A Qualitative Evaluation of a Health Access Card for Refugees and Asylum Seekers in a City in Northern England.

Refugees and asylum seekers residing in the UK face multiple barriers to accessing healthcare. A Health Access Card information resource was launched in Newcastle upon Tyne in 2019 by Newcastle City Council, intended to guide refugees and asylum seekers living in the city, and the professional organisations that support them, to appropriate healthcare services provided locally. The aim of this qualitative evaluation was to explore service user and professional experiences of healthcare access and utilisation in Newcastle and perspectives on the Health Access Card. Eleven semi-structured interviews took place between February 2020 and March 2021. Participants provided diverse and compelling accounts of healthcare experiences and described cultural, financial and institutional barriers to care. Opportunities to improve healthcare access for these population groups included offering more bespoke support, additional language support, delivering training and education to healthcare professionals and reviewing the local support landscape to maximise the impact of collaboration and cross-sector working. Opportunities to improve the Health Access Card were also described, and these included providing translated versions and exploring the possibility of developing an accompanying digital resource.

COVID-19 and the role of Voluntary, Community, and Social Enterprises in northern England in responding to the needs of marginalised communities: a qualitative focus group study.

BACKGROUND: The Voluntary Community and Social Enterprise sector has a crucial role in supporting the health and wellbeing of people who are marginalised or who have multiple complex needs. We aimed to understand perceptions of those working in the sector and examine the short-term, medium-term, and long-term effects of COVID-19 on Voluntary Community and Social Enterprise organisations in northern England as they respond to the needs of marginalised communities. This research formed one component of a regional multiagency Health Inequalities Impact Assessment. METHODS: We conducted qualitative focus groups with staff and volunteers from five organisations between March and July, 2021, via a video conferencing platform. Eight of nine focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. One focus group was not recorded due to concerns raised over anonymity and safeguarding, but non-ascribed fieldnotes were taken. Focus group transcripts were analysed using framework analysis. FINDINGS: One organisation supported children and young people; two organisations supported vulnerable women, young people, and families; one organisation supported refugees and asylum seekers, and one organisation supported disadvantaged individuals to improve their mental and physical health and wellbeing. Three central themes were identified: the exacerbation of pre-existing inequalities, adversity, and challenges for vulnerable and marginalised populations; the cost of being flexible, innovative, and agile for Voluntary Community and Social Enterprise staff and volunteers; and the voluntary sector as a lifeline (organisational pride and resilience). INTERPRETATION: The considerable expertise, capacity, and resilience of Voluntary Community and Social Enterprise organisations and the crucial role they have in supporting marginalised communities has been clearly shown in their response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Voluntary Community and Social Enterprise sector therefore has an essential role in the post-COVID levelling-up agenda. The implications of these findings for service provision are that the Voluntary Community and Social Enterprise sector must be recognised as an integral partner within any effectively functioning local health system and, as such, adequately resourced to safeguard sustainability and to ensure that attempts to involve the sector in addressing the social determinants of health are not jeopardised. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research (Applied Research Collaboration North East and North Cumbria (grant reference NIHR200173) and Public Health England. SSo is supported by a Health Education England and National Institute for Health and Care Research Integrated Clinical Academic Lecturer award (reference CA-CL-2018-04-ST2-010) and Research Capability Funding, National Health Service North of England Care System Support. VJM is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research School for Public Health Research (grant reference PD-SPH-2015).

Levelling up health: A practical, evidence-based framework for reducing health inequalities.

There are substantial inequalities in health across society which have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The UK government have committed to a programme of levelling-up to address geographical inequalities. Here we undertake rapid review of the evidence base on interventions to reduce such health inequalities and developed a practical, evidence-based framework to 'level up' health across the country. This paper overviews a rapid review undertaken to develop a framework of guiding principles to guide policy. To that end and based on an initial theory, we searched one electrotonic database (MEDLINE) from 2007 to July 2021 to identify published umbrella reviews and undertook an internet search to identify relevant systematic reviews, primary studies, and grey literature. Titles and abstracts were screened according to the eligibility criteria. Key themes were extracted from the included studies and synthesised into an overarching framework of guiding principles in consultation with an expert panel. Included studies were cross checked with the initial theoretical domains and further searching undertaken to fill any gaps. We identified 16 published umbrella reviews (covering 667 individual studies), 19 grey literature publications, and 15 key systematic reviews or primary studies. Based on these studies, we develop a framework applicable at national, regional and local level which consisted of five principles - 1) healthy-by-default and easy to use initiatives; 2) long-term, multi-sector action; 3) locally designed focus; 4) targeting disadvantaged communities; and 5) matching of resources to need. Decision-makers working on policies to level up health should be guided by these five principles.

Tailoring lipid management interventions to reduce inequalities in cardiovascular disease risk management in primary care for deprived communities in Northern England: a mixed-methods intervention development protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Hyperlipidaemia contributes a significant proportion of modifiable cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, which is a condition that disproportionally affects disadvantaged socioeconomic communities, with death rates in the most deprived areas being four times higher than those in the least deprived. With the national CVD Prevention programme being delivered to minimise risk factors, no evidence is available on what has been implemented in primary care for deprived populations. This study describes the protocol for the development of a tailored intervention aiming to optimise lipid management in primary care settings to help reduce inequalities in CVD risks and improve outcomes in deprived communities. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A mixed-methods approach will be employed consisting of four work packages: (1) rapid review and logic model; (2) assessment and comparison of CVD risk management for deprived with non-deprived populations in Northern England to England overall; (3) interviews with health professionals; and (4) intervention development. A systematic search and narrative synthesis will be undertaken to identify evidence-based interventions and targeted outcomes in deprived areas. General practice-level data will be assessed to establish the profile of lipid management, compared with the regional and national levels. Health professionals involved in the organisation and delivery of routine lipid management to deprived populations will be interviewed to understand the implementation and delivery of current lipid management and associated challenges. The prototype intervention will be informed by the evidence generated from workpackages 1-3, which will be reviewed and assessed using the nominal group technique to reach consensus. Training and skills development materials will also be developed as needed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been obtained from the Faculty of Medical Sciences Research Ethics Committee at Newcastle University, UK. Findings will be disseminated to the participating sites, participants, commissioners, and in peer-reviewed journals and academic conferences.

Which Non-Pharmaceutical Primary Care Interventions Reduce Inequalities in Common Mental Health Disorders? A Protocol for a Systematic Review of Quantitative and Qualitative Studies.

Common mental health disorders (CMDs) represent a major public health concern and are particularly prevalent in people experiencing disadvantage or marginalisation. Primary care is the first point of contact for people with CMDs. Pharmaceutical interventions, such as antidepressants, are commonly used in the treatment of CMDs; however, there is concern that these treatments are over-prescribed and ineffective for treating mental distress related to social conditions. Non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions, such as psychological therapies and "social prescribing", provide alternatives for CMDs. Little is known, however, about which such interventions reduce social inequalities in CMD-related outcomes, and which may, unintentionally, increase them. The aim of this protocol (PROSPERO registration number CRD42021281166) is to describe how we will undertake a systematic review to assess the effects of non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions on CMD-related outcomes and social inequalities. A systematic review of quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods primary studies will be undertaken and reported according to the PRISMA-Equity guidance. The following databases will be searched: Assia, CINAHL, Embase, Medline, PsycInfo and Scopus. Retrieved records will be screened according to pre-defined eligibility criteria and synthesised using a narrative approach, with meta-analysis if feasible. The findings of this review will guide efforts to commission more equitable mental health services.

COVID-19 at the deep end: experiences of primary care staff working in the most deprived areas of England during the COVID-19 pandemic

BackgroundCOVID-19 is disproportionately impacting people in low-income communities. Primary care staff in areas of high blanket deprivation (also known as the ‘Deep End’) have unique insights into the challenges posed by the pandemic. We aim to explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspective of Deep End primary care practitioners in North East England, the most deprived region of the country.MethodsSemi-structured interviews followed by thematic analysis. 13 participants were interviewed (11 GPs, 1 nurse practitioner and 1 district nurse) with Deep End careers ranging from 3 months to 31 years. Participants were recruited via purposive and snowball sampling. Semi-structured interviews were conducted using video-conferencing software. Data were analysed using thematic content analysis. Participants were interviewed between September-December 2020, at the start of the UK second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.ResultsOur results can be categorised into three broad themes: the immediate health risks of COVID-19 on Deep End general practices and patients;factors likely to exacerbate the effects of existing socioeconomic deprivation;and wider implications for remote consulting.DiscussionDeep End practitioners have valuable insights into the impact of social distancing restrictions and remote consulting on patients‘ health and wellbeing and on the delivery of primary care in areas of deep deprivation. Their experiences should guide future pandemic response measures and any move to ‘digital first’ primary care to ensure that existing inequalities are not worsened.

Co-designing a deep end GP network for the North East and North Cumbria (NENC)

BackgroundFrom their Scottish origins in 2009, Deep End GP networks are being established all over the UK and further afield in Ireland and Australia. Formed of primary care practitioners in areas of high blanket socioecocomic deprivation, their common goal it to mitigate health inequalities and champion the cause of primary care. As the North East is the most deprived region in England, it was important to set up a network that was sustainable and reflected the priorities of those who worked in it. The network currently consists of the 34 most deprived practices in the region. Deep End NENC is affiliated with the Newcastle University Applied Research Collaboration’s (ARC) ‘inequalities and marginalised communities’ strand and this work will also be used to direct the ARC research priorities. This project aims to use co-design methodology to gather information from practitioners in the region that could be used to guide the initial steps of the Deep End NENC network. Co-design interviews would also serve to improve engagement and disseminate information about the network.MethodsParticipants were recruited using purposive and snowball sampling, as well as a blanket communication to all Deep End practices. Fifteen semi-structured interviews were carried out with health professionals (11 GPs, 2 social prescribing link workers, 1 nurse practitioner and 1 district nurse) from Deep End practices in the NENC. Due to Covid-19 these were carried out over Zoom before transcription and thematic analysis. Findings from the interviews were communicated to the members of Deep End NENC via webinars and they also formed the part of the Deep End Steering Group spending prioritisation protocol.ResultsA coding framework was used to consider findings at patient level, practice/network level and ‘upstream’ political level. Themes identified were the specific clinical and social challenges in the Deep End;barriers to patient care and access to services;training and recruitment;the need to connect with others who worked in these communities to share best practice;and the need to advocate for the Deep End. The COVID-19 pandemic itself brought challenges that were felt more acutely by Deep End patients and those who cared for them.DiscussionThese interviews were successful at identifying priority areas that will form the basis of the work that Deep End NENC will focus on over the coming years. They also add to the literature around challenges facing staff who work in deprived communities.

COVID-19 at the Deep End: A Qualitative Interview Study of Primary Care Staff Working in the Most Deprived Areas of England during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

COVID-19 is disproportionately impacting people in low-income communities. Primary care staff in deprived areas have unique insights into the challenges posed by the pandemic. This study explores the impact of COVID-19 from the perspective of primary care practitioners in the most deprived region of England. Deep End general practices serve communities in the region's most socioeconomically disadvantaged areas. This study used semi-structured interviews followed by thematic analysis. In total, 15 participants were interviewed (11 General Practitioners (GPs), 2 social prescribing link workers and 2 nurses) with Deep End careers ranging from 3 months to 31 years. Participants were recruited via purposive and snowball sampling. Interviews were conducted using video-conferencing software. Data were analysed using thematic content analysis through a social determinants of health lens. Our results are categorised into four themes: the immediate health risks of COVID-19 on patients and practices; factors likely to exacerbate existing deprivation; the role of social prescribing during COVID-19; wider implications for remote consulting. We add qualitative understanding to existing quantitative data, showing patients from low socioeconomic backgrounds have worse outcomes from COVID-19. Deep End practitioners have valuable insights into the impact of social distancing restrictions and remote consulting on patients' health and wellbeing. Their experiences should guide future pandemic response measures and any move to "digital first" primary care to ensure that existing inequalities are not worsened.

Reducing health inequalities through general practice: protocol for a realist review (EQUALISE).

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare organisations recognise the moral imperative to address inequalities in health outcomes but often lack an understanding of which types of interventions are likely to reduce them. This realist review will examine the existing evidence on the types of interventions or aspects of routine care in general practice that are likely to decrease or increase health inequalities (ie, inequality-generating interventions) across cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our realist review will follow Pawson's five iterative stages. We will start by developing an initial programme theory based on existing theories and discussions with stakeholders. To navigate the large volume of literature, we will access the primary studies through the identification of published systematic reviews of interventions delivered in general practice across the four key conditions. We will examine the primary studies included within each systematic review to identify those reporting on inequalities across PROGRESS-Plus categories. We will collect data on a range of clinical outcomes including prevention, diagnosis, follow-up and treatment. The data will be synthesised using a realist logic of analysis. The findings will be a description and explanation of the general practice interventions which are likely to increase or decrease inequalities across the major conditions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required because this study does not include any primary research. The findings will be integrated into a series of guiding principles and a toolkit for healthcare organisations to reduce health inequalities. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and user-friendly summaries. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020217871.