15 research outputs found
Integrated health and care systems in England : can they help prevent disease?
Objectives: Over the past 12 months, there has been increasing policy rhetoric regarding the role of the NHS in preventing disease and improving population health. In particular, the NHS Long Term Plan sees integrated care systems (ICSs) and sustainability and transformation partnerships (STPs) as routes to improving disease prevention. Here, we place current NHS England integrated care plans in their historical context and review evidence on the relationship between integrated care and prevention. We ask how the NHS Long Term Plan may help prevent disease and explore the role of the 2019 ICS and STP plans in delivering this change.
Methods: We reviewed the evidence underlying the relationship between integrated care and disease prevention, and analysed 2016 STP plans for content relating to disease prevention and population health.
Results: The evidence of more integrated care leading to better disease prevention is weak. Although nearly all 2016 STP plans included a prevention or population health strategy, fewer than half specified how they will work with local government public health teams, and there was incomplete coverage across plans about how they would meet NHS England prevention priorities. Plans broadly focused on individual-level approaches to disease prevention, with few describing interventions addressing social determinants of health.
Conclusions: For ICSs and STPs to meaningfully prevent disease and improve population health, they need to look beyond their 2016 plans and fill the gaps in the Long Term Plan on social determinants
The impacts of collaboration between local health care and non-health care organizations and factors shaping how they work: a systematic review of reviews.
BACKGROUND: Policymakers in many countries promote collaboration between health care organizations and other sectors as a route to improving population health. Local collaborations have been developed for decades. Yet little is known about the impact of cross-sector collaboration on health and health equity. METHODS: We carried out a systematic review of reviews to synthesize evidence on the health impacts of collaboration between local health care and non-health care organizations, and to understand the factors affecting how these partnerships functioned. We searched four databases and included 36 studies (reviews) in our review. We extracted data from these studies and used Nvivo 12 to help categorize the data. We assessed risk of bias in the studies using standardized tools. We used a narrative approach to synthesizing and reporting the data. RESULTS: The 36 studies we reviewed included evidence on varying forms of collaboration in diverse contexts. Some studies included data on collaborations with broad population health goals, such as preventing disease and reducing health inequalities. Others focused on collaborations with a narrower focus, such as better integration between health care and social services. Overall, there is little convincing evidence to suggest that collaboration between local health care and non-health care organizations improves health outcomes. Evidence of impact on health services is mixed. And evidence of impact on resource use and spending are limited and mixed. Despite this, many studies report on factors associated with better or worse collaboration. We grouped these into five domains: motivation and purpose, relationships and cultures, resources and capabilities, governance and leadership, and external factors. But data linking factors in these domains to collaboration outcomes is sparse. CONCLUSIONS: In theory, collaboration between local health care and non-health care organizations might contribute to better population health. But we know little about which kinds of collaborations work, for whom, and in what contexts. The benefits of collaboration may be hard to deliver, hard to measure, and overestimated by policymakers. Ultimately, local collaborations should be understood within their macro-level political and economic context, and as one component within a wider system of factors and interventions interacting to shape population health
Meanings and Misunderstandings: A Social Determinants of Health Lexicon for Health Care Systems
Recommended from our members
Integrating Social and Medical Care: Could it Worsen Health and Increase Inequity?
As a result of a large and compelling body of evidence documenting the impacts of social determinants, such as income and education, on health outcomes, health care systems are beginning to incorporate social and economic risk data into health care delivery decisions. But there is a risk that some of these efforts could worsen health and widen health inequities. We highlight 3 examples- including recent policy changes in Medicaid, social needs, informed risk prediction models, and advances in precision medicine-where the inclusion of social risk information threatens to reduce care quality or health care access for some groups of patients. A new dialog is needed about both the opportunities and potential consequences of bringing information about patients' social circumstances into a market-based health care system
Recommended from our members
Meanings and Misunderstandings: A Social Determinants of Health Lexicon for Health Care Systems
Policy Points Health care systems and policymakers in the United States increasingly use language related to social determinants of health in their strategies to improve health and control costs, but the terms used are often misunderstood, conflated, and confused. Greater clarity on key terms and the concepts underlying them could advance policies and practices related to social determinants of health-including by defining appropriate roles and limits of the health care sector in this multisector field
A cure for everything and nothing? Local partnerships for improving health in England.
The NHS in England is being reorganised under the Health and Care Act 2022—the biggest overhaul of NHS rules and structures in a decade. A key aim of the changes—introduced on 1 July 2022—is to encourage collaboration between NHS, local government, and other agencies to improve health and reduce health inequalities. England will be divided into 42 area based integrated care systems, bringing together NHS organisations, social care, public health, and others to plan and coordinate local services for populations of around 500 000 to three million people
Recommended from our members
Financing Approaches to Social Prescribing Programs in England and the United States
Policy Points The number of social prescribing practices, which aim to link patients with nonmedical services and supports to address patients' social needs, is increasing in both England and the United States. Traditional health care financing mechanisms were not designed to support social prescribing practices, and flexible payment approaches may not support their widespread adoption. Policymakers in both countries are shifting toward developing explicit financing streams for social prescribing programs. Consequently, we need an evaluation of them to assess their success in supporting both the acceptance of these programs and their impacts. Investment in community-based organizations and wider public services will likely be crucial to both the long-term effectiveness and the sustainability of social prescribing