Background Multiple long-term conditions are rising across all groups but people experiencing socioeconomic deprivation are found to have a higher prevalence. Self-management strategies are a vital part of healthcare for people with long-term conditions and effective strategies are associated with improved health outcomes in a variety of health conditions. The management of multiple long-term conditions are, however, less effective in people experiencing socioeconomic deprivation, leaving them more at risk of health inequalities. The purpose of this review is to identify and synthesise qualitative evidence on the barriers and facilitators of self-management on long-term conditions in those experiencing socioeconomic deprivation. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, PsycINFO and CINAHL Plus were searched for qualitative studies concerning self-management of multiple long-term conditions among socioeconomically disadvantaged populations. Data were coded and thematically synthesised using NVivo. Findings From the search results, 79 relevant qualitative studies were identified after the full text screening and 11 studies were included in the final thematic synthesis. Three overarching analytical themes were identified alongside a set of sub-themes: (1) Challenges of having multiple long-term conditions; prioritisation of conditions, impact of multiple long-term conditions on mental health and wellbeing, polypharmacy, (2) Socioeconomic barriers to self-management; financial, health literacy, compounding impact of multiple long-term conditions and socioeconomic deprivation, (3) Facilitators of self-management in people experiencing socioeconomic deprivation; maintaining independence, ‘meaningful’ activities, support networks. Discussion Self-management of multiple long-term conditions is challenging for people experiencing socioeconomic deprivation due to barriers around financial constraints and health literacy, which can lead to poor mental health and wellbeing. To support targeted interventions, greater awareness is needed among health professionals of the barriers/challenges of self-management among these populations.

Aims: (1) To explore the relationship between loneliness and mental health in older people accessing interventions delivered through the voluntary sector. (2) To understand how these interventions can take account of mental health, discussing the relative strengths of a number of different one-to-one and group-based interventions. Methods: Qualitative case study of Age Better in Sheffield (ABiS), an initiative to address loneliness and isolation among older people (aged above 50). 37 beneficiaries of voluntary sector interventions participated in the study: 17 had accessed a one-to-one intervention and 20 had accessed group-based activities. Results: One-to-one therapeutic interventions are beneficial when loneliness is associated with low psychological and emotional wellbeing stemming from trauma and other complex pre-existing issues that have left individuals unable to build social relationships and networks. One-to-one peer-to-peer interventions are beneficial for individuals whose loneliness is linked to low psychological and emotional wellbeing but for whom their issues are less complex. Group-based interventions are beneficial when loneliness is linked to social wellbeing and individuals want to build social networks and relationships and contribute to their community. Participants should be supported to access other forms of support if the benefits of the initial intervention are to be sustained. Conclusions: There is an interconnected relationship between loneliness and the emotional, psychological and social components of mental health that should be taken into account in the design of interventions. A range of one-to-one and group-based interventions are necessary to meet the varying needs and circumstances of older people experiencing loneliness. Public health commissioners should invest in an ecosystem of voluntary organisations providing different types of loneliness intervention if the epidemic of loneliness is to be addressed.

No abstract

No abstract

This article explores how the Islamic principles underpinning zakat and sadaqah aid the development of localised informal support networks in an English city. The article draws on interviews conducted with Pakistani Muslim men and women living in areas of high deprivation. Participants self-identified as a ‘community’ that was multigenerational yet built largely on traditional and conventional Muslim practices. Presenting empirical data that demonstrate the existence of Muslim philanthropic activity, participants provide their own interpretations of zakat and sadaqah while making a distinction between ‘charity’ and more general ‘good deeds’. The findings address a gap in knowledge surrounding the role that informal support plays in supporting Pakistani Muslims in Britain who possess a lower socioeconomic status. The data reveal that the motivations surrounding engagement in informal support have consequences for (dis)engagement with some formal welfare support services.