Poverty proofing healthcare: A qualitative study of barriers to accessing healthcare for low-income families with children in northern England.

Poverty impacts negatively on children's health and future life chances. Access to the UK's National Health Service (NHS) is based on clinical need rather than the ability to pay but horizontal inequities in access exist. Children North East, a charity supporting children experiencing poverty, are working with partners to reduce the impacts of poverty on NHS access. This collaborative study aimed to understand barriers to healthcare access faced by families living on low incomes to validate and support further development of a Poverty Proofing© healthcare tool. Twenty-four parents and eight Voluntary Community Social Enterprise sector staff participated in qualitative interviews or focus groups. Data were analysed thematically, and three main themes were identified as impacting access to healthcare: hidden costs, securing appointments and developing relationships with healthcare providers. We conclude that low-income families experience both financial and other barriers to accessing NHS healthcare and that these barriers are exacerbated for low-income families living in remote/rural areas.

How to address the inverse care law and increase GP recruitment in areas of socioeconomic deprivation: a qualitative study of GP trainees' views and experiences in the UK.

BACKGROUND: The Deep End network in the North East and North Cumbria (NENC) was set up to tackle health inequalities in general practice. One aim is to address the inverse care law and improve recruitment of GPs, which is known to be especially challenging in areas of socioeconomic deprivation. AIM: To explore GP trainees' experiences and perceptions of working in Deep End or Deprived Area Practices (DE/DAPs) to identify how GP recruitment can be improved. DESIGN & SETTING: Qualitative study recruiting 13 doctors training to be GPs from the Northumbria training programme. METHOD: Audio-recorded, online, semi-structured interviews and discussion groups were undertaken, transcribed verbatim, and analysed with a grounded theory approach, using a process of thematic analysis. RESULTS: Overall, seven interviews and two discussion groups (13 participants in total) were conducted. Three themes were identified. The first theme was working in areas of socioeconomic deprivation is challenging but has many advantages. The challenges of working in DE/DAPs were not deterring factors for GP trainees wanting to work in areas of socioeconomic deprivation. The second theme was trainees are willing to work in areas of socioeconomic deprivation but clinical experience is important. Training in DE/DAPs gives trainees the confidence to work in areas of deprivation. Familiarity with a practice also makes them more likely to stay post-training. The third theme was financial incentives are not an important attracting factor but support and development opportunities are. Non-pecuniary measures, such as clinical support and protected time for continuing professional development (CPD), were found to be important. CONCLUSION: To improve recruitment to DE/DAPs, investments should be made to increase the opportunities to train in these environments. This can be achieved by supporting more DE/DAPs to become training practices, and providing clinical support and protected time for CPD.

Socioeconomic inequalities in vaccine uptake: A global umbrella review.

This global umbrella review aimed to synthesise evidence of socioeconomic inequalities in the uptake of routine vaccinations and identify the mechanisms that may contribute to the association. To our knowledge, no attempt has been made to synthesise the global body of systematic reviews across a variety of vaccines, geographical locations, and measures of SES. The inclusion criteria were as follows: studies assessing vaccination uptake according to education, income, occupation/employment, and/or area-level deprivation; any country or universally recommended routine vaccination (according to the WHO); qualitative or quantitative reviews, published 2011-present. The searches were performed in eight databases. The screening process followed PRISMA-E guidelines, each stage was performed by one reviewer, and a 10% sample checked by a second for consistency. Included reviews underwent data extraction, quality appraisal (AMSTAR-2), and narrative synthesis according to country-context. After deduplication, 9,163 reports underwent title and abstract screening, leaving 119 full texts to be assessed for eligibility. Overall, 26 studies were included in the umbrella review. Evidence for lower uptake amongst disadvantaged SES individuals was found in all 26 reviews. However, 17 reviews showed mixed results, as inverse associations were also identified (lower uptake for advantaged SES, and/or higher uptake for disadvantaged SES). Those that explored high-income countries had a greater prevalence of mixed findings than those focusing on low/middle-income countries. The two most frequently cited mechanisms were vaccination knowledge, and confidence in vaccination or vaccination providers. These mechanisms were often understood by review authors as varying by level of education. We find socioeconomic differences in routine vaccination uptake, but the association did not always follow a gradient. Whilst education may be associated with uptake globally, our study indicates that its role varies by country-context. A limitation is the overlap of some primary studies across the included systematic reviews.

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.

Experiences of Non-Pharmaceutical Primary Care Interventions for Common Mental Health Disorders in Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Groups: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies.

Common mental health disorders (CMDs) disproportionately affect people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage. Non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as 'social prescribing' and new models of care and clinical practice, are becoming increasingly prevalent in primary care. However, little is known about how these interventions work and their impact on socioeconomic inequalities in health. Focusing on people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, this systematic review aims to: (1) explore the mechanisms by which non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions impact CMD-related health outcomes and inequalities; (2) identify the barriers to, and facilitators of, their implementation in primary care. This study is a systematic review of qualitative studies. Six bibliographic databases were searched (Medline, ASSIA, CINAHL, Embase, PsycInfo and Scopus) and additional grey literature sources were screened. The included studies were thematically analysed. Twenty-two studies were included, and three themes were identified: (1) agency; (2) social connections; (3) socioeconomic environment. The interventions were experienced as being positive for mental health when people felt a sense of agency and social connection. The barriers to effectiveness and engagement included socioeconomic deprivation and underfunding of community sector organisations. If non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions for CMDs are to avoid widening health inequalities, key socioeconomic barriers to their accessibility and implementation must be addressed.

Non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions to improve mental health in deprived populations: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Common mental health disorders are especially prevalent among people from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds. Non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions, such as social prescribing and collaborative care, provide alternatives to pharmaceutical treatments for common mental health disorders, but little is known about the impact of these interventions for patients who are socioeconomically disadvantaged. AIM: To synthesise evidence for the effects of non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions on common mental health disorders and associated socioeconomic inequalities. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of quantitative primary studies published in English and undertaken in high-income countries. METHOD: Six bibliographic databases were searched and additional grey literature sources screened. Data were extracted onto a standardised proforma and quality assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool. Data were synthesised narratively and effect direction plots were produced for each outcome. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included. Social-prescribing interventions were evaluated in 10 studies, collaborative care in two studies, and a new model of care in one study. Positive results (based on effect direction) were reported for the impact of the interventions on wellbeing in groups that were socioeconomically deprived. Inconsistent (mainly positive) results were reported for anxiety and depression. One study reported that people from the group with least deprivation, compared with the group with greatest deprivation, benefitted most from these interventions. Overall, study quality was weak. CONCLUSION: Targeting non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions at areas of socioeconomic deprivation may help to reduce inequalities in mental health outcomes. However, only tentative conclusions can be drawn from the evidence in this review and more-robust research is required.

Impact of a link worker social prescribing intervention on non-elective admitted patient care costs: A quasi-experimental study.

Healthcare systems in many countries are enthusiastically adopting link worker social prescribing interventions that aim to tackle the social determinants of health by linking patients to voluntary and community sector activities and sources of support to address their social needs and improve condition management. Social prescribing interventions aim to improve health and reduce healthcare spending. However, despite the diversion of healthcare budgets to fund social prescribing, we still lack robust evidence for its effectiveness. In this study we evaluate whether participation in a social prescribing intervention reduced non-elective admitted patient care use and costs for 8283 patients aged between 40 and 74 years, with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and living in an area of high socioeconomic deprivation in north-east England. Patients were followed for a total of 6 years: 2 years pre-intervention and 4 years post intervention. Exploiting a natural experiment, we used a two-part difference-in-differences regression model to estimate costs conditional on healthcare use. We also estimated intervention effects across several intervention and control groups and sample subgroups. Participation in the intervention resulted in reductions of up to -£77.57 [95% CI: -152.30, -2.84] (for high engagement patients) per patient, per year, in non-elective care costs. Reductions were greater for patients with higher levels of engagement with the intervention. Sub-group analyses showed greater cost reductions for non-White patients, older patients, and patients without additional co-morbidities. Our findings suggest that engagement with a link worker social prescribing intervention may reduce non-elective healthcare spending, perhaps through enabling better condition management that results in fewer avoidable health crises.

Intervention components of link worker social prescribing programmes: A scoping review.

In the United Kingdom (UK), link worker social prescribing has emerged as an option to improve long-term condition management and address primary care patients' non-medical needs by linking patients with community-based activities and support. Social prescribing is a complex, heterogenous intervention, and there is currently no taxonomy of components to guide its implementation and evaluation. This study aimed to identify and categorise the components of link worker social prescribing schemes in the United Kingdom. A scoping review of peer-reviewed literature was conducted. Six databases were used to identify papers that met inclusion criteria. Eligible articles were original research studies in the United Kingdom describing interventions that included (1) initial referral of adults with chronic physical health conditions and/or unmet social needs from primary care to a link worker or equivalent role, (2) consultation with a link worker or equivalent role and (3) referral to a community-based or government service. Of the 1078 articles identified, 32 met study eligibility criteria, representing 22 social prescribing schemes. We drew from the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) to identify, organise and report intervention components. We found wide variations in geography, target populations and intervention components such as activities and procedures conducted by primary care staff and link workers, organisational and staffing configurations and use of tools and financing approaches to facilitate adoption. Intervention components are summarised into a taxonomy to guide future research, policy and practice efforts in addition to supporting standardised intervention reporting.

Socioeconomic Inequalities and Vaccine Uptake: An Umbrella Review Protocol.

The effectiveness of immunization is widely accepted: it can successfully improve health outcomes by reducing the morbidity and mortality associated with vaccine-preventable diseases. In the era of pandemics, there is a pressing need to identify and understand the factors associated with vaccine uptake amongst different socioeconomic groups. The knowledge generated from research in this area can be used to inform effective interventions aimed at increasing uptake. This umbrella systematic review aims to determine whether there is an association between socioeconomic inequalities and rate of vaccine uptake globally. Specifically, the study aims to determine whether an individual's socioeconomic status, level of education, occupation, (un)-employment, or place of residence affects the uptake rate of routine vaccines. The following databases will be searched from 2011 to the present day: Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Cochrane CENTRAL, Science Citation Index (Web of Science), DARE, SCOPUS (Elsevier), and ASSIA (ProQuest). Systematic reviews will be either included or excluded based on a priori established eligibility criteria. The relevant data will then be extracted, quality appraised, and narratively synthesised. The synthesis will be guided by the theoretical framework developed for this review. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Equity extension (PRISMA-E) guidance will be followed. This protocol has been registered on PROSPERO, ID: CRD42022334223.

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.

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).

"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.

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.

Evaluation of a Community Health Worker Social Prescribing Program Among UK Patients With Type 2 Diabetes.

Importance: Despite lacking robust evidence of effectiveness, health care systems in developed countries are funding holistic community health worker (CHW) social prescribing programs that address social needs and health behaviors as adjuncts to clinical care. Objective: To determine whether a UK National Health Service (NHS) CHW social prescribing program was associated with improved hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels among patients with type 2 diabetes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study with difference-in-differences analysis was conducted among 8086 patients (4752 in the referral program, 3334 in the control group) in 24 NHS primary care practices in a city in North East England. Patients aged 40 to 74 years with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes were observed for 8 years, from 2011 through 2019. The statistical analysis was conducted between June 1, 2019, and January 31, 2021. Interventions: A social prescribing program, launched in April 2015, enabling primary care staff to refer patients to CHW support to identify condition management and social needs goals and access voluntary and community sector support to address these goals. Intervention referral was only available in primary care practices in the city's west. The control group included patients in the city's east where referral was unavailable. Main Outcomes and Measures: HbA1c level, a marker of glycemic control. Results: A total of 8086 patients were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 57.8 [8.78] years; 3477 women [43%]; 6631 White patients [82%]). Mean (SD) baseline HbA1c levels were 7.56% (1.47%) in the referral program group and 7.44% (1.43%) in the control group. Following introduction of the social prescribing referral program, the referral group experienced an HbA1c reduction of -0.10 percentage points (95% CI, -0.17 to -0.03 percentage points) compared with the control group. The association increased over time: after 3 years the estimated association was -0.14 percentage points (95% CI, -0.24 to -0.03 percentage points). The association was stronger for White patients compared with non-White patients (-0.15 percentage points [95% CI, -0.26 to -0.04 percentage points] after 3 years), those with fewer additional comorbidities (-0.16 percentage points [95% CI, -0.29 to -0.04 percentage points] after 3 years), and those living in the most socioeconomically deprived areas (-0.19 percentage points [95% CI, -0.32 to -0.07 percentage points] after 3 years). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study of UK adults with type 2 diabetes, a social prescribing program with referral to CHWs targeting patients' social needs and health behaviors was associated with improved HbA1c levels, suggesting that holistic CHW interventions may help to reduce the public health burden of type 2 diabetes.

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.

Interventions to reduce inequalities in avoidable hospital admissions: explanatory framework and systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Internationally there is pressure to contain costs due to rising numbers of hospital admissions. Alongside age, socioeconomic disadvantage is the strongest risk factor for avoidable hospital admission. This equity-focussed systematic review is required for policymakers to understand what has been shown to work to reduce inequalities in hospital admissions, what does not work and where the current gaps in the evidence-base are. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An initial framework shows how interventions are hypothesised to reduce socioeconomic inequalities in avoidable hospital admissions. Studies will be included if the intervention focusses exclusively on socioeconomically disadvantaged populations or if the study reports differential effects by socioeconomic status (education, income, occupation, social class, deprivation, poverty or an area-based proxy for deprivation derived from place of residence) with respect to hospital admission or readmission (overall or condition-specific for those classified as ambulatory care sensitive). Studies involving individuals of any age, undertaken in OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries, published from 2000 to 29th February 2020 in any language will be included. Electronic searches will include MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL and the Web of Knowledge platform. Electronic searches will be supplemented with full citation searches of included studies, website searches and retrieval of relevant unpublished information. Study inclusion, data extraction and quality appraisal will be conducted by two reviewers. Narrative synthesis will be conducted and also meta-analysis where possible. The main analysis will examine the effectiveness of interventions at reducing socioeconomic inequalities in hospital admissions. Interventions will be characterised by their domain of action and approach to addressing inequalities. For included studies, contextual information on where, for whom and how these interventions are organised, implemented and delivered will be examined where possible. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was not required for this protocol. The research will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication, conferences and an open-access policy-orientated paper. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019153666.

"It's Luck as to What Sort of Family You're Born Into" Cumulative Dis/advantage Generative Systemic Processes Across the Life Course of a Baby-Boom Birth Cohort.

OBJECTIVES: While a large body of evidence exists in support of outcomes associated with cumulative dis/advantage (CAD), individual-level experiences of the systemic processes that generate unequal outcomes have received far less attention. This study explored experiences, among members of an early baby-boom birth cohort, of CAD-generative processes within the education and housing systems and the mechanisms by which they interacted with initial social position to perpetuate inequalities. METHODS: The author conducted in-depth interviews (n = 27) with members of the Newcastle Thousand Families Study, a UK 1947 birth cohort. Longitudinal survey data enabled participant sampling on the basis of gender, occupational social class at birth and age 50, educational attainment and homeownership status at age 60. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Analysis identified two themes: Firstly, the sorting and funneling mechanisms by which the "meritocratic" education system interacted with initial social position, progressively narrowing aspirations and opportunities; and secondly, the creation in later life of winners and losers in the property market, resulting in legitimization of inequalities through a deservingness narrative. DISCUSSION: CAD has proved persistent, even among the supposedly "lucky" early baby-boom cohort. Policies to ameliorate CAD generation through education and property systems act instead to entrench advantaged social positions. Later-life outcomes can be naturalized as the product of effort-plus-ability if not seen in a whole-life context. Disruption of CAD processes requires challenging vested interest inherent in social systems.

Combining Health and Outcomes Beyond Health in Complex Evaluations of Complex Interventions: Suggestions for Economic Evaluation.

In this journal there has been considerable discussion regarding the development of tools for valuing the multiple attributes that arise from complex interventions with benefits beyond health. Nevertheless, unlike the rigorous underpinnings of cost-utility analysis, much of this work has been taking place in fragmented research communities and without theoretical underpinnings, leading to a call for better and more comprehensive frameworks. We discuss the challenges faced by economic evaluation using as our example a "social prescribing" intervention, a novel health intervention based on the social model of health. We suggest a mixed-methods approach to uncover important attributes and then combine tools from health economics and economics to provide measures of benefit in a common money numeraire. This approach provides the theoretical underpinnings necessary for deliberate, transparent, and structured decision-making processes. It also enables the correct allocation of costs within complex payment systems. We suggest that, because of the complexities of randomized controlled trials, interventions should be introduced in a way that allows the application of causal analysis for evaluation. In the short term, such evaluations may be challenging and expensive. Nevertheless, as has happened with health economics evaluation and the quality-adjusted life-year, when a common set of attributes is agreed upon, the expense will fall and these methods can become embedded in interventions with diffuse outcomes.