Exploring the feasibility of evaluating a community alliance welfare advice programme co-located in primary care in Bradford : an uncontrolled before and after study

Background: Welfare advice services co-located in health settings are known to improve financial security. However, little is known on how to effectively evaluate these services. This study aims to explore the feasibility of evaluating a welfare advice service co-located in a primary care setting in a deprived and ethnically diverse population. It seeks to investigate whether the proposed evaluation tools and processes are acceptable and feasible to implement and whether they are able to detect any evidence of promise for this intervention on the mental health, wellbeing and financial security of participants. Methods: An uncontrolled before and after study design was utilised. Data on mental health, wellbeing, quality of life and financial outcomes were collected at baseline prior to receiving welfare advice and at three months follow-up. Multiple logistic and linear regression models were used to explore individual differences in self-reported financial security and changes to mental health, wellbeing and quality of life scores before and after the provision of welfare advice. Results: Overall, the majority of key outcome measures were well completed, indicating participant acceptability of the mental health, wellbeing, quality of life and financial outcome measures used in this population. There was evidence suggestive of an improvement in participant financial security and evidence of promise for improvements in measured wellbeing and health-related quality of life for participants accessing services in a highly ethnically diverse population. Overall, the VCS Alliance welfare advice programme generated a total of £21,823.05 for all participants, with participants gaining an average of £389.70 per participant for participants with complete financial outcome data. Conclusions: This research demonstrates the feasibility of evaluating a welfare advice service co-located in primary care in a deprived and ethnically diverse setting utilising the ascribed mental health, wellbeing and quality of life and financial outcome tools. It provides evidence of promise to support the hypothesis that the implementation of a welfare advice service co-located in a health setting can improve health and wellbeing and reduce health inequalities

Children's behavioural and emotional wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic : Findings from the Born in Bradford COVID-19 mixed methods longitudinal study

Background The COVID-19 pandemic led to a multitude of immediate social restrictions for many across the world. In the UK, the lives of children and young people were quickly impacted when COVID-19 restrictions led to school closures for most children and restrictions on social interactions. The Born in Bradford COVID-19 longitudinal research study explored the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the lives of children and their families living in Bradford. Methods Surveys were administered during the first wave of the pandemic (March to June 2020) and compared to findings from before the pandemic. The current study examined the social and emotional wellbeing of children from before to during the pandemic, measured using the parent completed Strengths and Difficulties questionnaire (SDQ). Regression analyses looked at associations between a range of social determinants of health and changes in SDQ scores. Results The results showed that those children most likely to experience difficulties during the pandemic were boys, younger children, those from White British ethnicity (compared to Pakistani heritage children) and those living in the most deprived areas. There were associations between experiencing difficulties and: food insecurity; financial worry; getting below recommended levels of physical activity; and having less than the recommended amount of sleep. Conclusions The effect of COVID-19 restrictions are likely to have had negative consequences on children that could, in time, have long-lasting impacts on the health, wellbeing and development of children in the UK

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination modelling for safe surgery to save lives: data from an international prospective cohort study

Background: Preoperative SARS-CoV-2 vaccination could support safer elective surgery. Vaccine numbers are limited so this study aimed to inform their prioritization by modelling. Methods: The primary outcome was the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one COVID-19-related death in 1 year. NNVs were based on postoperative SARS-CoV-2 rates and mortality in an international cohort study (surgical patients), and community SARS-CoV-2 incidence and case fatality data (general population). NNV estimates were stratified by age (18-49, 50-69, 70 or more years) and type of surgery. Best- and worst-case scenarios were used to describe uncertainty. Results: NNVs were more favourable in surgical patients than the general population. The most favourable NNVs were in patients aged 70 years or more needing cancer surgery (351; best case 196, worst case 816) or non-cancer surgery (733; best case 407, worst case 1664). Both exceeded the NNV in the general population (1840; best case 1196, worst case 3066). NNVs for surgical patients remained favourable at a range of SARS-CoV-2 incidence rates in sensitivity analysis modelling. Globally, prioritizing preoperative vaccination of patients needing elective surgery ahead of the general population could prevent an additional 58 687 (best case 115 007, worst case 20 177) COVID-19-related deaths in 1 year. Conclusion: As global roll out of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination proceeds, patients needing elective surgery should be prioritized ahead of the general population