Inequalities in health and community-oriented social work: lessons from Cuba?

Social justice is, as the World Health Organization Commission on Social Determinants of Health (WHO CSDH, 2008) reminds us, ‘a matter of life and death’. While the stark differences in mortality rates and life expectancy between rich and poor countries might be the most obvious example of this, it is also true that ‘Within countries, the differences in life chances are dramatic and are seen in all countries – even the richest’ (WHO CSDH, 2008: 26). As the Commission demonstrates, the roots of these inequities lie in social conditions, suggesting an important role for social work in this area. Unfortunately, the Commission says very little about the type of social work that might be appropriate: nevertheless, the report does provide fresh impetus to the debate about what social workers might contribute to tackling health inequalities. In this article, we suggest that a community-oriented approach to social work is required. In making a case for this, we review the progress of the government’s drive to reduce inequalities in England,1 arguing that this has, thus far, been largely unsuccessful because it has primarily been pursued through health-care services, while addressing the wider (social) determinants of health has been a secondary consideration. In contrast, we offer the example of Cuban community-oriented social work (COSW) which has helped maintain population health at a level that stands comparison with much wealthier nations, despite the hardships and inequalities which followed economic collapse in the 1990s. In many ways the Cuban situation is unusual, perhaps unique, so we are not arguing that Cuban social work methods can be readily transferred. Rather, we suggest that, in the neglected field of tackling health inequalities, social workers can learn from the general approach taken in Cuba. To establish the context of this discussion, we begin by defining key concepts: COSW itself, health inequalities and inequity, the health gap and the health gradient

Mutual aid groups in psychiatry and substance misuse

Background: Mutuality is a feature of many ‘self-help groups’ for people with mental health and/or substance misuse needs. These groups are diverse in terms of membership, aims, organisation and resources. Collectively, in terms of the pathways for seeking help, support, social capital or simply validation as people, mutual aid groups figure at some time in the life story of many psychiatric and/or substance misuse patients. From the viewpoint of clinical services, relations with such groups range from formal collaboration, through incidental shared care, via indifference, to incomprehension, suspicion, or even hostility. How should mental health and substance misuse clinicians relate to this informal care sector, in practice? Aims: To synthesise knowledge about three aspects of the relationship between psychiatric/substance misuse services and mutual aid groups: profile groups' engagement of people with mental health and/or substance misuse needs at all stages of vulnerability, illness or recovery; characterise patterns of health benefit or harm to patients, where such outcome evidence exists; identify features of mutual aid groups that distinguish them from clinical services. Method: A search of both published and unpublished literature with a focus on reports of psychiatric and substance misuse referral routes and outcomes, compiled for meta-synthesis. Results: Negative outcomes were found occasionally, but in general mutual aid group membership was repeatedly associated with positive benefits. Conclusions: Greater awareness of this resource for mental health and substance misuse fields could enhance practice

The death of municipal socialism The politics of council housing in Sheffield and Bristol, 1919-1939

SIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre-DSC:DX189032 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo