The Do-Well study: protocol for a randomised controlled trial, economic and qualitative process evaluations of domiciliary welfare rights advice for socio-economically disadvantaged older people recruited via primary health care

BMC Public Health

Martin White⁴  Terry Aspray³  Greg Rubin¹  Mark Deverill⁴  Eugene Milne³  Elaine McColl²  Denise Howel⁴  Suzanne Moffatt⁴  Catherine Haighton⁴ 

[1]School of Medicine and Health, Durham University, Queen's Campus, University Boulevard, Stockton-on-Tees, TS17 6BH, UK

[2]Newcastle Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Health and Society, William Leech Building, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle, NE2 4HH, UK

[3]Institute for Ageing & Health, Campus for Ageing and Vitality, Newcastle University, Newcastle, NE4 5PL, UK

[4]Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Baddiley Clark Building, Richardson Road, Newcastle, NE2 4AX, UK

关键词: Primary Care;    Older People;    Welfare Rights Advice;    Randomised Controlled Trial;   

Others  :  1163593
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-12-382

 received in 2012-03-22, accepted in 2012-05-28,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Older people in poor health are more likely to need extra money, aids and adaptations to allow them to remain independent and cope with ill health, yet in the UK many do not claim the welfare benefits to which they are entitled. Welfare rights advice interventions lead to greater welfare income, but have not been rigorously evaluated for health benefits. This study will evaluate the effects on health and well-being of a domiciliary welfare rights advice service provided by local government or voluntary organisations in North East England for independent living, socio-economically disadvantaged older people (aged ≥60 yrs), recruited from general (primary care) practices.

Methods/Design

The study is a pragmatic, individually randomised, single blinded, wait-list controlled trial of welfare rights advice versus usual care, with embedded economic and qualitative process evaluations. The qualitative study will examine whether the intervention is delivered as intended; explore responses to the intervention and examine reasons for the trial findings; and explore the potential for translation of the intervention into routine policy and practice. The primary outcome is the effect on health-related quality of life, measured using the CASP 19 questionnaire. Volunteer men and women aged ≥60 years (1/household) will be identified from general practice patient registers. Patients in nursing homes or hospitals at the time of recruitment will be excluded. General practice populations will be recruited from disadvantaged areas of North East England, including urban, rural and semi-rural areas, with no previous access to targeted welfare rights advice services delivered to primary care patients. A minimum of 750 participants will be randomised to intervention and control arms in a 1:1 ratio.

Discussion

Achieving a trial design that is both ethical and acceptable to potential participants, required methodological compromises. The choice of follow-up length required a trade-off between sufficient time to demonstrate health impact and the need to allow the control group access to the intervention as early as possible. The study will have implications for fundamental understanding of social inequalities and how to tackle them, and provides a model for similar evaluations of health-orientated social interventions. If the health benefits of this intervention are proven, targeted welfare rights advice services should be extended to ensure widespread provision for older people and other vulnerable groups.

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN Number

ISRCTN37380518

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Haighton et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Townsend P, Davidson N, Whitehead M: Inequalities in Health: the Black Report and the Health Divide. Penguin, London; 1988.
• [2]Acheson D: Independent inquiry into inequalities in health. HMSO, London; 1998.
• [3]Marmot M, Atkinson T, Black C, Broadfoot P, Cumberledge J, Diamond I, et al.: Fair Society, Healthy Lives. Report. The Marmot Review (Strategic Review of Health Inequalities in England post-2010), London; 2010. April 2010
• [4]Chandola T, Ferrie J, Sacker A, Marmot M: Social inequalities in self reported health in early old age: follow-up of prospective cohort study. British Med J 2007, 334(7601):990-997.
• [5]Allin S, Masseria C, Mossialos E: Inequality in health care use among older people in the United Kingdom: an analysis of panel data.: London School of Economics and Political Science, Working paper No. 1/2006. , ; 2006.
• [6]Argyle E: Poverty, disability and the role of older carers. Disability and Society. 2001, 16(4):585-595.
• [7]Mackintosh J, White M, Howel D, Chadwick T, Moffatt S, Deverill M, et al.: Randomised controlled trial of welfare rights advice accessed via primary health care: pilot study. BMC Public Health 2006, 6(162):.
• [8]Moffatt S, Mackintosh J, White M, Howel D, Sandell A: The acceptability and impact of a randomised controlled trial of welfare rights advice accessed via primary care: qualitative study. BMC Publ Health 2006, 6:163. BioMed Central Full Text
• [9]Charlton BG, White M: Living on the margin: A salutogenic model for socio-economic differentials in health. Public Health. 1995, 109(4):235-243.
• [10]McDonough P, Duncan G, Williams D, et al.: Income dynamics and adult mortality in the United States, 1972 through 1989. Am J Public Health 1997, 87:1476-1483.
• [11]Connor J, Rodgers A, Priest P: Randomised studies of income supplementation: a lost opportunity to assess health outcomes. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999, 53:725-730.
• [12]Bauld L, Judge K, Barnes M, Benzeval M, Mackenzie M, Sullivan H: Promoting social change: the experience of Health Action Zones in England. Journal of Social Policy. 2005, 34(3):427-445.
• [13]National Association of Welfare Advice Bureaux: Personal communication to S. Moffatt. , ; 2000.
• [14]Department of Health: Reducing health inequalities: an action report. Department of Health, London; 1999.
• [15]Craig P: Costs and benefits: a review of research on take-up of income related benefits. Journal of Social Policy. 1991, 20:537-565.
• [16]Sandell A: Oxford Handbook of Patients' Welfare. A Doctor's Guide to Benefits and Services. Oxford University Press, Oxford; 1998.
• [17]Corden A: Claiming entitlements: take-up of benefits. In Introduction to Social Security. Edited by Ditch J. Routledge, London; 1999:134-155.
• [18]Age Concern: Confusion over benefits system keeping pensioners from claiming their dues - worrying new statistics revealed by Age Concern. , ; 2007. (http://www.ageconcern.org.uk/AgeConcern/ACF27D5BD87F43B1B35155C67A628760.asp webcite). [Accessed: 15th June 2009] [cited 15th June 2009]; Available from
• [19]National Audit Office: Tackling Pensioner Poverty: Encouraging take-up of entitlements. National Audit Office, London; 2002.
• [20]Moffatt S, Scambler G: Can welfare-rights advice targeted at older people reduce social exclusion? Ageing and Society. 2008, 28:875-899.
• [21]Adams J, White M, Moffatt S, Howel D, Mackintosh J: A systematic review of the health, social and financial impacts of welfare rights advice delivered in healthcare settings. BioMed Central Public Health. 2006, 6:81. BioMed Central Full Text
• [22]Moffatt S, White M, Stacy R, Downey D, Hudson E: The impact of welfare advice in primary care: a qualitative study. Critical Public Health. 2004, 14(3):295-309.
• [23]The Poverty Site: Take-up of benefits. , ; . (www.poverty.org.uk/66/index.shtml webcite) [accessed: 17th June 2010][cited; Available from
• [24]Coppel DH, Packham CJ, Varnam MA: Providing welfare rights advice in primary care. Public Health. 1999, 113:131-135.
• [25]Cornwallis E, O'Neil J: Promoting health by tackling poverty. Scottish RCGP Magazine. , ; 1998:8-9.
• [26]Jarman B: Giving advice about welfare benefits in general practice. BMJ 1985, 290:522-524.
• [27]Paris JAG, Player D: Citizens advice in general practice. British Medical Journal. 1993, 306:1518-1520.
• [28]Widdowfield H, Rickard P: Health centre advice service report. Wear Valley Citizens' Advice Bureau, Sunderland; 1996.
• [29]Abbott S, Hobby L: An evaluation of the health and advice project: Its impact on the health of those using the service. Health and Community Care Research Unit, Liverpool; 1999:-. Report No.: 99/63
• [30]Abbott S, Hobby L: Welfare benefits advice in primary care: evidence of improvements in health. Public Health. 2000, 114:324-327.
• [31]Veitch D: Prescribing Citizens Advice. Social Services and Health Authority, Birmingham; 1995. February 1995
• [32]Moffatt S, White M, Mackintosh J, Howel D: Using quantitative and qualitative data in health services research - what happens when mixed method findings conflict? BMC Health Services Research 2006, 6:28. BioMed Central Full Text
• [33]Thomson H, Hoskins R, Petticrew M, Ogilvie D, Craig N, Quinn T, et al.: Evaluating the health effects of social interventions. BMJ 2004, 328:282-285.
• [34]Schulz K, Altman D, Moher D, for the Consort Group: CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Trials 2010, 11(1):32. BioMed Central Full Text
• [35]Hyde M, Wiggins P, Higgs P, Blane DB: A measure of quality of life in early old age: the theory, development and properties of a needs satisfaction model (CASP-19). Aging and mental Health. 2003, 7(3):186-194.
• [36]Wiggins RD, Netuveli G, Hyde M, Higgs P, Blane D: The evaluation of a self-enumerated scale of quality of life (CASP-19) in the context of research on ageing: a combination of exploratory and confirmatory approaches. Soc Indic Res 2008, 89:61-77.
• [37]Moffatt S, White M, Stacy R, Hudson E, Downey D: If we had not got referred and got the advice, I don't know where we'd be, it doesn't bear thinking about. The impact of welfare advice provided in general practice. A qualitative study. University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne; 1999.
• [38]Szende A, Oppe M, Devlin N (Eds): EQ-5D Value Sets: Inventory, Comparative Review and User Guide. Springer, Berlin; 2007.
• [39]The Medical Research Council Cognitive Function and Ageing Study Team: The description of activities of daily living in 5 centres in England and Wales. Age Ageing 1998, 27:605-613.
• [40]Lowe B, Kroenke K, Herzog W, Grafe K: Measuring depression outcome with a brief self-report instrument: sensitivity to change of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). J Affect Disord 2004, 81:61-66.
• [41]Kroenke K, Spitzer RL: The PHQ-9: A New Depression Diagnostic and Severity Measure. Psychiatr Ann 2002, 32(9):1-7.
• [42]Cameron I, Crawford JR, Lawton K, Reid IC: Psychometric comparison of PHQ-9 and HADS for measuring depression severity in primary care. Br J Gen Pract 2008, 58:32-36.
• [43]Sarason I, Levine H, Basham R, Sarason B: Assessing social support: the social support questionnaire. J Pers Soc Psychol 1983, 44:127-139.
• [44]Ford G, Ecob R, Hunt K, Macintyre S, West P: Patterns of class inequality in health through the lifespan: class gradients at 15, 35 and 55 years in the west of Scotland. Soc Sci Med. 1994, 39(8):1037-1050.
• [45]National Energy Action: Fuel poverty and energy efficiency. , ; . (http://www.nea.org.uk/fuel-poverty-and-energy-efficiency/ webcite)
• [46]Griffin T, Peters T, Sharp D, Salisbury C, Purdy S: Validation of an improved area-based method of calculating general practice-level deprivation. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2010, 63:746-751.
• [47]Denzin NK, Lincoln YS: Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage, London; 2000.
• [48]Netuveli G, Wiggins R, Hildon Z, Montgomery SM, Blane D: Quality of life at older ages: evidence from the English longitudinal study of aging (wave 1). J Epidemiol Community Health. 2007, 60:357-363.
• [49]Kielhorn A: Schulenburg Gvd. The health economics handbook. Adis international, Chester; 2000.
• [50]Gray AM, Clarke PM, Wolstenholme JL, Wordsworth S: Applied Methods of Cost-effectiveness Analysis in Health Care. University Press, Oxford; 2011.
• [51]Ritchie J, Lewis J: eds. Sage, Qualitative Research Practice. A Guide for Social Scientists. London; 2003.
• [52]Silverman D: Doing qualitative research. Sage, London; 2000.
• [53]Clayman SE, Maynard DW: Ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. In Situated Order: Studies in the Social Organisation of Talk and Embodied Activities. Edited by Have P, Psathas G. University Press of America, Washington, DC; 1994.
• [54]QSR International: NVivo software. QSR International, London; 2000.
• [55]Angus V, Entwistle V, Emslie M, Walker K, Andrew J: The requirement for prior consent to participate on survey response rates: a population-based survey in Grampian. BMC Heal Serv Res 2003, 3:21-30. BioMed Central Full Text
• [56]Hewison J, Haines A: Overcoming barriers to recruitment in health research. British Medical Journal. 2006, 333:300-302.
• [57]Corden A, Sainsbury R, Irvine A, Clarke S: The impact of Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance: findings from exploratory qualitative research. Research Report No. 649. Department for Work and Pensions, London; 2010. Report No.: 649
• [58]Age Concern: Forget good luck, know your rights. A guide to claiming your benefits. , ; . (http://www.ageconcern.org.uk/AgeConcern/news_2703.htm#counciltax webcite) [Accessed 15th June 2009] [cited; Available from