Search

Purpose: This study aims to critically examine the effects of COVID-19 social discourses and policy decisions specifically on older adult volunteers in the UK, comparing the responses and their effects in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, providing perspectives on effects of policy changes designed to reduce risk of infection as a result of COVID-19, specifically on volunteer involvement of and for older adults, and understand, from the perspectives of volunteer managers, how COVID-19 restrictions had impacted older people's volunteering and situating this within statutory public health policies. Design/methodology/approach: The study uses a critical discourse approach to explore, compare and contrast accounts of volunteering of and for older people in policy, and then compare the discourses within policy documents with the discourses in personal accounts of volunteering in health and social care settings in the four nations of the UK. This paper is co-produced in collaboration with co-authors who have direct experience with volunteer involvement responses and their impact on older people. Findings: The prevailing overall policy approach during the pandemic was that risk of morbidity and mortality to older people was too high to permit them to participate in volunteering activities. Disenfranchising of older people, as exemplified in volunteer involvement, was remarkably uniform across the four nations of the UK. However, the authors find that despite, rather than because of policy changes, older volunteers, as part of, or with the help of, volunteer involving organisations, are taking time to think and to reconsider their involvement and are renewing their volunteer involvement with associated health benefits. Research limitations/implications: Working with participants as co-authors helps to ensure the credibility of results in that there was agreement in the themes identified and the conclusions. A limitation of this study lies in the sampling method, as a convenience sample was used and there is only representation from one organisation in each of the four nations. Originality/value: The paper combines existing knowledge about volunteer involvement of and for older adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

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]

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]

The article presents the discussion on raising the age of the sale of tobacco by one year. Topics include smokefree generation' by phasing out the sale of tobacco by bringing forward legislation that would make it an offence to sell tobacco products to anyone born on or after 1 January; and Vaping is less harmful than smoking as vapes do not contain tobacco, and they are used to support people.

• 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]

Background During the 1997–2010 Labour government, several policies were implemented to narrow health inequalities as part of a national health inequalities strategy. Many of these policies are likely to have had a disproportionately large impact on people aged 65 and over. We aimed to understand the association between the health inequalities strategy period and inequalities in mortality at age 65–69. Methods We use population at risk and mortality data covering 1991–2019 to calculate mortality rate at age 65–69 at the Local Authority level. We use the 2019 Index of Multiple Deprivation to examine geographical inequalities. We employ segmented linear regression models with marginal spline terms for the strategy period and interact these with an indicator of deprivation to understand how inequalities changed before, during and after the strategy. The reporting of this study adheres to STROBE guidelines. Results Mortality rates in each deprivation quintile improved continuously throughout the period of study. Prior to the programme (1991–9) there was no significant change in absolute inequalities. However, during the strategy (2000–10) there was a significant decrease in absolute inequalities of −9.66 (−17.48 to −1.84). The period following the strategy (2011–19) was associated with a significant increase in absolute inequalities of 12.84 (6.60 to 19.08). Our results were robust to a range of sensitivity tests. Conclusion The English health inequalities strategy was associated with a significant reduction in absolute inequality in mortality age 65–69. Future strategies to address inequalities in ageing populations may benefit from adopting a similar approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Assessing women's perceptions of the care they receive is crucial for evaluating the quality of maternity care. Women's perceptions are influenced by the care received during pregnancy, labour and birth, and the postpartum period, each of which with unique conditions, expectations, and requirements. In England, three Experience of Maternity Care (EMC) scales – Pregnancy, Labour and Birth, and Postnatal – have been developed to assess women's experiences from pregnancy through the postpartum period. This study aimed to validate these scales within the Iranian context. Methods: A methodological cross-sectional study was conducted from December 2022 to August 2023 at selected health centers in Tabriz, Iran. A panel of 16 experts assessed the qualitative and quantitative content validity of the scales and 10 women assessed the face validity. A total of 540 eligible women, 1–6 months postpartum, participated in the study, with data from 216 women being used for exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and 324 women for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and other analyses. The Childbirth Experience Questionnaire-2 was employed to assess the convergent validity of the Labour and Birth Scale, whereas women's age was used to assess the divergent validity of the scales. Test-retest reliability and internal consistency were also examined. Results: All items obtained an impact score above 1.5, with Content Validity Ratio and Content Validity Index exceeding 0.8. EFA demonstrated an excellent fit with the data (all Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measures > 0.80, and all Bartlett's p < 0.001). The Pregnancy Scale exhibited a five-factor structure, the Labour and Birth Scale a two-factor structure, and the Postnatal Scale a three-factor structure, explaining 66%, 57%, and 62% of the cumulative variance, respectively, for each scale. CFA indicated an acceptable fit with RMSEA ≤ 0.08, CFI ≥ 0.92, and NNFI ≥ 0.90. A significant correlation was observed between the Labour and Birth scale and the Childbirth Experience Questionnaire-2 (r = 0.82, P < 0.001). No significant correlation was found between the scales and women's age. All three scales demonstrated good internal consistency (all Cronbach's alpha values > 0.9) and test-retest reliability (all interclass correlation coefficient values > 0.8). Conclusions: The Persian versions of all three EMC scales exhibit robust psychometric properties for evaluating maternity care experiences among urban Iranian women. These scales can be utilized to assess the quality of current care, investigate the impact of different care models in various studies, and contribute to maternal health promotion programs and policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The disproportionate effect of COVID-19 on long term care facility (LTCF) residents has highlighted the need for clear, consistent guidance on the management of pandemics in such settings. As research exploring the experiences of LTCFs during the pandemic and the implications of mass hospital discharge, restricting staff movement, and limiting visitation from relatives are emerging, an in-depth review of policies, guidance and recommendations issued during this time could facilitate wider understanding in this area. Aims: To identify policies, guidance, and recommendations related to LTCF staff and residents, in England issued by the government during the COVID-19 pandemic, developing a timeline of key events and synthesizing the policy aims, recommendations, implementation and intended outcomes. Method: A scoping review of publicly available policy documents, guidance, and recommendations related to COVID-19 in LTCFs in England, identified using systematic searches of UK government websites. The main aims, recommendations, implementation and intended outcomes reported in included documents were extracted. Data was analysed using thematic synthesis following a three-stage approach: coding the text, grouping codes into descriptive themes, and development of analytical themes. Results: Thirty-three key policy documents were included in the review. Six areas of recommendations were identified: infection prevention and control, hospital discharge, testing and vaccination, staffing, visitation and continuing routine care. Seven areas of implementation were identified: funding, collaborative working, monitoring and data collection, reducing workload, decision making and leadership, training and technology, and communication. Discussion: LTCFs remain complex settings, and it is imperative that lessons are learned from the experiences during COVID-19 to ensure that future pandemics are managed appropriately. This review has synthesized the policies issued during this time, however, the extent to which such guidance was communicated to LTCFs, and subsequently implemented, in addition to being effective, requires further research. In particular, understanding the secondary effects of such policies and how they can be introduced within the existing challenges inherent to adult social care, need addressing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There has been a proliferation of frameworks with a common goal of bridging the gap between evidence, policy, and practice, but few aim to specifically guide evaluations of academic-policy engagement. We present the modification of an action framework for the purpose of selecting, developing and evaluating interventions for academic-policy engagement. Methods: We build on the conceptual work of an existing framework known as SPIRIT (Supporting Policy In Health with Research: an Intervention Trial), developed for the evaluation of strategies intended to increase the use of research in health policy. Our aim was to modify SPIRIT, (i) to be applicable beyond health policy contexts, for example encompassing social, environmental, and economic policy impacts and (ii) to address broader dynamics of academic-policy engagement. We used an iterative approach through literature reviews and consultation with multiple stakeholders from Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and policy professionals working at different levels of government and across geographical contexts in England, alongside our evaluation activities in the Capabilities in Academic Policy Engagement (CAPE) programme. Results: Our modifications expand upon Redman et al.'s original framework, for example adding a domain of 'Impacts and Sustainability' to capture continued activities required in the achievement of desirable outcomes. The modified framework fulfils the criteria for a useful action framework, having a clear purpose, being informed by existing understandings, being capable of guiding targeted interventions, and providing a structure to build further knowledge. Conclusion: The modified SPIRIT framework is designed to be meaningful and accessible for people working across varied contexts in the evidence-policy ecosystem. It has potential applications in how academic-policy engagement interventions might be developed, evaluated, facilitated and improved, to ultimately support the use of evidence in decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Professional sports clubs (PSCs) are potentially effective settings for health promotion; however, their role within policy is unclear. Potential reasons include lack of awareness about existing provision of health and wellbeing (H&W) programmes and adequacy of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) practices. This review aimed to: (i) map the provision of H&W programmes delivered by PSCs in the United Kingdom (UK), and (ii) explore current M&E practices of PSCs and consider the policy implications of this. Websites from eight professional sport leagues were hand-searched for programmes and impact reports. Suitable programmes were quantified, whilst impact reports were analysed via inductive documentary content analysis. Results identified 176 H&W programmes and 36 impact reports, as well as 43 H&W impact statements, but only 14 of these were aligned to specific H&W outcomes. The H&W aims of programmes were typically vague, measurement tools were rarely used, and evaluations were usually anecdotal case studies and based on engagement figures, which may not only limit the potential uptake of these programmes but also the relevance of PSCs to public policy. Further research is thus needed to build a stronger evidence base for the use of PSCs as vehicles of public health promotion and policy, and to better address the challenges faced when seeking to monitor and evaluate PSC programmes effectively. [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]

Background: Despite longstanding problems of access to general practice, attempts to understand and address the issues do not adequately include perspectives of the people providing or using care, nor do they use established theories of access to understand complexity. Aim: To understand problems of access to general practice from the multiple perspectives of service users and staff using an applied theory of access. Design and setting: A qualitative participatory case study in an area of northwest England. Method: A community-based participatory approach was used with qualitative interviews, focus groups, and observation to understand perspectives about accessing general practice. Data were collected between October 2015 and October 2016. Inductive and abductive analysis, informed by Levesque et al's theory of access, allowed the team to identify complexities and relationships between interrelated problems. Results: This study presents a paradox of problems in accessing general practice, in which the demand on general practice both creates and hides unmet need in the population. Data show how reactive rules to control demand have undermined important aspects of care, such as continuity. The layers of rules and decreased continuity create extra work for practice staff, clinicians, and patients. Complicated rules, combined with a lack of capacity to reach out or be flexible, leave many patients, including those with complex and/or unrecognised health needs, unable to navigate the system to access care. This relationship between demand and unmet need exacerbates existing health inequities. Conclusion: Understanding the paradox of access problems allows for different targets for change and different solutions to free up capacity in general practice to address the unmet need in the population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To establish principles informing a new scoring system for the UK’s Clinical Impact Awards and pilot a system based on those principles. Design: A three-round online Delphi process was used to generate consensus from experts on principles a scoring system should follow. We conducted a shadow scoring exercise of 20 anonymised, historic applications using a new scoring system incorporating those principles. Setting: Assessment of clinical excellence awards for senior doctors and dentists in England and Wales. Participants: The Delphi panel comprised 45 members including clinical excellence award assessors and representatives of professional bodies. The shadow scoring exercise was completed by 24 current clinical excellence award assessors. Main outcome measures: The Delphi panel rated the appropriateness of a series of items. In the shadow scoring exercise, a novel scoring system was used with each of five domains rated on a 0–10 scale. Results: Consensus was achieved around principles that could underpin a future scoring system; in particular, a 0–10 scale with the lowest point on the scale reflecting someone operating below the expectations of their job plan was agreed as appropriate. The shadow scoring exercise showed similar levels of reliability between the novel scoring system and that used historically, but with potentially better distinguishing performance at higher levels of performance. Conclusions: Clinical excellence awards represent substantial public spending and thus far the deployment of these funds has lacked a strong evidence base. We have developed a new scoring system in a robust manner which shows improvements over current arrangements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]