Evaluation of welfare advice in primary care: effect on practice workload and prescribing for mental health

Krska, Janet; Palmer, Sharon Duca; Dalzell-Brown, Annette; Nicholl, Pat

doi:10.1017/s1463423612000461

Cited by 19 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 36 Previous research using routinely collected medical record data found small reductions in GP consultation frequency and antidepressant prescription 6 months before and after receipt of co-located welfare advice. 37 However, this research was small and uncontrolled, precluding causal inference.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Impact of co-located welfare advice in healthcare settings: prospective quasi-experimental controlled study

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundEvaluations of primary healthcare co-located welfare advice services have been methodologically limited.AimsTo examine the impact and cost-consequences of co-located benefits and debt advice on mental health and service use.MethodProspective, controlled quasi-experimental study in eight intervention and nine comparator sites across North Thames. Changes in the proportion meeting criteria for common mental disorder (CMD, 12-item General Health Questionnaire); well-being scores (Shortened Warwick and Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale), 3-month GP consultation rate and financial strain were measured alongside funding costs and financial gains.ResultsRelative to controls, CMD reduced among women (ratio of odds ratios (rOR) = 0.37, 95% CI 0.20–0.70) and Black advice recipients (rOR = 0.09, 95% CI 0.03–0.28). Individuals whose advice resulted in positive outcomes demonstrated improved well-being scores (β coefficient 1.29, 95% CI 0.25–2.32). Reductions in financial strain (rOR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.23–0.77) but no changes in 3-month consultation rate were found. Per capita, advice recipients received £15 per £1 of funder investment.ConclusionsCo-located welfare advice improves short-term mental health and well-being, reduces financial strain and generates considerable financial returns.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Impact of co-located welfare advice in healthcare settings: prospective quasi-experimental controlled study

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, our study adds important insights to the mixed evidence available on the effectiveness and e ciency of such schemes in reducing GP workload and healthcare demand more generally [14,15,35,36]. In particular, the non-signi cant ndings of many previous studies might be partially explained by the multicausal nature of their outcome indicators.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Once is Rarely Enough: Can Cocial Prescribing Facilitate Adherence to Non-clinical Community and Voluntary Sector Health Services? Empirical Evidence from Germany

Golubinski

Oppel

Winter

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Non-clinical health interventions provided by the voluntary and community sector can improve patients’ health and well-being and reduce pressure on primary and secondary care, but only if patients adhere to them. This study provides novel insights into the impact of doctor referrals to such services, known as social prescribing, on patients’ adherence to them. Methods: Using a negative binomial model, we analysed electronic visitor records from a community health advice and navigation service in Germany between January 2018 and December 2019 to determine whether social prescribing was associated with greater adherence to the service (measured in terms of return visits) compared to patients who self-referred. We also explored whether this effect differed according to patient characteristics. Results: Based on 1,734 observations, we found that social prescribing was significantly associated with a greater number of return visits compared to patient self-referrals (p<0.05). For patients who visited the service because of psychological concerns, the effect of social prescribing was lower. For all other patient characteristics, the effect remained unchanged, suggesting relevance to all other patient groups. Conclusions: The results of our study indicate that social prescribing may be an effective way to facilitate adherence to non-clinical community and voluntary sector health services. This knowledge is important for policy makers who are deciding whether to implement or expand upon social prescribing schemes. Trial registration: Not applicable

show abstract

“…In addition, our study adds important insights to the mixed evidence available on the effectiveness and e ciency of such schemes in reducing GP workload and healthcare demand more generally [16,17,37,38]. In particular, the non-signi cant ndings of many previous studies might be partially explained by the multicausal nature of their outcome indicators.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Once is rarely enough: Can social prescribing facilitate adherence to non-clinical community and voluntary sector health services? Empirical evidence from Germany

Golubinski

Wild

Winter

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Non-clinical health interventions provided by the voluntary and community sector can improve patients’ health and well-being and reduce pressure on primary and secondary care, but only if patients adhere to them. This study provides novel insights into the impact of doctor referrals to such services, known as social prescribing, on patients’ adherence to them.Methods: Using a negative binomial model, we analysed electronic visitor records from a community health advice and navigation service in Germany between January 2018 and December 2019 to determine whether social prescribing was associated with greater adherence to the service (measured in terms of return visits) compared to patients who self-referred. We also explored whether this effect differed according to patient characteristics.Results: Based on 1,734 observations, we found that social prescribing was significantly associated with a greater number of return visits compared to patient self-referrals (p<0.05). For patients who visited the service because of psychological concerns, the effect of social prescribing was lower. For all other patient characteristics, the effect remained unchanged, suggesting relevance to all other patient groups.Conclusions: The results of our study indicate that social prescribing may be an effective way to facilitate adherence to non-clinical community and voluntary sector health services. This knowledge is important for policy makers who are deciding whether to implement or expand upon social prescribing schemes. Trial registration: Not applicable

show abstract

Evaluation of welfare advice in primary care: effect on practice workload and prescribing for mental health

Cited by 19 publications

References 11 publications

Impact of co-located welfare advice in healthcare settings: prospective quasi-experimental controlled study

Impact of co-located welfare advice in healthcare settings: prospective quasi-experimental controlled study

Once is Rarely Enough: Can Cocial Prescribing Facilitate Adherence to Non-clinical Community and Voluntary Sector Health Services? Empirical Evidence from Germany

Once is rarely enough: Can social prescribing facilitate adherence to non-clinical community and voluntary sector health services? Empirical evidence from Germany

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About