Associations between ongoing COVID-19 lockdown and the financial and mental health experiences of Australian families.

In 2020, Australia's successful COVID-19 public health restrictions comprised a national "initial lockdown" (March-May) and "ongoing lockdown" (July-November) for metropolitan Victorian residents only. We evaluated associations between ongoing lockdown and family finances and mental health. In the June and September 2020 Royal Children's Hospital National Child Health Polls, caregivers of children in Victoria and New South Wales (NSW) reported the following: job/income loss; material deprivation (inability to pay for essential items); income poverty; mental health (Kessler-6); perceived impact on caregiver/child mental health; and caregiver/child coping. Data from caregivers (N = 1207/902) in June/September were analysed using difference-in-difference modelling (NSW provided the comparator). During Victoria's ongoing lockdown, job/income loss increased by 11% (95%CI: 3%-18%); Kessler-6 poor mental health by 6% (95%CI: -0.3%-12%) and perceived negative mental health impacts by 14% for caregivers (95%CI: 6%-23%) and 12% for children (95%CI: 4%-20%). Female (vs. male) caregivers, metropolitan (vs. regional/rural) families, and families with elementary school-aged children (vs. pre-/high-school) were the most affected. The ongoing lockdown was associated with negative experiences of mental health, employment and income, but not deprivation or poverty, likely because of government income supplements introduced early in the pandemic. Future lockdowns require planned responses to outbreaks and evidence-informed financial and mental health supports.

Theoretical explanations for socioeconomic inequalities in multimorbidity: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: To document socioepidemiological theories used to explain the relationship between socioeconomic disadvantage and multimorbidity. DESIGN: Scoping review. METHODS: A search strategy was developed and then applied to multiple electronic databases including Medline, Embase, PsychInfo, Web of Science, Scielo, Applied Social Sciences, ERIC, Humanities Index and Sociological Abstracts. After the selection of studies, data were extracted using a data charting plan. The last search was performed on the 28 September 2021. Extracted data included: study design, country, population subgroups, measures of socioeconomic inequality, assessment of multimorbidity and conclusion on the association between socioeconomic variables and multimorbidity. Included studies were further assessed on their use of theory, type of theories used and context of application. Finally, we conducted a meta-narrative synthesis to summarise the results. RESULTS: A total of 64 studies were included in the review. Of these, 33 papers included theories as explanations for the association between socioeconomic position and multimorbidity. Within this group, 16 explicitly stated those theories and five tested at least one theory. Behavioural theories (health behaviours) were the most frequently used, followed by materialist (access to health resources) and psychosocial (stress pathways) theories. Most studies used theories as post hoc explanations for their findings or for study rationale. Supportive evidence was found for the role of material, behavioural and life course theories in explaining the relationship between social inequalities and multimorbidity. CONCLUSION: Given the widely reported social inequalities in multimorbidity and its increasing public health burden, there is a critical gap in evidence on pathways from socioeconomic disadvantage to multimorbidity. Generating evidence of these pathways will guide the development of intervention and public policies to prevent multimorbidity among people living in social disadvantage. Material, behavioural and life course pathways can be targeted to reduce the negative effect of low socioeconomic position on multimorbidity.

Connecting healthcare with income maximisation services, and their financial, health and well-being impacts for families with young children: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Poverty has far-reaching and detrimental effects on children's physical and mental health, across all geographies. Financial advice and income-maximisation services can provide a promising opportunity for shifting the physical and mental health burdens that commonly occur with financial hardship, yet awareness of these services is limited, and referrals are not systematically integrated into existing healthcare service platforms. We aim to map and synthesise evidence on the impact of healthcare-income maximisation models of care for families of children aged 0-5 years in high-income countries on family finances, parent/caregiver(s) or children's health and well-being. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: To be included in the review, studies must be families (expectant mothers or parents/caregivers) of children who are aged between 0 and 5 years, accessing a healthcare service, include a referral from healthcare to an income-maximisation service (ie, financial counselling), and examine impacts on child and family health and well-being. A comprehensive electronic search strategy will be used to identify studies written in English, published from inception to January 2021, and indexed in MEDLINE, EMBase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Proquest, Family & Society Studies Worldwide, Cochrane Library, and Informit Online. Search strategies will include terms for: families, financial hardship and healthcare, in various combinations. Bibliographies of primary studies and review articles meeting the inclusion criteria will be searched manually to identify further eligible studies, and grey literature will also be searched. Data on objective and self-reported outcomes and study quality will be independently extracted by two review authors; any disagreements will be resolved through a third reviewer. The protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required. The results will be disseminated widely via peer-reviewed publication and presentations at conferences related to this field. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020195985.

Study protocol for the Healthier Wealthier Families (HWF) pilot randomised controlled trial: testing the feasibility of delivering financial counselling to families with young children who are identified as experiencing financial hardship by community-based nurses.

INTRODUCTION: Poverty and deprivation can harm children's future health, learning, economic productivity and societal participation. The Australian Healthier Wealthier Families project seeks to reduce the childhood inequities caused by poverty and deprivation by creating a systematic referral pathway between two free, community-based services: universal, well-child nursing services, which provide health and development support to families with children from birth to school entry, and financial counselling. By adapting the successful Scottish 'Healthier Wealthier Children' model, the objectives of this Australian pilot are to test the (1) feasibility of systematising the referral pathway, and (2) short-term impacts on household finances, caregiver health, parenting efficacy and financial service use. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This pilot randomised controlled trial will run in three sites across two Australian states (Victoria and New South Wales), recruiting a total of 180 participants. Nurses identify eligible caregivers with a 6-item, study-designed screening survey for financial hardship. Caregivers who report one or more risk factors and consent are randomised. The intervention is financial counselling. The comparator is usual care plus information from a government money advice website. Feasibility will be evaluated using the number/proportion of caregivers who complete screening, consent and research measures, and access financial counselling. Though powered to assess feasibility, impacts will be measured 6 months post-enrolment with qualitative interviews and questionnaires about caregiver-reported income, loans and costs (adapted from national surveys, for example, the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey); health (General Health Questionnaire 1, EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire, Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scale short-form); efficacy (from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children); and financial service use (study-designed) compared between arms. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics committees of the Royal Children's Hospital (HREC/57372/RCHM-2019) and South West Sydney Local Health District (2019/ETH13455) have approved the study. Participants and stakeholders will receive results through regular communication channels comprising meetings, presentations and publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12620000154909; prospectively registered. Pre-results.