Suicide in an ageing UK population: problems and prevention

Purpose Suicide can be an emotive, and at times, controversial subject. The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the social, health, personal, and cultural issues that can arise in later life and the potential reasons for suicide. It will analyse already recognised risk factors of suicide in older adults and focus on improving knowledge about the social meaning and causation of suicide for older people. It will also consider suicide prevention policies, their practice implications, and whether they are successful in protecting this potentially vulnerable cohort. Design/methodology/approach A synopsis of available literature in the form of a general review paper of suicide of older adults. Findings There is evidence that the ageing process often leads to a set of co-morbidities and a complex and diverse set of individual challenges. This in turn equates to an increased risk of suicide. There is no easy answer to why there is evidence of a growing number of older adults deciding that suicide is there only option, and even fewer suggestions on how to manage this risk. Social implications The entry of the “baby boom” generation into retirement will lead to the potential of an increase in both suicide risk factors and older adults completing suicide. This is on the background of a demographic surge which is likely to place additional pressures on already under-resourced, and undervalued, statutory and non-statutory services. Originality/value A literature search found very little information regarding older adults and suicide risk, assessment, treatment or prevention. </jats:sec

"Done more for me in a fortnight than anybody done in all me life." How welfare rights advice can help people with cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In the UK many people with cancer and their carers do not have easy access to the welfare benefits to which they are entitled adding further strain to the process of dealing with cancer. It is estimated that nine out of ten cancer patients' households experience loss of income as a direct result of cancer, which, due to its socio-economic patterning disproportionately affects those most likely to be financially disadvantaged. In the UK proactive welfare rights advice services accessed via health care settings significantly increase benefit entitlement among people with health problems and this paper reports on a qualitative study examining the impact of a welfare rights advice service specifically designed for people affected by cancer and their carers in County Durham, North East England (UK).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Twenty two men and women with cancer or caring for someone with cancer who were recipients of welfare rights advice aged between 35 and 83 were recruited from a variety of health care and community settings. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken and analysed using the Framework method.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Most of the participants experienced financial strain following their cancer diagnosis. Participants accessed the welfare rights service in a variety of ways, but mainly through referral by other professionals. The additional income generated by successful benefit claims was used in a number of ways and included offsetting additional costs associated with cancer and lessening the impact of loss of earnings. Overall, receiving welfare rights advice eased feelings of stress over financial issues at a time when participants were concerned about dealing with the impact of cancer. Lack of knowledge about benefit entitlements was the main barrier to accessing benefits, and this outweighed attitudinal factors such as stigma and concerns about benefit fraud.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Financial strain resulting from a cancer diagnosis is compounded in the UK by lack of easy access to information about benefit entitlements and assistance to claim. Proactive welfare rights advice services, working closely with health and social care professionals can assist with the practical demands that arise from dealing with the illness and should be considered an important part of a holistic approach to cancer treatment.</p

Home-based health promotion for older people with mild frailty: the HomeHealth intervention development and feasibility RCT.

BACKGROUND: Mild frailty or pre-frailty is common and yet is potentially reversible. Preventing progression to worsening frailty may benefit individuals and lower health/social care costs. However, we know little about effective approaches to preventing frailty progression. OBJECTIVES: (1) To develop an evidence- and theory-based home-based health promotion intervention for older people with mild frailty. (2) To assess feasibility, costs and acceptability of (i) the intervention and (ii) a full-scale clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness randomised controlled trial (RCT). DESIGN: Evidence reviews, qualitative studies, intervention development and a feasibility RCT with process evaluation. INTERVENTION DEVELOPMENT: Two systematic reviews (including systematic searches of 14 databases and registries, 1990-2016 and 1980-2014), a state-of-the-art review (from inception to 2015) and policy review identified effective components for our intervention. We collected data on health priorities and potential intervention components from semistructured interviews and focus groups with older people (aged 65-94 years) (n = 44), carers (n = 12) and health/social care professionals (n = 27). These data, and our evidence reviews, fed into development of the 'HomeHealth' intervention in collaboration with older people and multidisciplinary stakeholders. 'HomeHealth' comprised 3-6 sessions with a support worker trained in behaviour change techniques, communication skills, exercise, nutrition and mood. Participants addressed self-directed independence and well-being goals, supported through education, skills training, enabling individuals to overcome barriers, providing feedback, maximising motivation and promoting habit formation. FEASIBILITY RCT: Single-blind RCT, individually randomised to 'HomeHealth' or treatment as usual (TAU). SETTING: Community settings in London and Hertfordshire, UK. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 51 community-dwelling adults aged ≥ 65 years with mild frailty. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility - recruitment, retention, acceptability and intervention costs. Clinical and health economic outcome data at 6 months included functioning, frailty status, well-being, psychological distress, quality of life, capability and NHS and societal service utilisation/costs. RESULTS: We successfully recruited to target, with good 6-month retention (94%). Trial procedures were acceptable with minimal missing data. Individual randomisation was feasible. The intervention was acceptable, with good fidelity and modest delivery costs (£307 per patient). A total of 96% of participants identified at least one goal, which were mostly exercise related (73%). We found significantly better functioning (Barthel Index +1.68; p = 0.004), better grip strength (+6.48 kg; p = 0.02), reduced psychological distress (12-item General Health Questionnaire -3.92; p = 0.01) and increased capability-adjusted life-years [+0.017; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.001 to 0.031] at 6 months in the intervention arm than the TAU arm, with no differences in other outcomes. NHS and carer support costs were variable but, overall, were lower in the intervention arm than the TAU arm. The main limitation was difficulty maintaining outcome assessor blinding. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is lacking to inform frailty prevention service design, with no large-scale trials of multidomain interventions. From stakeholder/public perspectives, new frailty prevention services should be personalised and encompass multiple domains, particularly socialising and mobility, and can be delivered by trained non-specialists. Our multicomponent health promotion intervention was acceptable and delivered at modest cost. Our small study shows promise for improving clinical outcomes, including functioning and independence. A full-scale individually RCT is feasible. FUTURE WORK: A large, definitive RCT of the HomeHealth service is warranted. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014010370 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11986672. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 73. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information