Search

BackgroundHaving multiple long-term conditions has been associated with a higher treatment burden, reduced quality of life and a higher risk of mortality. Epidemiological evidence suggests that people from minoritised ethnic groups have a higher prevalence of multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs) but questions remain regarding the patterning of MLTCs by age, how this varies for different ethnic group populations, and across conceptualisations of MLTCs (for example, MLTCs with and without mental health conditions). The aim of this study is to examine ethnic inequalities in age-related patterns of MLTCs, and combinations of physical and mental health conditions.MethodsWe analysed data from the English GP Patient Survey (GPPS) 2015-2017, and Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum from 2016, to give us insight into self-reported and primary care recorded long-term conditions in people aged 18 years and above. We described the association between two or more long-term conditions and age using multilevel regression models adjusting for sex and area-level deprivation with patients nested within GP practices. Similar analyses were repeated for MLTCs that included a mental health condition.FindingsFor both self-reported and primary care recorded LTCs, people from most minoritised ethnic groups had a lower prevalence of MLTCs at younger ages compared to their white counterparts. We observed ethnic inequalities from middle age onwards such that in later life, Pakistani, Indian, Black Caribbean and people of Other ethnicity were at an increased risk of having MLTCs compared to white British people. These trends remained after adjusting for area-level deprivation. Compared to white British people, Gypsy and Irish Travellers had higher levels of MLTCs across the age groups, and Chinese people had lower levels. Pakistani and Bangladeshi people aged 50-74 years were more likely than white British people to report two or more LTCs that included a mental health condition. People from other minoritised ethnic groups were less likely to report this compared to white British people.ConclusionWe find clear evidence of ethnic inequalities in MLTCs. It is imperative for health systems to recognise and respond to the higher prevalence of MLTCs that develop by middle age for many minoritised ethnic group people. The lower prevalence of MLTCs that include a mental health condition among some minoritised ethnic group people may be an underestimation due to underdiagnosis and/or inadequate care in primary care and requires further scrutiny.

BackgroundGPs and patients value continuity of care. Ethnic differences in continuity could contribute to inequalities in experience and outcomes.AimTo describe relational continuity of care in general practice by ethnicity and long-term conditions.Design and settingIn total, 381 474 patients in England were included from a random sample from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (January 2016 to December 2019).MethodFace-to-face, telephone, and online consultations with a GP were included. Continuity, measured by the Usual Provider of Care and Bice–Boxerman indices, was calculated for patients with ≥3 consultations. Ethnicity was taken from the GP record or linked Hospital Episode Statistics data, and long-term conditions were counted at baseline. Multilevel regression models were used to describe continuity by ethnicity sequentially adjusted for: a) the number of consultations, follow-up time, age, sex, and practice-level random intercept; b) socioeconomic deprivation in the patient’s residential area; and c) long-term conditions.ResultsOn full adjustment, 5 of 10 ethnic minority groups (Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Black African, Black Caribbean, and any other Black background) had lower continuity of care compared with White patients. Continuity was lower for patients in more deprived areas and younger patients but this did not account for ethnic differences in continuity. Differences by ethnicity were also seen in patients with ≥2 long-term conditions.ConclusionEthnic minority identity and socioeconomic deprivation have additive associations with lower continuity of care. Structural factors affecting demand for, and supply of, GPs should be assessed for their contribution to ethnic inequalities in relational continuity and other care quality domains.

Older Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) people living in the United Kingdom (UK) are vulnerable to the experiences of social isolation and loneliness. Despite this, it is widely assumed that they adhere to traditional family practices and living arrangements that protect them from social isolation and loneliness. Such assumptions are problematic and can reify family networks as the main area of research for older BME people to the detriment of friendship networks which are also crucial. However, few researchers have explored this area. With the older BME population increasing at a faster rate than the older white population, further research is needed. Utilising data from Wave 6 of Understanding Society (N = 7,499, 4.3% of whom self-identified as BME), this study explores the ways in which the friendship networks of older BME people differ compared to older white people using logistic regression analyses. After controlling for potential confounding socio-demographic characteristics, older BME people were more likely to report having fewer close friends and fewer friends who live locally, suggesting that their friendship networks may be restricted in quantity and accessibility. Not only do these findings raise important questions about the varying needs of older minority ethnic people who have been largely overlooked in recent government policy, but they also highlight the continuing challenges of using large-scale surveys to research older BME people in the UK.

Indicative evidence suggests that minoritised ethnic groups have higher risk of developing multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs), and do so earlier than the majority white population. While there is evidence on ethnic inequalities in single health conditions and comorbidities, no review has attempted to look across these from a MLTCs perspective. As such, we currently have an incomplete understanding of the extent of ethnic inequalities in the prevalence of MLTCs. Further, concerns have been raised about variations in the way ethnicity is operationalised and how this impedes our understanding of health inequalities. In this systematic review we aimed to 1) describe the literature that provides evidence of ethnicity and prevalence of MLTCs amongst people living in the UK, 2) summarise the prevalence estimates of MLTCs across ethnic groups and 3) to assess the ways in which ethnicity is conceptualised and operationalised. We focus on the state of the evidence prior to, and during the very early stages of the pandemic. We registered the protocol on PROSPERO (CRD42020218061). Between October and December 2020, we searched ASSIA, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, OpenGrey, and reference lists of key studies/reviews. The main outcome was prevalence estimates for MLTCs for at least one minoritised ethnic group, compared to the majority white population. We included studies conducted in the UK reporting on ethnicity and prevalence of MLTCs. To summarise the prevalence estimates of MLTCs across ethnic groups we included only studies of MLTCs that provided estimates adjusted at least for age. Two reviewers screened and extracted data from a random sample of studies (10%). Data were synthesised using narrative synthesis. Of the 7949 studies identified, 84 met criteria for inclusion. Of these, seven contributed to the evidence of ethnic inequalities in MLTCs. Five of the seven studies point to higher prevalence of MLTCs in at least one minoritised ethnic group compared to their white counterparts. Because the number/types of health conditions varied between studies and some ethnic populations were aggregated or omitted, the findings may not accurately reflect the true level of ethnic inequality. Future research should consider key explanatory factors, including those at the macrolevel (e.g. racism, discrimination), as they may play a role in the development and severity of MLTCs in different ethnic groups. Research is also needed to ascertain the extent to which the COVID19 pandemic has exacerbated these inequalities.

Indicative evidence suggests that the prevalence of multiple long-term conditions (i.e., conditions that cannot be cured but can be managed with medication and other treatments) may be higher in people from minoritised ethnic groups when compared to people from the White majority population. Some studies also suggest that there are ethnic inequalities in healthcare use and care quality among people with multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs). The aims of this review are to (1) identify and describe the literature that reports on ethnicity and healthcare use and care quality among people with MLTCs in the UK and (2) examine how healthcare use and/or care quality for people with MLTCs compares across ethnic groups. We registered the protocol on PROSPERO (CRD42020220702). We searched the following databases up to December 2020: ASSIA, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Web of Science core collection. Reference lists of key articles were also hand-searched for relevant studies. The outcomes of interest were patterns of healthcare use and care quality among people with MLTCs for at least one minoritised ethnic group, compared to the White majority population in the UK. Two reviewers, L.B. and B.H., screened and extracted data from a random sample of studies (10%). B.H. independently screened and extracted data from the remaining studies. Of the 718 studies identified, 14 were eligible for inclusion. There was evidence indicating ethnic inequalities in disease management and emergency admissions among people with MLTCs in the five studies that counted more than two long-term conditions. Compared to their White counterparts, Black and Asian children and young people had higher rates of emergency admissions. Black and South Asian people were found to have suboptimal disease management compared to other ethnic groups. The findings suggest that for some minoritised ethnic group people with MLTCs there may be inadequate initiatives for managing health conditions and/or a need for enhanced strategies to reduce ethnic inequalities in healthcare. However, the few studies identified focused on a variety of conditions across different domains of healthcare use, and many of these studies used broad ethnic group categories. As such, further research focusing on MLTCs and using expanded ethnic categories in data collection is needed.

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic ‘social distancing’ has highlighted the need to minimise loneliness and isolation among older adults (aged 50+). We wanted to know what remotely delivered befriending, social support and low intensity psychosocial interventions may help to alleviate social isolation and loneliness and how they work. Methods: We followed a systematic ‘review of reviews’ approach. Searches of 11 databases from the fields of health, social care, psychology and social science were undertaken during April 2020. Reviews meeting our PICOS criteria were included if they focussed on the evaluation of remote interventions to reduce levels of social isolation or loneliness in adults aged 50+ and were critically appraised using AMSTAR2. Narrative synthesis was used at a review and study level to develop a typology of intervention types and their effectiveness. Intervention Component Analysis (ICA) and Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) were used at a study level to explore the characteristics of successful interventions. Results: We synthesised evidence from five systematic reviews and 18 primary studies. Remote befriending, social support and low intensity psychosocial interventions took the form of: (i) supported video-communication; (ii) online discussion groups and forums; (iii) telephone befriending; (iv) social networking sites; and (v) multi-tool interventions. The majority of studies utilised the first two approaches, and were generally regarded positively by older adults, although with mixed evidence around effectiveness. Focussing on processes and mechanisms, using ICA and QCA, we found that the interventions that were most successful in improving social support: (i) enabled participants to speak freely and to form close relationships; (ii) ensured participants have shared experiences/characteristics; (iii) included some form of pastoral guidance. Conclusions: The findings highlight a set of intervention processes that should be incorporated into interventions, although they do not lead us to recommend specific modes of support, due to the heterogeneity of interventions.

Background: During the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, millions of older adults are advised to avoid contact with those outside their household. ‘Social distancing’ has highlighted the need to minimise loneliness and isolation through the provision of remotely delivered befriending, social support and low intensity psychosocial interventions. We wanted to know what interventions are effective and how they work to help inform decisions about different approaches. Methods: We followed a systematic ‘review of reviews’ approach and included systematic reviews focussed on the effectiveness or implementation of remote interventions to reduce levels of social isolation or loneliness in adults aged 50+. Searches of 11 databases were undertaken during April 2020 and eligible reviews were critically appraised using AMSTAR2. Narrative synthesis was used at a review and study level to develop a typology of intervention types and their effectiveness. Intervention Component Analysis (ICA) and Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) were used at a study level to explore the characteristics of successful interventions. Results: We synthesised evidence from five systematic reviews and 18 primary studies. Remote befriending, social support and low intensity psychosocial interventions took the form of: (i) supported video-communication; (ii) online discussion groups and forums; (iii) telephone befriending; (iv) social networking sites; and (v) multi-tool interventions. The majority of studies utilised the first two approaches, and were generally regarded positively by older adults, although with mixed quantitative evidence around effectiveness. Focussing on processes and mechanisms, using ICA and QCA, we found that the interventions that were most effective in improving social support: (i) enabled participants to speak freely and to form close relationships; (ii) ensured participants have shared experiences/characteristics; (iii) included some form of pastoral guidance. Conclusions: The findings highlight a set of intervention processes that should be incorporated into interventions, although they do not lead us to recommend particular modes of remote support.

In the UK, many older people from minoritised ethnic groups are vulnerable to social isolation and loneliness. Yet, we know little about which interventions are effective for them. With existing systematic reviews of social isolation and loneliness lacking a theory-based framework of their life-course experiences, we set out to address this gap. This review aims to explore the effectiveness and suitability of community-based group interventions (CBGIs) for social isolation and loneliness in older people. The decision to focus on CBGIs was based on findings from an exploratory study of the friendship networks of older people and narrative interviews with older minoritised people living in the UK. The findings suggested that community groups of shared interests/backgrounds were protective of social isolation and loneliness. To address the objectives, we searched for randomised controlled trials and process evaluations of CBGIs published in English, which included older people living in countries with membership to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. We identified 4791 studies, 36 of which were eligible for inclusion. In this poster, we present the preliminary findings of this mixed-methods systematic review, which seeks to not only assess whether CBGIs are effective but also to understand the underlying processes that make interventions (in)effective. As this review is guided by findings from two exploratory studies with older people from minoritised ethnic groups, it takes into account their life-course experiences. It is the results of reviews such as this that can produce generalisable findings which are directly applicable to policy.