Impact of a social prescribing intervention in North East England on adults with type 2 diabetes: the SPRING_NE multimethod study.

Background: Link worker social prescribing enables health-care professionals to address patients' non-medical needs by linking patients into various services. Evidence for its effectiveness and how it is experienced by link workers and clients is lacking. Objectives: To evaluate the impact and costs of a link worker social prescribing intervention on health and health-care costs and utilisation and to observe link worker delivery and patient engagement. Data sources: Quality Outcomes Framework and Secondary Services Use data. Design: Multimethods comprising (1) quasi-experimental evaluation of effects of social prescribing on health and health-care use, (2) cost-effectiveness analysis, (3) ethnographic methods to explore intervention delivery and receipt, and (4) a supplementary interview study examining intervention impact during the first UK COVID-19 lockdown (April-July 2020). Study population and setting: Community-dwelling adults aged 40-74 years with type 2 diabetes and link workers in a socioeconomically deprived locality of North East England, UK. Intervention: Link worker social prescribing to improve health and well-being-related outcomes among people with long-term conditions. Participants: (1) Health outcomes study, approximately n = 8400 patients; EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version (EQ-5D-5L), study, n = 694 (baseline) and n = 474 (follow-up); (2) ethnography, n = 20 link workers and n = 19 clients; and COVID-19 interviews, n = 14 staff and n = 44 clients. Main outcome measures: The main outcome measures were glycated haemoglobin level (HbA1c; primary outcome), body mass index, blood pressure, cholesterol level, smoking status, health-care costs and utilisation, and EQ-5D-5L score. Results: Intention-to-treat analysis of approximately 8400 patients in 13 intervention and 11 control general practices demonstrated a statistically significant, although not clinically significant, difference in HbA1c level (-1.11 mmol/mol) and a non-statistically significant 1.5-percentage-point reduction in the probability of having high blood pressure, but no statistically significant effects on other outcomes. Health-care cost estimates ranged from £18.22 (individuals with one extra comorbidity) to -£50.35 (individuals with no extra comorbidity). A statistically non-significant shift from unplanned (non-elective and accident and emergency admissions) to planned care (elective and outpatient care) was observed. Subgroup analysis showed more benefit for individuals living in more deprived areas, for the ethnically white and those with fewer comorbidities. The mean cost of the intervention itself was £1345 per participant; the incremental mean health gain was 0.004 quality-adjusted life-years (95% confidence interval -0.022 to 0.029 quality-adjusted life-years); and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £327,250 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Ethnographic data showed that successfully embedded, holistic social prescribing providing supported linking to navigate social determinants of health was challenging to deliver, but could offer opportunities for improving health and well-being. However, the intervention was heterogeneous and was shaped in unanticipated ways by the delivery context. Pressures to generate referrals and meet targets detracted from face-to-face contact and capacity to address setbacks among those with complex health and social problems. Limitations: The limitations of the study include (1) a reduced sample size because of non-participation of seven general practices; (2) incompleteness and unreliability of some of the Quality and Outcomes Framework data; (3) unavailability of accurate data on intervention intensity and patient comorbidity; (4) reliance on an exploratory analysis with significant sensitivity analysis; and (5) limited perspectives from voluntary, community and social enterprise. Conclusions: This social prescribing model resulted in a small improvement in glycaemic control. Outcome effects varied across different groups and the experience of social prescribing differed depending on client circumstances. Future work: To examine how the NHS Primary Care Network social prescribing is being operationalised; its impact on health outcomes, service use and costs; and its tailoring to different contexts. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN13880272. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme, Community Groups and Health Promotion (grant no. 16/122/33) and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 11, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Social prescribing happens when health-care staff refer patients to a link worker. Link workers support and help patients to access community services to improve their health and well-being. Social prescribing is popular within the NHS, but there is little evidence that it works. We looked at a social prescribing model being delivered in a disadvantaged area in north-east England.

A national study of burnout and spiritual health in UK general practitioners during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the burnout and spiritual health of general practitioners (GPs) in the United Kingdom (UK) who worked during the Covid-19 Pandemic. DESIGN: Online survey, April/May 2021, distributed via emails to general practices, Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs), Health boards, Clinical Research Networks, professional groups, social media GP groups and networks. SETTING: United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: 1318 GPs who had worked in the National Health Service (NHS) during the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020 -May 2021). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Burnout scores, measured by the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) for Medical Personnel; spiritual health, measured using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-Being, Non-Illness (FACIT-SP-NI). RESULTS: 19% of surveyed GPs were at the highest risk for burnout, using accepted MBI 'cut off' levels. There was no evidence of a difference in burnout by gender, ethnicity, or length of service. GP burnout was associated with GP spiritual health, regardless of identification with a religion. GPs with low spiritual health were five times more likely to be in the highest risk group for burnout. CONCLUSIONS: Burnout is at crisis levels amongst GPs in the UK NHS. A comprehensive response is required, identifying protective and precipitating factors for burnout. The potentially protective impact of spiritual health merits further investigation.

Evaluation of the mental health impacts of Universal Credit: protocol for a mixed methods study.

INTRODUCTION: The UK social security system is being transformed by the implementation of Universal Credit (UC), which combines six existing benefits and tax credits into a single payment for low-income households. Despite extensive reports of hardship associated with the introduction of UC, no previous studies have comprehensively evaluated its impact on mental health. Because payments are targeted at low-income households, impacts on mental health will have important consequences for health inequalities. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a mixed methods study. Work package (WP) 1 will compare health outcomes for new recipients of UC with outcomes for legacy benefit recipients in two large population surveys, using the phased rollout of UC as a natural experiment. We will also analyse the relationship between the proportion of UC claimants in small areas and a composite measure of mental health. WP2 will use data collected by Citizen's Advice to explore the sociodemographic and health characteristics of people who seek advice when claiming UC and identify features of the claim process that prompt advice-seeking. WP3 will conduct longitudinal in-depth interviews with up to 80 UC claimants in England and Scotland to explore reasons for claiming and experiences of the claim process. Up to 30 staff supporting claimants will also be interviewed. WP4 will use a dynamic microsimulation model to simulate the long-term health impacts of different implementation scenarios. WP5 will undertake cost-consequence analysis of the potential costs and outcomes of introducing UC and cost-benefit analyses of mitigating actions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We obtained ethical approval for the primary data gathering from the University of Glasgow, College of Social Sciences Research Ethics Committee, application number 400200244. We will use our networks to actively disseminate findings to UC claimants, the public, practitioners and policy-makers, using a range of methods and formats. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The study is registered with the Research Registry: researchregistry6697.

Managing disruption at a distance: Unequal experiences of people living with long-term conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic and 'lockdown' restrictions have affected people's health and wellbeing globally. Those who are clinically vulnerable to COVID-19 mortality due to living with long term conditions (LTCs) are at greater risk of negative impacts on their health and wellbeing, and of disruption in management of their LTCs. This study explores how people with LTCs managed their health and wellbeing under social distancing restrictions and self-isolation during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and examines why some people were more able to manage than others. Interviews were conducted between May and July 2020 with people (n = 44) living in North East England, who had one or more LTCs and were recruited via a social prescribing intervention. Data were analysed using a social constructivist thematic analysis. We present our analysis of the possibilities afforded to people to manage the impacts of lockdown on their health and wellbeing. We find that while some people deployed a range of capitals and/or etched out 'tactics' to make life 'habitable', others experienced 'zones of impossibility' requiring that they rely on contingent events or formal support. Our analysis highlights inequalities amongst people with LTCs, particularly regarding access to and deployment of important resources for health and wellbeing under COVID-19 social distancing restrictions, including outdoor space or greenspace, exercise and social connection. The study is novel in showing the mechanisms for coping with a significant period of disruption in the life-course whilst highlighting that although resilience was common in people with LTCs, this was sometimes at detrimental costs to themselves.

Social prescribing during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study of service providers' and clients' experiences.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 public health restrictions, such as social distancing and self-isolation, have been particularly challenging for vulnerable people with health conditions and/or complex social needs. Link worker social prescribing is widespread in the UK and elsewhere and is regarded as having the potential to provide support to vulnerable people during the pandemic. This qualitative study explores accounts of how an existing social prescribing service adapted to meet clients' needs in the first wave of the pandemic, and of how clients experienced these changes. METHODS: Data were collected in a deprived urban area of North East England via remote interviews with clients (n = 44), link workers (n = 5) and service provider managerial staff (n = 8) from May-September 2020. Thematic data analysis was conducted. RESULTS: The research found that service providers quickly adapted to remote intervention delivery aiming to serve existing clients and other vulnerable groups. Service providers experienced improved access to some existing clients via telephone in the first months of remote delivery and in some cases were able to engage clients who had previously not attended appointments at GP surgeries. However, link workers also experienced challenges in building rapport with clients, engaging clients with the aims of the intervention and providing a service to digitally excluded people. Limited link worker capacity meant clients experienced variable contact with link workers with only some experiencing consistent support that was highly valued for helping to manage their conditions and mental wellbeing. Limited access to linked services also adversely affected clients. Clients living in less affluent circumstances and/or with worse health were more likely to experience negative impacts on their long-term condition. Some found their health and progress with social prescribing was 'on hold' or 'going backwards', which sometimes negatively affected their health. CONCLUSIONS: Social prescribing offered valued support to some during the pandemic, but remote support sometimes had limited impact for clients and findings highlight the vulnerability of social prescribing's success when linked services are disrupted. Findings also show the need for more to be done in the upscaling of social prescribing to provide support to digitally excluded populations.

"I wouldn't survive it, as simple as that": Syndemic vulnerability among people living with chronic non-communicable disease during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The co-occurrence of COVID-19, non-communicable diseases and socioeconomic disadvantage has been identified as creating a syndemic: a state of synergistic epidemics, occurring when co-occurring health conditions interact with social conditions to amplify the burden of disease. In this study, we use the concept of illness management work to explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the lives of people living with, often multiple, chronic health conditions in a range of social circumstances. In-depth interviews were conducted between May and July 2020 with 29 participants living in a city in North East England. Qualitative data provide unique insights for those seeking to better understand the consequences for human life and wellbeing of the interacting social, physical and psychological factors that create syndemic risks in people's lives. Among this group of people at increased vulnerability to harm from COVID-19, we find that the pandemic public health response increased the work required for condition management. Mental distress was amplified by fear of infection and by the requirements of social isolation and distancing that removed participants' usual sources of support. Social conditions, such as poor housing, low incomes and the requirement to earn a living, further amplified the work of managing everyday life and risked worsening existing mental ill health. As evidenced by the experiences reported here, the era of pandemics will require a renewed focus on the connection between health and social justice if stubborn, and worsening health and social inequalities are to be addressed or, at the very least, not increased.

Managing disruption at a distance: unequal experiences of people living with long-term conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic

RationaleCOVID-19 ‘lockdown’ restrictions profoundly disrupted lives and often adversely affected health and wellbeing. Those who are clinically more vulnerable to COVID-19 due to living with long term conditions (LTCs) were at most risk of negative impacts on their health and wellbeing, including in relation to their LTC self-management strategies. This study explores how people managed their LTCs, health and wellbeing under social distancing restrictions and self-isolation during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and examines why some people managed better than others.MethodsTelephone interviews were conducted between 11th May and 13th July 2020 with people (n=44) aged 40 to 75 living in an urban and largely deprived area of North East England with one or more of eight LTCs, often including types 2 diabetes. Audio recorded interviews lasted between 20–120 minutes with an average of 50 minutes. Data were descriptively coded with the assistance of Nvivo 12 software and analysed using a social constructivist thematic analysis.ResultsWe found that while some deployed a range of capitals and/or etched out tactics to make life habitable, others experienced ‘zones of impossibility’ in which current health and wellbeing deteriorated and tangible futures retreated from view. Our analysis highlights inequalities amongst people with LTCs, and in particular regarding access to greenspace, exercise social and digital connection. Those people who were instructed to shield, had complex health issues, difficult life circumstances, or were living in the most disadvantaged situations were less able to deploy various forms of capital to cope with the lockdown, or to etch out tactics to mitigate negative effects. However, regardless of their circumstances, people expressed an attitude of ‘getting on with it’ and ‘just coping’ because they perceived others as in ‘the same boat’ or ‘worse off’ than themselves.ConclusionOur findings demonstrate the impact of inequalities on the management of long term conditions during social isolation, and highlight the importance of outdoor mobility, exercise and social support for managing wellbeing and health.