Search

People with intellectual disabilities face health disparities, including in high‐income countries such as the United Kingdom, despite publicly funded healthcare. This paper describes the healthcare system in England (a nation of the United Kingdom) for the general population, and more specifically for people with intellectual disabilities. Key legislation that impacts the lives of people with intellectual disabilities, such as the UK Equality Act 2010 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents), the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/9/contents), and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and its implementation in the United Kingdom, is discussed. The role of deinstitutionalization and the shift to living in the community for people with intellectual disabilities is also discussed. Programmes that have been implemented to address the health disparities experienced by people with intellectual disabilities are reviewed. Finally, the recent changes to healthcare organization in the UK, the COVID‐19 pandemic, and the implementation of the Valuing People white paper are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A growing number of researchers are trying to provide explanations for continuity and change in drug policy in different contexts. Such research predominantly falls in the pluralist realm of public policy where various actors compete to have their policy proposals accepted. Using a critical framework called Policy Constellations (PC), developed by Stevens and Zampini, this paper attempts to explain reactions of the British Government to Novel Psychoactive Substances (NPS) between 2008 – 2016. Qualitative data comes from in-depth interviews with stakeholders (N = 15), including NGO workers, a former Home Secretary, drugs ministers, governmental advisors, a former senior police officer, former Deputy Drug Coordinator, and a former Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) member. Two 'constellations' competed in British NPS policy setting. The PC framework illustrates power imbalances between these competing stakeholders. Abstinence orientated actors (the conservative constellation) enjoyed strategic advantages and media power which allowed them to create a favourable policy setting. These advantages were not enjoyed by the liberal constellation who struggled to access the policy setting and influence policy developments. The prohibitive nature of the policy used to counter NPS can be explained with the domination of actors whose values align with the conservative constellation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This study characterized the extent to which (1) financial barriers and (2) abortion care-seeking within a person's country of residence were associated with delays in abortion access among those travelling to England and the Netherlands for abortion care from European countries where abortion is legal on broad grounds in the first trimester but where access past the first trimester is limited to specific circumstances. Methodology: We drew on cross-sectional survey data collected at five abortion clinics in England and the Netherlands from 2017 to 2019 (n = 164). We assessed the relationship between difficulty paying for the abortion/travel, acute financial insecurity, and in-country care seeking on delays to abortion using multivariable discrete-time hazards models. Results: Participants who reported facing both difficulty paying for the abortion procedure and/or travel and difficulty covering basic living costs in the last month reported longer delays in accessing care than those who had no financial difficulty (adjusted hazard odds ratio: 0.39 95% CI 0.21–0.74). This group delayed paying other expenses (39%) or sold something of value (13%) to fund their abortion, resulting in ~ 60% of those with financial difficulty reporting it took them over a week to raise the funds needed for their abortion. Having contacted or visited an abortion provider in the country of residence was associated with delays in presenting abroad for an abortion. Discussion: These findings point to inequities in access to timely abortion care based on socioeconomic status. Legal time limits on abortion may intersect with individuals' interactions with the health care system to delay care. Plain Language Summary: This paper explores delays in accessing abortion care associated with financial and medical system barriers. We focus on residents of countries in Europe where abortion is available on broad grounds in the first trimester seeking abortion care outside of their country of residence. This study demonstrates an association between difficulty covering abortion costs for people facing financial insecurity and in-country care seeking and delays in accessing abortion abroad. Policy barriers, medical system barriers, as well as financial barriers may interact to delay access to care for people in European countries with broad grounds for abortion access in the first trimester but restrictions thereafter, especially for people later in pregnancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Childcare policy responses towards Covid-19 differed in European welfare states. • Policy responses cause informalization of childcare to different degrees. • Informalization of childcare is mainly connected with social risks for women. • Cultural and institutional differences help to understand varying policy responses. The closure of extra-familial childcare facilities by European governments in 2020 was an important part of interventions against the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. One consequence was that childcare was provided by parents at home, mainly by women. As a result, women mainly experienced financial and employment risks related to this "informalization" of childcare. The childcare policies of European welfare states differ in the extent to which they include measures to reduce the social risks related to informalization. Against this backdrop, this paper asks: How should one understand cross-national differences in childcare policies during the pandemic? We are also particularly interested in the effects of childcare policies on the social risks connected with the informalization of childcare and what these mean for the gendered division of paid work and care. Differences in childcare policies during the pandemic are commonly explained in terms of the path dependence of such policies. Using the theoretical approach of "care arrangement," this article introduces a broader theoretical framework that considers the role of cultural and institutional factors for understanding the cross-national differences in childcare policies during the pandemic. We introduce the findings of a comparative empirical study of childcare policies in three European welfare states—Denmark, Germany and England—that represent different types of care arrangements. This paper uses policy and media documents, quantitative data on childcare and women's employment, cultural ideas and secondary analysis of empirical studies. We find that governments did not per se respond to the pandemic based on institutional path dependence regarding childcare policies, while the integration of culture into the theoretical framework allows for a more comprehensive understanding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An endemic challenge facing healthcare systems around the world is how to spread innovation more widely and sustainably. A common response to this challenge involves conducting pilot implementation studies to generate evidence of the innovation's benefits. However, despite the key role that such studies play in the local adoption of innovation, their contribution to the wider spread and sustainability of innovation is relatively under-researched and under-theorized. In this paper we examine this contribution through an empirical examination of the experiences of an innovation intermediary organization in the English NHS (National Health Service). We find that their work in mobilizing pilot-based evidence involves three main strands; configuring to context; transitioning evidence; and managing the transition. Through this analysis we contribute to theory by showing how the agency afforded by intermediary roles can support the effective transitioning of pilot-based evidence across different phases in the innovation journey, and across different occupational groups, and can thus help to create a positive feedback loop from localized early implementers of an innovation to later more widespread adoption and sustainability. Based on these findings, we develop insights on the reasons for the unnecessary repetition of pilots – so-called 'pilotitis'- and offer policy recommendations on how to enhance the role of pilots in the wider spread and sustainability of innovation. • Innovation intermediaries mobilize evidence from pilot studies to spread innovation. • Pilot-based evidence can link early adoption to wider spread and sustainability. • Mobilizing involves co-creating multiple forms of evidence with different groups. • Intermediary roles allow transitioning of pilot-based evidence into wider adoption. • Pilotitis involves a failure to transition evidence along the innovation journey. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]