutions

BACKGROUND

Growing evidence indicates associations between neighbourhood-related factors such as pollution, social isolation and physical inactivity, and cognition, that is, our ability to think clearly, learn and remember. The evidence raises the possibility of neighbourhood intervention playing a role in protecting population cognitive health. However, there is little understanding of these associations among the public and policy-makers, what they mean and how they might be acted on. In this study we explored perceptions of the public and policy-makers about influences of neighbourhood factors on brain functioning, and how they should inform policy.

METHODS

Qualitative methods were used in three phases; the study ran in parallel with a quantitative study looking at neighbourhood influences on cognition. In phase one, focus groups were conducted with middle-aged (40-69) members of the public to inform statistical modelling. In phase two, similar focus groups were held in four case study areas chosen based on the modelling results. In phase three, interviews with people in public health and policy roles were conducted, including people in the case study sites.

RESULTS

Participants described effects on their cognition from community, culture and social interactions, access to green spaces and nature, upkeep and safety of the area, and pollution, traffic and noise. Solutions included better local consultation and involvement in policy and planning, support for community interactions and active and public transport, and education on cognition. There was little awareness, but much interest, from local policy-makers and implementers, about links between cognition and place. Barriers to implementation included lack of: effective engagement with local communities, local funding and joined-up health and neighbourhood policy.

CONCLUSIONS

People can perceive impacts of neighbourhoods on brain functioning and suggest ways local areas can be improved to support cognitive health. There is support for the idea of population-level interventions to support cognitive health.

The economic evidence for advance care planning: Systematic review of evidence

BACKGROUND

Advance care planning is a process of discussion and review concerning future care in the event of losing capacity. Aimed at improving the appropriateness and quality of care, it is also often considered a means of making better use of healthcare resources at the end of life.

AIM

To review and summarise economic evidence on advance care planning.

DESIGN

A systematic review of the academic literature.

DATA SOURCES

We searched for English language, peer-reviewed journal articles, 1990-2014, using relevant research databases: PubMed, ProQuest, CINAHL Plus with Full Text; EconLit, PsycINFO, SocINDEX with Full Text and International Bibliography of the Social Sciences. Empirical studies using statistical methods in which advance care planning and costs are variables were included.

RESULTS

There are no published cost-effectiveness studies. Included studies focus on healthcare savings, usually associated with reduced demand for hospital care. Advance care planning appears to be associated with healthcare savings for some people in some circumstances, such as people living with dementia in the community, people in nursing homes or in areas with high end-of-life care spending. There is no evidence that advance care planning is likely to be more expensive.

CONCLUSION

There is need for clearer articulation of the likely mechanisms by which advance care planning can lead to reduced care costs or improved cost-effectiveness, particularly for people who retain capacity. There is also a need to consider wider costs, including the costs of advance care planning facilitation or interventions and the costs of substitute health, social and informal care. Economic outcomes need to be considered in the context of quality benefits.

Community engagement to reduce inequalities in health: a systematic review, meta-analysis and economic analysis

Background

Community engagement has been advanced as a promising way of improving health and reducing health inequalities; however, the approach is not yet supported by a strong evidence base.

Objectives

To undertake a multimethod systematic review which builds on the evidence that underpins the current UK guidance on community engagement; to identify theoretical models underpinning community engagement; to explore mechanisms and contexts through which communities are engaged; to identify community engagement approaches that are effective in reducing health inequalities, under what circumstances and for whom; and to determine the processes and costs associated with their implementation.

Data sources

Databases including the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), The Campbell Library, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and EPPI-Centre’s Trials Register of Promoting Health Interventions (TRoPHI) and Database of Promoting Health Effectiveness Reviews (DoPHER) were searched from 1990 to August 2011 for systematic reviews and primary studies. Trials evaluating community engagement interventions reporting health outcomes were included.

Review methods

Study eligibility criteria: published after 1990; outcome, economic, or process evaluation; intervention relevant to community engagement; written in English; measured and reported health or community outcomes, or presents cost, resource, or implementation data characterises study populations or reports differential impacts in terms of social determinants of health; conducted in an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) country. Study appraisal: risk of bias for outcome evaluations; assessment of validity and relevance for process evaluations; comparison against an economic evaluation checklist for economic evaluations. Synthesis methods: four synthesis approaches were adopted for the different evidence types: theoretical, quantitative, process, and economic evidence.

Results

The theoretical synthesis identified key models of community engagement that are underpinned by different theories of changes. Results from 131 studies included in a meta-analysis indicate that there is solid evidence that community engagement interventions have a positive impact on health behaviours, health consequences, self-efficacy and perceived social support outcomes, across various conditions. There is insufficient evidence – particularly for long-term outcomes and indirect beneficiaries – to determine whether one particular model of community engagement is likely to be more effective than any other. There are also insufficient data to test the effects on health inequalities, although there is some evidence to suggest that interventions that improve social inequalities (as measured by social support) also improve health behaviours. There is weak evidence from the effectiveness and process evaluations that certain implementation factors may affect intervention success. From the economic analysis, there is weak but inconsistent evidence that community engagement interventions are cost-effective. By combining findings across the syntheses, we produced a new conceptual framework.

Limitations

Differences in the populations, intervention approaches and health outcomes made it difficult to pinpoint specific strategies for intervention effectiveness. The syntheses of process and economic evidence were limited by the small (generally not rigorous) evidence base.

Conclusions

Community engagement interventions are effective across a wide range of contexts and using a variety of mechanisms. Public health initiatives should incorporate community engagement into intervention design. Evaluations should place greater emphasis on long-term outcomes, outcomes for indirect beneficiaries, process evaluation, and reporting costs and resources data. The theories of change identified and the newly developed conceptual framework are useful tools for researchers and practitioners. We identified trends in the evidence that could provide useful directions for future intervention design and evaluation.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research programme.

The economic consequences of deinstitutionalisation of mental health services: lessons from a systematic review of European experience

Many European mental health systems are undergoing change as community-centred care replaces large-scale institutions. We review empirical evidence from three countries (UK, Germany, Italy) that have made good progress with this rebalancing of care. We focus particularly on the economic consequences of deinstitutionalisation. A systematic literature review was conducted using a broad search strategy in accordance with established guidelines. We searched the International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Health Management Information Consortium, British Nursing Index and PUBMED/Medline to 2008. The on-line search was supplemented by advice and assistance from contacts with government departments, European Commission, professional networks and known local experts. Community-based models of care are not inherently more costly than institutions, once account is taken of individuals' needs and the quality of care. New community-based care arrangements could be more expensive than long-stay hospital care but may still be seen as more cost-effective because, when properly set up and managed, they deliver better outcomes. Understanding the economic consequences of deinstitutionalisation is fundamental to success. Local stakeholders and budget controllers need to be aware of the underlying policy and operational plan. Joint planning and commissioning or devolving certain powers and responsibilities to care managers may aid development of effective and cost-effective care. People's needs, preferences and circumstances vary, and so their service requirements and support costs also vary, opening up the possibility for purposive targeting of services on needs to improve the ability of a care system to improve well-being from constrained resources. As the institutional/community balance shifts, strategic planning should also ensure that the new care arrangements address the specific contexts of different patient groups. Decision-makers have to plan a dynamic community-based system to match the needs of people moving from institutions, and must take the long view.

Movement and change: independent sector domiciliary care providers between 1995 and 1999

Promoting the development of a flourishing independent sector alongside good quality public services was a key objective of the community care reforms of the last decade. This paper charts some of the ways the independent domiciliary care sector is changing, as local authorities shift the balance of their provision toward independent sector providers and away from a reliance on in-house services. Two surveys of independent domiciliary care providers were carried out in 1995 and 1999. The aims of the studies were to describe the main features of provider organisations, such as size of business, client group and funding sources; to examine the nature of provider motivations and their past and future plans; to consider how local authorities manage the supply side of social care markets; and to examine the effects on providers of the development of the mixed economy. The first survey in 1995 was conducted in eight local authority areas, which by 1999 had increased to 11 because of the creation of three new unitary authorities. The findings are based on 261 postal surveys together with 111 interviews between the two studies. The research illustrates a domiciliary care market that is still relatively young with many small but growing businesses. There are considerable differences in the split between in-house and independent sector services in individual authorities and a common perception among independent providers that in-house services receive favourable treatment and conditions. Spot or call-off contracts continue to be the most common form of contract although there are moves toward greater levels of guaranteed service and more sophisticated patterns of contracting arrangements. There remains an ongoing need to share information between local authorities and independent providers so that good working relationships can develop with proven and competent providers.