Biomedical subjects

Joan Mackintosh

Publications and source records attributed to Joan Mackintosh.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Randomised controlled trial of welfare rights advice accessed via primary health care: pilot study [ISRCTN61522618].

BACKGROUND: Little research has directly evaluated the impact of increasing financial or material resources on health. One way of assessing this lies with assisting people to obtain full welfare benefit entitlements. In 2000-1, 2.3 million pensioners were living in poverty in the UK and estimates suggest that around one million do not claim the financial support to which they are entitled. The effectiveness of welfare rights advice services delivered via primary health care to promote health and reduce health inequalities is unknown. METHODS: The main objectives of this study were to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a randomised controlled trial of welfare rights advice in a community setting and identify appropriate health and social outcome measures in order to plan a definitive trial. This was a single blind, community-based, pilot randomised controlled trial. 126 men and women aged 60 years and over, recruited from 4 general practices in Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, participated. The intervention comprised a structured welfare rights assessment followed by active assistance with welfare benefit claims over the following 24 months. The control group received the intervention after a six month delay. A range of socio-economic, health, behavioural and psycho-social outcomes were measured. RESULTS: 126 out of 400 people invited agreed to participate and 109 were followed up at 24 months. Both the intervention and research procedures were feasible and acceptable to participants and professionals involved. 68 (58%) of all participants received a welfare benefit award (31 financial, 16 non-financial and 21 both). Median time to receipt of benefits from initial assessment was 14 (range 1 to 78) weeks and median financial award was pounds 55 (Euro 81, dollar 98) per household per week. There was little evidence of health-related differences between groups or over time, which could be due to limitations of the study design. CONCLUSION: Modification of the study design, including selection of study participants, timing of interventions and length of follow up are recommended for a definitive trial. More appropriate health and psycho-social outcome measures relevant to the elderly population should be sought, particularly focussing on those issues highlighted in the accompanying qualitative study.

Aged↗

PubMed2006

The acceptability and impact of a randomised controlled trial of welfare rights advice accessed via primary health care: qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Qualitative research is increasingly used alongside randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to study a range of factors including participants' experiences of a trial. The need for a sound evidence base within public health will increase the need for RCTs of non-clinical interventions. Welfare rights advice has been proposed as an intervention with potential to reduce health inequalities. This qualitative study, nested within an RCT of the impact of welfare rights advice, examined the acceptability of the intervention, the acceptability of the research process and the perceived impact of the intervention. METHODS: 25 men and women aged 60 years or over were recruited from four general practices in Newcastle upon Tyne (UK), a sub-sample of those who consented to be contacted (n = 96) during the RCT baseline interview. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken and analysed using the Framework Method. RESULTS: Participants viewed the trial positively although, despite agreeing that the information leaflet was clear, some had agreed to participate without being fully aware of what was involved. Some participants were unaware of the implications of randomisation. Most thought it fair, but a few concerns were raised about the control condition. The intervention was acceptable and made participants feel confident about applying for benefit entitlements. 14 out of 25 participants received some financial award; median weekly income gain was pounds 57 (Euro 84, dollar 101). The perceived impact of additional finances was considerable and included: increased affordability of necessities and occasional expenses; increased capacity to deal with emergencies; and a reduction in stress related to financial worries. Overall, perceived independence and ability to participate in society increased. Most participants perceived benefits to their mental well-being, but no-one reported an improvement in physical health. The RCT showed little or no effect on a wide range of outcome measures. CONCLUSION: Participation in the trial and the intervention was acceptable to participants. Welfare rights advice targeted at people aged 60 years or over and accessed via primary care had a positive impact on quality of life and resulted in increased social participation. The divergence of qualitative and quantitative findings suggests that both methods make important contributions to the evaluation of complex social interventions.

Aged↗

PubMed2006

A systematic review of the health, social and financial impacts of welfare rights advice delivered in healthcare settings.

BACKGROUND: Socio-economic variations in health, including variations in health according to wealth and income, have been widely reported. A potential method of improving the health of the most deprived groups is to increase their income. State funded welfare programmes of financial benefits and benefits in kind are common in developed countries. However, there is evidence of widespread under claiming of welfare benefits by those eligible for them. One method of exploring the health effects of income supplementation is, therefore, to measure the health effects of welfare benefit maximisation programmes. We conducted a systematic review of the health, social and financial impacts of welfare rights advice delivered in healthcare settings. METHODS: Published and unpublished literature was accessed through searches of electronic databases, websites and an internet search engine; hand searches of journals; suggestions from experts; and reference lists of relevant publications. Data on the intervention delivered, evaluation performed, and outcome data on health, social and economic measures were abstracted and assessed by pairs of independent reviewers. Results are reported in narrative form. RESULTS: 55 studies were included in the review. Only seven studies included a comparison or control group. There was evidence that welfare rights advice delivered in healthcare settings results in financial benefits. There was little evidence that the advice resulted in measurable health or social benefits. This is primarily due to lack of good quality evidence, rather than evidence of an absence of effect. CONCLUSION: There are good theoretical reasons why income supplementation should improve health, but currently little evidence of adequate robustness and quality to indicate that the impact goes beyond increasing income.

Civil Rights↗

PubMed2006

Using quantitative and qualitative data in health services research - what happens when mixed method findings conflict? [ISRCTN61522618].

BACKGROUND: In this methodological paper we document the interpretation of a mixed methods study and outline an approach to dealing with apparent discrepancies between qualitative and quantitative research data in a pilot study evaluating whether welfare rights advice has an impact on health and social outcomes among a population aged 60 and over. METHODS: Quantitative and qualitative data were collected contemporaneously. Quantitative data were collected from 126 men and women aged over 60 within a randomised controlled trial. Participants received a full welfare benefits assessment which successfully identified additional financial and non-financial resources for 60% of them. A range of demographic, health and social outcome measures were assessed at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 month follow up. Qualitative data were collected from a sub-sample of 25 participants purposively selected to take part in individual interviews to examine the perceived impact of welfare rights advice. RESULTS: Separate analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data revealed discrepant findings. The quantitative data showed little evidence of significant differences of a size that would be of practical or clinical interest, suggesting that the intervention had no impact on these outcome measures. The qualitative data suggested wide-ranging impacts, indicating that the intervention had a positive effect. Six ways of further exploring these data were considered: (i) treating the methods as fundamentally different; (ii) exploring the methodological rigour of each component; (iii) exploring dataset comparability; (iv) collecting further data and making further comparisons; (v) exploring the process of the intervention; and (vi) exploring whether the outcomes of the two components match. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrates how using mixed methods can lead to different and sometimes conflicting accounts and, using this six step approach, how such discrepancies can be harnessed to interrogate each dataset more fully. Not only does this enhance the robustness of the study, it may lead to different conclusions from those that would have been drawn through relying on one method alone and demonstrates the value of collecting both types of data within a single study. More widespread use of mixed methods in trials of complex interventions is likely to enhance the overall quality of the evidence base.

Aged↗

PubMed2003

Does an early increased-intensity interdisciplinary upper limb therapy programme following acute stroke improve outcome?

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether an early increased-intensity upper limb therapy programme following acute stroke improves outcome. DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial. SETTING: A stroke unit which provides acute care and rehabilitation for all stroke admissions. SUBJECTS: One hundred and twenty-three patients who had had a stroke causing upper limb impairment within the previous 10 days. INTERVENTION: The intervention group received stroke unit care plus enhanced upper limb rehabilitation provided jointly by a physiotherapist and occupational therapist, commencing within 10 days of stroke, and available up to 30 minutes/day, five days/week for six weeks. The control group received stroke unit care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) three months after stroke. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Motricity Index; Frenchay Arm Test; upper limb pain; Barthel ADL Index; Nottingham E-ADL Scale; and costs to health and social services at three and six months after stroke. RESULTS: There were no differences in outcomes between the intervention and control groups three and six months after stroke. During the intervention period the intervention group received a median of 29 minutes of enhanced upper limb therapy per working day as inpatients. The total amount of inpatient physiotherapy and occupational therapy received by the intervention group was a median of 52 minutes per working day during the intervention period and 38 minutes per working day for the control group (p = 0.001). There were no differences in service costs. CONCLUSIONS: An early increased-intensity interdisciplinary upper limb therapy programme jointly provided by a physiotherapist and occupational therapist did not improve outcome after stroke. The actual difference in the amount of therapy received by intervention and control groups was less than planned due to a competitive therapy bias.

Activities of Daily Living↗