Challenges in evaluating Welfare to Work policy interventions: Would an RCT design have been the answer to all our problems?

<p>Background: UK policy direction for recipients of unemployment and sickness benefits is to support these people into employment by increasing 'into work' interventions. Although the main aim of associated interventions is to increase levels of employment, improved health is stated as a benefit, and a driver of these interventions. This is therefore a potentially important policy intervention with respect to health and health inequalities, and needs to be validated through rigorous impact evaluation.</p> <p>We attempted to evaluate the Pathways Advisory Service intervention which aims to provide employment support for Incapacity Benefit recipients, but encountered a number of challenges and barriers to evaluation. This paper explores the issues that arose in designing a suitable evaluation of the Pathways Advisory Service.</p> <p>Discussion: The main issues that arose were that characteristics of the intervention lead to difficulties in defining a suitable comparison group; and governance restrictions such as uncertainty regarding ethical consent processes and data sharing between agencies for research. Some of these challenges threatened fundamentally to limit the validity of any experimental or quasi-experimental evaluation we could design - restricting recruitment, data collection and identification of an appropriate comparison group. Although a cluster randomised controlled trial design was ethically justified to evaluate the Pathways Advisory Service, this was not possible because the intervention was already being widely implemented. However, this would not have solved other barriers to evaluation. There is no obvious method to perform a controlled evaluation for interventions where only a small proportion of those eligible are exposed. Improved communication between policymakers and researchers, clarification of data sharing protocols and improved guidelines for ethics committees are tangible ways which may reduce the current obstacles to this and other similar evaluations of policy interventions which tackle key determinants of health.</p> <p>Summary: The evaluation of social interventions is hampered by more than their suitability to randomisation. Data sharing, participant identification and recruitment problems are common to randomised and non-randomised evaluation designs. These issues require further attention if we are to learn from current social policy.</p&gt

Lack of evidence on mental health and well-being impacts of individual-level interventions for vulnerable adolescents:systematic mapping review

Objectives: To review empirical evaluations of individual-level interventions intended to improve mental health or wellbeing for vulnerable adolescents. Study design: Systematic mapping review. Methods: Thirteen databases covering academic and grey literature were searched for published reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and grey literature (2005-2016) and the results quality-assessed to prioritize best available evidence. We aimed to identify well conducted systematic reviews and trials that evaluated individual-level interventions, for mental health/wellbeing outcomes, where the population was adolescents aged 10-24 years in any of 12 vulnerable groups at high risk of poor health outcomes (e.g. homeless, offenders, 'looked after', carers). Results: Thirty systematic reviews and 16 additional trials were identified. There was insufficient evidence to identify promising individual-level interventions that improve the mental health/wellbeing of any of the vulnerable groups. Conclusions: Despite Western policy to promote health and wellbeing among vulnerable young people, the dearth of evidence suggests a lack of interest in evaluating interventions targeting these groups in respect of their mental health/wellbeing outcomes

General practitioners’ perceptions of compassionate communities: a qualitative study

Abstract: Background: General Practitioners (GPs) face challenges when providing palliative care, including an ageing, multimorbid population, and falling GP numbers. A ‘public health palliative care’ approach, defined as “working with communities to improve people’s experience of death, dying and bereavement”, is gaining momentum. ‘Compassionate communities’ is one example, with a focus on linking professional health carers with supportive community networks. Primary care is central to the approach, which has been incorporated into United Kingdom GP palliative care guidance. No research to date, however, has investigated GP perspectives of these approaches. Our aim, therefore, was to explore GP perceptions of a public health approach to palliative care, and compassionate communities. Methods: GPs working in the United Kingdom were recruited through university teaching and research networks using snowball sampling. Purposive sampling ensured wide representation of gender, level of experience and practice populations. Semi-structured, digitally audio-recorded interviews were conducted with nine GPs. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis was undertaken, informed by a qualitative descriptive methodology. Interviews continued until data saturation was reached. Results: Most participants were unfamiliar with the term ‘compassionate communities’, but recognised examples within their practice. Three major themes with seven subthemes were identified: 1) Perceived potential of compassionate communities, including: ‘maximising use of existing community services’; ‘influencing health outside of healthcare’; and ‘combatting taboo’, 2) Perceived challenges of compassionate communities, including: ‘patient safety’; ‘limited capacity of the community’; ‘limited capacity of general practice’, and ‘applicability of public health to palliative care’, and 3) The role of the GP in compassionate communities. Conclusions: GPs recognised the importance of the wider community in caring for palliative care patients, however most were unfamiliar with the compassionate community approach. Participants held differing views regarding the application of the model, and the position of general practice within this. Further research into the approach’s practical implementation, and exploring the views of other key stakeholders, would help establish the feasibility of compassionate communities in practice, and guide its future application

Applying critical systems thinking to social prescribing: a relational model of stakeholder “buy-in”

Background Social prescribing (SP) allows health professionals to refer primary care patients toward health and wellbeing interventions and activities in the local community. Now widely implemented across the UK and adopted in other nations, questions arise concerning the modelling of present and future schemes, including challenges to full engagement encountered by stakeholders, which lie beyond the scope of traditional evaluations. Critical Systems Thinking (CST) allows for holistic analysis of fields where multiple stakeholders hold diverse interests and unequal power. Methods We use CST to (a) critically examine a developing rural social prescribing scheme from multiple stakeholder perspectives and (b) present a relational model for local social prescribing schemes. Our fieldwork included 24 in-depth interviews, regular planning meetings with key stakeholders, and discussions with those involved with national and international SP landscaping. A modified grounded theory approach was used for the analysis, and to consider the core elements of social prescribing sustainability. Results Our study confirms that local social prescribing schemes must operate with numerous stakeholder interests in mind, seeking to address real life social complexity and offer integrated solutions to multifaceted issues. Three main areas are discussed: holistic vision and boundary judgments; barriers and facilitators; relational issues and “emotional buy in”. Problems for staff include selecting suitable clients, feedback and technological issues and funding and evaluation pressures. Barriers for clients include health, transport and expense issues, also lack of prior information and GP involvement. Emotional “buy-in” emerged as essential for all stakeholders, but hard to sustain. Based on our findings we propose a positive relational model comprising shared vision, confidence and commitment; motivation and encouragement, support and wellbeing focus, collaborative relationships, communication and feedback, access to information /resources, learning in and from action, with emotional “buy-in” at its heart. Conclusion Those implementing social prescribing in different localities inevitably face hard choices about what and whom to include. Research on the sustainability of social prescribing remains limited, studies are required to ascertain which “holistic” models of social prescribing work best for which communities, who are the main beneficiaries of these approaches and how “buy-in” is best sustained

The contribution of risk factors to socioeconomic inequalities in multimorbidity across the lifecourse: a longitudinal analysis of the Twenty-07 cohort

Background: Multimorbidity is a major challenge to health systems globally and disproportionately affects socioeconomically disadvantaged populations. We examined socioeconomic inequalities in developing multimorbidity across the lifecourse and investigated the contribution of five behaviour-related risk factors. Methods: The Twenty-07 study recruited participants aged approximately 15, 35, and 55 years in 1987 and followed them up over 20 years. The primary outcome was development of multimorbidity (2+ health conditions). The relationship between five different risk factors (smoking, alcohol consumption, diet, body mass index (BMI), physical activity) and the development of multimorbidity was assessed. Social patterning in the development of multimorbidity based on two measures of socioeconomic status (area-based deprivation and household income) was then determined, followed by investigation of potential mediation by the five risk factors. Multilevel logistic regression models and predictive margins were used for statistical analyses. Socioeconomic inequalities in multimorbidity were quantified using relative indices of inequality and attenuation assessed through addition of risk factors. Results: Multimorbidity prevalence increased markedly in all cohorts over the 20 years. Socioeconomic disadvantage was associated with increased risk of developing multimorbidity (most vs least deprived areas: odds ratio (OR) 1.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26–1.68), and the risk was at least as great when assessed by income (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.25–1.87) or when defining multimorbidity as 3+ conditions. Smoking (current vs never OR 1.56, 1.36–1.78), diet (no fruit/vegetable consumption in previous week vs consumption every day OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.33–1.84), and BMI (morbidly obese vs healthy weight OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.42–2.49) were strong independent predictors of developing multimorbidity. A dose–response relationship was observed with number of risk factors and subsequent multimorbidity (3+ risk factors vs none OR 1.91, 95% CI 1.57–2.33). However, the five risk factors combined explained only 40.8% of socioeconomic inequalities in multimorbidity development. Conclusions: Preventive measures addressing known risk factors, particularly obesity and smoking, could reduce the future multimorbidity burden. However, major socioeconomic inequalities in the development of multimorbidity exist even after taking account of known risk factors. Tackling social determinants of health, including holistic health and social care, is necessary if the rising burden of multimorbidity in disadvantaged populations is to be redressed

A higher effort-based paradigm in physical activity and exercise for public health: making the case for a greater emphasis on resistance training

It is well known that physical activity and exercise is associated with a lower risk of a range of morbidities and all-cause mortality. Further, it appears that risk reductions are greater when physical activity and/or exercise is performed at a higher intensity of effort. Why this may be the case is perhaps explained by the accumulating evidence linking physical fitness and performance outcomes (e.g. cardiorespiratory fitness, strength, and muscle mass) also to morbidity and mortality risk. Current guidelines about the performance of moderate/vigorous physical activity using aerobic exercise modes focuses upon the accumulation of a minimum volume of physical activity and/or exercise, and have thus far produced disappointing outcomes. As such there has been increased interest in the use of higher effort physical activity and exercise as being potentially more efficacious. Though there is currently debate as to the effectiveness of public health prescription based around higher effort physical activity and exercise, most discussion around this has focused upon modes considered to be traditionally ‘aerobic’ (e.g. running, cycling, rowing, swimming etc.). A mode customarily performed to a relatively high intensity of effort that we believe has been overlooked is resistance training. Current guidelines do include recommendations to engage in ‘muscle strengthening activities’ though there has been very little emphasis upon these modes in either research or public health effort. As such the purpose of this debate article is to discuss the emerging higher effort paradigm in physical activity and exercise for public health and to make a case for why there should be a greater emphasis placed upon resistance training as a mode in this paradigm shift

Health, happiness and wellbeing for adolescents transitioning to adulthood: a systematic review of individual-level interventions for adolescents from vulnerable groups

No abstract available