Barriers to healthcare and their relationship to well-being and social support for autistic adults during COVID-19.

AIM: The present study aimed to investigate barriers to healthcare and their relationships to social and emotional well-being and intersectional inequalities for autistic adults during COVID-19 restrictions in the UK. BACKGROUND: Autistic adults experience severe health inequalities and report more barriers to accessing health services compared to other both disabled and non-disabled populations. The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted many areas of society that may have increased vulnerability of autistic people to social and health inequalities, including delivery of healthcare from in-person to remote methods. METHOD: One hundred twenty-eight autistic adults who lived in the UK took part in an online survey. Measures included the Barriers to Healthcare Checklist (Short Form) and PROMIS outcome measure bank to assess emotional well-being and social support. Participants rated their agreement with items, retrospectively considering three different points of the trajectory of COVID-19 restrictions: before COVID-19, during the first lockdown in spring 2020, and in the month prior to taking the survey during autumn 2020. They completed a follow-up survey six months later to continue to assess change as restrictions in the UK were eased. FINDINGS: The average number of barriers to healthcare showed no significant change between all four time points. However, the nature of barriers to healthcare changed at the point of lockdown and persisted beyond the easing of COVID-19 restrictions. Barriers to healthcare were associated with some social and emotional well-being variables and demographic groups including gender, education and presence of additional disabilities. The findings may help to identify areas to target to improve access to both remote and in-person health systems for autistic people as modes of delivery continue to change over time.

Impact of COVID-19 on social prescribing across an Integrated Care System: A Researcher in Residence study.

Emerging evidence suggests that connecting people to non-medical activities in the community (social prescribing) may relieve pressure on services by promoting autonomy and resilience, thereby improving well-being and self-management of health. This way of working has a long history in the voluntary and community sector but has only recently been widely funded by the National Health Service (NHS) in England and implemented in Primary Care Networks (PCNs). The COVID-19 global pandemic coincided with this new service. There is wide variation in how social prescribing is implemented and scant evidence comparing different delivery models. As embedded researchers within an Integrated Care System in the Southwest of England, we examined the impact of COVID on the implementation of social prescribing in different employing organisations during the period March 2020 to April 2021. Data were collected from observations and field notes recorded during virtual interactions with over 80 social prescribing practitioners and an online survey of 52 social prescribing practitioners and middle managers. We conceptualise social prescribing as a pathway comprising access, engagement and activities, facilitated by workforce and community assets and strategic partnerships. We found that these elements were all impacted by the pandemic, but to different degrees according to the way the service was contracted, whether referrals (access) and approach (engagement) were universal ('open') or targeted ('boundaried') and the extent to which practitioners' roles were protected or shifted towards immediate COVID-specific work. Social prescribers contracted in PCNs were more likely to operate an 'open' model, although boundaries were developing over time. We suggest the presence of an explicit, agreed delivery model (whether 'open' or 'boundaried') might create a more coherent approach less likely to result in practitioner role drift, whilst allowing flexibility to adjust to the pandemic and enhancing practitioner satisfaction and well-being. The potential consequences of different models are examined.