Healthcare and housing provision for a UK homeless community: a qualitative service evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: Homelessness is both a significant determinant and consequence of health and social inequalities. To better meet healthcare needs, dedicated mental health and general nurses were implemented to deliver outreach healthcare to people experiencing homelessness in one United Kingdom (UK) county. During COVID-19, the UK Government also instructed local authorities to accommodate individuals sleeping rough and have a national target to end rough sleeping. This qualitative study explored experiences of this nurse-let outreach service and housing journeys during and beyond COVID-19 among people experiencing homelessness. STUDY DESIGN: Face-to-face, narrative storytelling interviews were conducted via opportunistic sampling in community settings. Individuals with recent or current experiences of homelessness were eligible. METHODS: Participants were informed about the study via known professionals and introduced to the researcher. Eighteen narrative interviews were conducted, transcribed, and analysed using reflective thematic analysis. RESULTS: Individuals described complex journeys in becoming and being homeless. The nurse-led outreach service provided integral support, with reported benefits to person-centred and accessible care and improved outcomes in health and well-being. After being housed, individuals valued housing necessities and described new responsibilities. However, some participants did not accept or stay in housing provisions where they perceived risks. CONCLUSIONS: Interviewed participants perceived that the dedicated nurse-led outreach service improved their access to care and health outcomes. In the absence of dedicated provisions, mainstream healthcare should ensure flexible processes and collaborative professional working. Local authorities must also be afforded increased resources for housing, as well as integrated support, to reduce social and health inequalities.

COVID-19 stressors, wellbeing and health behaviours: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Following the implementation of pandemic response measures, concerns arose regarding the impact for population health and wellbeing. METHODS: This study reports findings from a survey (N = 2510) conducted in Warwickshire (UK) during August and September 2020, and for the first time investigates behaviours which may worsen or mitigate the association between COVID-19-related stressors and wellbeing. RESULTS: Increased stressors were associated with lower mental wellbeing and higher loneliness. Participants with a mental health condition reported lower wellbeing, as did younger groups, women and participants not in employment. To cope with restrictions, more participants engaged in healthier behaviours over unhealthy behaviours, and relaxing reduced the association between stressors and poor wellbeing. Some participants reported increasing alcohol and unhealthy dietary behaviours to cope with restrictions, however, these behaviours did not mitigate the impact of COVID-19 stressors and were instead negatively associated with wellbeing. Around half of participants helped neighbours during the pandemic, a behaviour positively associated with wellbeing particularly among older adults. CONCLUSION: These findings contribute understanding about how various positive and negative health behaviours may mitigate or worsen the impact of COVID-19 on wellbeing, and how public health interventions may effectively target behaviours and groups in similar populations.

Group versus one-to-one multi-component lifestyle interventions for weight management: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Multi-component lifestyle interventions that incorporate diet, physical activity and behaviour change are effective for weight management. However, it is not clear whether delivery in a group or one-to-one format influences weight loss efficacy. The present study aimed to systematically review the evidence of the effectiveness of group compared to one-to-one multi-component lifestyle interventions for weight management. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL and ISRCTN databases were searched from inception up to February 2020 for randomised controlled trials comparing group versus one-to-one multi-component lifestyle interventions for weight loss in adults with a body mass index ≥ 25 kg m-2 . The primary outcome was weight loss (kg) at 12 months and the secondary outcome was attainment of ≥5% weight loss at 12 months. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Meta-analysis used random effects and estimated risk ratios and continuous inverse variance methods. Heterogeneity was investigated using I2 statistics and sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Seven randomised controlled trials with 2576 participants were included. Group interventions were favoured over one-to-one interventions for weight loss at 12 months (-1.9 kg, 95% confidence interval = -1.3 to -2.6; I2  = 99%). Participants of group interventions were more likely to attain ≥5% weight loss at 12 months relative to one-to-one interventions (relative risk = 1.58, 95% confidence interval = 1.25-2.00; I2  = 60%). CONCLUSIONS: Group multi-component lifestyle interventions are superior for weight loss compared to one-to-one interventions with respect to adult weight management. Further research is required to determine whether specific components of group interventions can explain the superiority of weight loss outcomes in group interventions.

The equity impact of brief opportunistic interventions to promote weight loss in primary care: secondary analysis of the BWeL randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend that clinicians should make brief opportunistic behavioural interventions to patients who are obese to increase the uptake of effective weight loss programmes. The objective was to assess the effect of this policy on socioeconomic equity. METHODS: One thousand eight hundred eighty-two consecutively attending patients with obesity and who were not seeking support for weight loss from their GP were enrolled in a trial. Towards the end of each consultation, GPs randomly assigned participants to one of two 30-s interventions. In the active intervention (support arm), the GP offered referral to a weight management group. In the control intervention (advice arm), the GP advised the patient that their health would benefit from weight loss. Agreement to attend a behavioural weight loss programme, attendance at the programme and weight loss at 12 months were analysed by socioeconomic status, measured by postcode using the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD). RESULTS: Mean weight loss was 2.43 kg (sd 6.49) in the support group and 1.04 kg (sd 5.50) for the advice only group, but these effects were moderated by IMD (p = 0.039 for the interaction). In the support arm, weight loss was greater in higher socioeconomic groups. Participants from lower socioeconomic backgrounds were more likely to accept the offer and equally likely to attend a weight loss referral but attended fewer sessions. Adjusting for these sequentially reduced the gradient for the association of socioeconomic status with weight loss from + 0.035 to - 0.001 kg/IMD point. In the advice only arm, 10% took effective action to promote weight loss. The decision to seek support for weight loss outside of the trial did not differ by socioeconomic status, but weight loss among deprived participants who used external support was greater than among more affluent participants (p = 0.025). CONCLUSION: Participants' responses to GPs' brief opportunistic interventions to promote weight loss differed by socioeconomic status and trial arm. In the support arm, more deprived people lost less weight because they attended fewer sessions at the programme. In the advice arm, more deprived people who sought and paid for support for weight loss themselves lost more weight than more affluent people who sought support. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN26563137 . Date of registration: January 3, 2013; date of first participant recruited: June 4, 2014.