A systematic review of the relationships between social capital and socioeconomic inequalities in health: a contribution to understanding the psychosocial pathway of health inequalities

YesRecent research on health inequalities moves beyond illustrating the importance of psychosocial factors for health to a more in-depth study of the specific psychosocial pathways involved. Social capital is a concept that captures both a buffer function of the social environment on health, as well as potential negative effects arising from social inequality and exclusion. This systematic review assesses the current evidence, and identifies gaps in knowledge, on the associations and interactions between social capital and socioeconomic inequalities in health. Through this systematic review we identified studies on the interactions between social capital and socioeconomic inequalities in health published before July 2012. The literature search resulted in 618 studies after removal of duplicates, of which 60 studies were eligible for analysis. Self-reported measures of health were most frequently used, together with different bonding, bridging and linking components of social capital. A large majority, 56 studies, confirmed a correlation between social capital and socioeconomic inequalities in health. Twelve studies reported that social capital might buffer negative health effects of low socioeconomic status and five studies concluded that social capital has a stronger positive effect on health for people with a lower socioeconomic status. There is evidence for both a buffer effect and a dependency effect of social capital on socioeconomic inequalities in health, although the studies that assess these interactions are limited in number. More evidence is needed, as identified hypotheses have implications for community action and for action on the structural causes of social inequalities

Are social connections associated with health and wellbeing in a context of social disadvantage and ethnic diversity? A study of Pakistani and White British women and infants in the Born in Bradford cohort.

Social disadvantage extends beyond a lack of income and basic necessities, to being deprived of the material and social resources required to lead a happy, healthy and fulfilling life. The focus of this study is on the role of social connections in relation to health, in a context of social disadvantage and ethnic diversity. In this thesis I aim to study the associations between ethnic density, social capital and health for Pakistani and White British mothers and infants in the Born in Bradford study. Data from the Born in Bradford cohort were linked with area-level data to create a multilevel dataset of 4,357 Pakistani and 3,869 White British mother-infant pairs. While own ethnic density was not associated with birth weight or preterm birth, higher South Asian density was associated with lower odds of smoking for both Pakistani and White British women. Although levels of social capital seemed to be low and levels of social disadvantage were high, different indicators of social capital were associated with health outcomes for Pakistani and White British mothers and infants. There was some evidence to suggest that social capital provides health benefits especially to those in disadvantaged circumstances. Social disadvantage for Pakistani women and infants in particular proved hard to capture with measures of individual socioeconomic status and area deprivation, and social gradients in health were attenuated for Pakistani women and infants in the Born in Bradford study and the Millennium Cohort Study. The associations between social resources and health vary by ethnic group, social status, and health outcome, and there is no strong evidence that the promotion of social capital is a useful public health strategy. Greater social equality together with the social inclusion of minority groups are likely to provide the ideal context in which social capital can thrive, regardless of the social or ethnic composition of neighbourhoods

Mental health among healthcare workers and other vulnerable groups during the COVID-19 pandemic and other coronavirus outbreaks: A rapid systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Although most countries and healthcare systems worldwide have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, some groups of the population may be more vulnerable to detrimental effects of the pandemic on mental health than others. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesise evidence currently available from systematic reviews on the impact of COVID-19 and other coronavirus outbreaks on mental health for groups of the population thought to be at increased risk of detrimental mental health impacts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of reviews on adults and children residing in a country affected by a coronavirus outbreak and belonging to a group considered to be at risk of experiencing mental health inequalities. Data were collected on symptoms or diagnoses of any mental health condition, quality of life, suicide or attempted suicide. The protocol for this systematic review was registered in the online PROSPERO database prior to commencing the review (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=194264). RESULTS: We included 25 systematic reviews. Most reviews included primary studies of hospital workers from multiple countries. Reviews reported variable estimates for the burden of symptoms of mental health problems among acute healthcare workers, COVID-19 patients with physical comorbidities, and children and adolescents. No evaluations of interventions were identified. Risk- and protective factors, mostly for healthcare workers, showed the importance of personal factors, the work environment, and social networks for mental health. CONCLUSIONS: This review of reviews based on primary studies conducted in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic shows a lack of evidence on mental health interventions and mental health impacts on vulnerable groups in the population

Primary-level worker interventions for the care of people living with mental disorders and distress in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND: Community-based primary-level workers (PWs) are an important strategy for addressing gaps in mental health service delivery in low- and middle-income countries. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of PW-led treatments for persons with mental health symptoms in LMICs, compared to usual care. SEARCH METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, ICTRP, reference lists (to 20 June 2019). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of PW-led or collaborative-care interventions treating people with mental health symptoms or their carers in LMICs. PWs included: primary health professionals (PHPs), lay health workers (LHWs), community non-health professionals (CPs). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Seven conditions were identified apriori and analysed by disorder and PW examining recovery, prevalence, symptom change, quality-of-life (QOL), functioning, service use (SU), and adverse events (AEs). Risk ratios (RRs) were used for dichotomous outcomes; mean difference (MDs), standardised mean differences (SMDs), or mean change differences (MCDs) for continuous outcomes. For SMDs, 0.20 to 0.49 represented small, 0.50 to 0.79 moderate, and ≥0.80 large clinical effects. Analysis timepoints: T1 (6 months) post-intervention. MAIN RESULTS: Description of studies 95 trials (72 new since 2013) from 30 LMICs (25 trials from 13 LICs). Risk of bias Most common: detection bias, attrition bias (efficacy), insufficient protection against contamination. Intervention effects *Unless indicated, comparisons were usual care at T2. "Probably", "may", or "uncertain" indicates "moderate", "low," or "very low" certainty evidence. Adults with common mental disorders (CMDs) LHW-led interventions a. may increase recovery (2 trials, 308 participants; RR 1.29, 95%CI 1.06 to 1.56); b. may reduce prevalence (2 trials, 479 participants; RR 0.42, 95%CI 0.18 to 0.96); c. may reduce symptoms (4 trials, 798 participants; SMD -0.59, 95%CI -1.01 to -0.16); d. may improve QOL (1 trial, 521 participants; SMD 0.51, 95%CI 0.34 to 0.69); e. may slightly reduce functional impairment (3 trials, 1399 participants; SMD -0.47, 95%CI -0.8 to -0.15); f. may reduce AEs (risk of suicide ideation/attempts); g. may have uncertain effects on SU. Collaborative-care a. may increase recovery (5 trials, 804 participants; RR 2.26, 95%CI 1.50 to 3.43); b. may reduce prevalence although the actual effect range indicates it may have little-or-no effect (2 trials, 2820 participants; RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.32 to 1.01); c. may slightly reduce symptoms (6 trials, 4419 participants; SMD -0.35, 95%CI -0.63 to -0.08); d. may slightly improve QOL (6 trials, 2199 participants; SMD 0.34, 95%CI 0.16 to 0.53); e. probably has little-to-no effect on functional impairment (5 trials, 4216 participants; SMD -0.13, 95%CI -0.28 to 0.03); f. may reduce SU (referral to MH specialists); g. may have uncertain effects on AEs (death). Women with perinatal depression (PND) LHW-led interventions a. may increase recovery (4 trials, 1243 participants; RR 1.29, 95%CI 1.08 to 1.54); b. probably slightly reduce symptoms (5 trials, 1989 participants; SMD -0.26, 95%CI -0.37 to -0.14); c. may slightly reduce functional impairment (4 trials, 1856 participants; SMD -0.23, 95%CI -0.41 to -0.04); d. may have little-to-no effect on AEs (death); e. may have uncertain effects on SU. Collaborative-care a. has uncertain effects on symptoms/QOL/SU/AEs. Adults with post-traumatic stress (PTS) or CMDs in humanitarian settings LHW-led interventions a. may slightly reduce depression symptoms (5 trials, 1986 participants; SMD -0.36, 95%CI -0.56 to -0.15); b. probably slightly improve QOL (4 trials, 1918 participants; SMD -0.27, 95%CI -0.39 to -0.15); c. may have uncertain effects on symptoms (PTS)/functioning/SU/AEs. PHP-led interventions a. may reduce PTS symptom prevalence (1 trial, 313 participants; RR 5.50, 95%CI 2.50 to 12.10) and depression prevalence (1 trial, 313 participants; RR 4.60, 95%CI 2.10 to 10.08); b. may have uncertain effects on symptoms/functioning/SU/AEs. Adults with harmful/hazardous alcohol or substance use LHW-led interventions a. may increase recovery from harmful/hazardous alcohol use although the actual effect range indicates it may have little-or-no effect (4 trials, 872 participants; RR 1.28, 95%CI 0.94 to 1.74); b. may have little-to-no effect on the prevalence of methamphetamine use (1 trial, 882 participants; RR 1.01, 95%CI 0.91 to 1.13) and functional impairment (2 trials, 498 participants; SMD -0.14, 95%CI -0.32 to 0.03); c. probably slightly reduce risk of harmful/hazardous alcohol use (3 trials, 667 participants; SMD -0.22, 95%CI -0.32 to -0.11); d. may have uncertain effects on SU/AEs. PHP/CP-led interventions a. probably have little-to-no effect on recovery from harmful/hazardous alcohol use (3 trials, 1075 participants; RR 0.93, 95%CI 0.77 to 1.12) or QOL (1 trial, 560 participants; MD 0.00, 95%CI -0.10 to 0.10); b. probably slightly reduce risk of harmful/hazardous alcohol and substance use (2 trials, 705 participants; SMD -0.20, 95%CI -0.35 to -0.05; moderate-certainty evidence); c. may have uncertain effects on prevalence (cannabis use)/SU/AEs. PW-led interventions for alcohol/substance dependence a. may have uncertain effects. Adults with severe mental disorders *Comparisons were specialist-led care at T1. LHW-led interventions a. may have little-to-no effect on caregiver burden (1 trial, 253 participants; MD -0.04, 95%CI -0.18 to 0.11); b. may have uncertain effects on symptoms/functioning/SU/AEs. PHP-led or collaborative-care a. may reduce functional impairment (7 trials, 874 participants; SMD -1.13, 95%CI -1.78 to -0.47); b. may have uncertain effects on recovery/relapse/symptoms/QOL/SU. Adults with dementia and carers PHP/LHW-led carer interventions a. may have little-to-no effect on the severity of behavioural symptoms in dementia patients (2 trials, 134 participants; SMD -0.26, 95%CI -0.60 to 0.08); b. may reduce carers' mental distress (2 trials, 134 participants; SMD -0.47, 95%CI -0.82 to -0.13); c. may have uncertain effects on QOL/functioning/SU/AEs. Children with PTS or CMDs LHW-led interventions a. may have little-to-no effect on PTS symptoms (3 trials, 1090 participants; MCD -1.34, 95%CI -2.83 to 0.14); b. probably have little-to-no effect on depression symptoms (3 trials, 1092 participants; MCD -0.61, 95%CI -1.23 to 0.02) or on functional impairment (3 trials, 1092 participants; MCD -0.81, 95%CI -1.48 to -0.13); c. may have little-or-no effect on AEs. CP-led interventions a. may have little-to-no effect on depression symptoms (2 trials, 602 participants; SMD -0.19, 95%CI -0.57 to 0.19) or on AEs; b. may have uncertain effects on recovery/symptoms(PTS)/functioning. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: PW-led interventions show promising benefits in improving outcomes for CMDs, PND, PTS, harmful alcohol/substance use, and dementia carers in LMICs

Behavioural activation therapy for anxiety disorders in adults

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: 1. To study the effects of BA in comparison with other psychological therapies (e.g. mindfulness therapy, CBT, dialectical behavioural therapy) for anxiety disorders in adults. 2. To study the effects of BA compared with pharmacotherapy for anxiety disorders in adults. 3. To study the effects of BA compared with treatment as usual, waiting list, placebo, and no treatment for anxiety disorders in adults

Development and validation of a search filter to identify equity-focused studies: reducing the number needed to screen

Search strategies and validation set papers. Contains validated search strategies, the number of records retrieved, and the MEDLINE validation set of papers. (PDF 722 kb

Born in Bradford's Better Start: an experimental birth cohort study to evaluate the impact of early life interventions.

BACKGROUND: Early interventions are recognised as key to improving life chances for children and reducing inequalities in health and well-being, however there is a paucity of high quality research into the effectiveness of interventions to address childhood health and development outcomes. Planning and implementing standalone RCTs for multiple, individual interventions would be slow, cumbersome and expensive. This paper describes the protocol for an innovative experimental birth cohort: Born in Bradford's Better Start (BiBBS) that will simultaneously evaluate the impact of multiple early life interventions using efficient study designs. Better Start Bradford (BSB) has been allocated £49 million from the Big Lottery Fund to implement 22 interventions to improve outcomes for children aged 0-3 in three key areas: social and emotional development; communication and language development; and nutrition and obesity. The interventions will be implemented in three deprived and ethnically diverse inner city areas of Bradford. METHOD: The BiBBS study aims to recruit 5000 babies, their mothers and their mothers' partners over 5 years from January 2016-December 2020. Demographic and socioeconomic information, physical and mental health, lifestyle factors and biological samples will be collected during pregnancy. Parents and children will be linked to their routine health and local authority (including education) data throughout the children's lives. Their participation in BSB interventions will also be tracked. BiBBS will test interventions using the Trials within Cohorts (TwiCs) approach and other quasi-experimental designs where TwiCs are neither feasible nor ethical, to evaluate these early life interventions. The effects of single interventions, and the cumulative effects of stacked (multiple) interventions on health and social outcomes during the critical early years will be measured. DISCUSSION: The focus of the BiBBS cohort is on intervention impact rather than observation. As far as we are aware BiBBS is the world's first such experimental birth cohort study. While some risk factors for adverse health and social outcomes are increasingly well described, the solutions to tackling them remain elusive. The novel design of BiBBS can contribute much needed evidence to inform policy makers and practitioners about effective approaches to improve health and well-being for future generations

Integrating research and system-wide practice in public health: lessons learnt from Better Start Bradford.

Many interventions that are delivered within public health services have little evidence of effect. Evaluating interventions that are being delivered as a part of usual practice offers opportunities to improve the evidence base of public health. However, such evaluation is challenging and requires the integration of research into system-wide practice. The Born in Bradford's Better Start experimental birth cohort offers an opportunity to efficiently evaluate multiple complex community interventions to improve the health, wellbeing and development of children aged 0-3 years. Based on the learning from this programme, this paper offers a pragmatic and practical guide to researchers, public health commissioners and service providers to enable them to integrate research into their everyday practice, thus enabling relevant and robust evaluations within a complex and changing system.Using the principles of co-production the key challenges of integrating research and practice were identified, and appropriate strategies to overcome these, developed across five key stages: 1) Community and stakeholder engagement; 2) Intervention design; 3) Optimising routinely collected data; 4) Monitoring implementation; and 5) Evaluation. As a result of our learning we have developed comprehensive toolkits ( https://borninbradford.nhs.uk/what-we-do/pregnancy-early-years/toolkit/ ) including: an operational guide through the service design process; an implementation and monitoring guide; and an evaluation framework. The evaluation framework incorporates implementation evaluations to enable understanding of intervention performance in practice, and quasi experimental approaches to infer causal effects in a timely manner. We also offer strategies to harness routinely collected data to enhance the efficiency and affordability of evaluations that are directly relevant to policy and practice.These strategies and tools will help researchers, commissioners and service providers to work together to evaluate interventions delivered in real-life settings. More importantly, however, we hope that they will support the development of a connected system that empowers practitioners and commissioners to embed innovation and improvement into their own practice, thus enabling them to learn, evaluate and improve their own services