Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 10 of 83
-
ItemPredictors of social participation: evidence from repeated cross-sectional population surveys in England.(Oxford University Press (OUP), 2022-03-17)BACKGROUND: Social participation is linked to better health and well-being. However, there is limited research on the individual and area-level predictors of participation. This study aims to determine the characteristics associated with participation, particularly the impact of community asset availability. METHODS: We used data from 34 582 adult respondents to the nationally representative Community Life Survey from 2013 to 2018. We measured social participation by reported participation in 15 types of groups. We used probit and negative binomial regression models and included a wide range of individual, household and area characteristics, and availability of 14 types of community assets. RESULTS: The following characteristics were associated with higher levels of participation: being female (+3.0 percentage points (p.p.) (95% CI 1.8 to 4.1p.p.), Black, Asian or Minority Ethnicity (+3.7p.p. (1.9 to 5.5p.p.)), homeownership (+4.1 p.p. (2.7 to 5.6p.p.)) and living in a rural area (+2.1p.p. (0.5 to 3.6p.p)). Respondents from the most deprived areas were less likely to participate than those in average deprivation areas (-3.9p.p. (-5.9 to -1.99p.p.)). Higher availability of community assets was associated with increased participation in groups. The effect of availability on participation varied by type of asset. CONCLUSION: Improving community assets infrastructure in high deprivation and urban areas would encourage more social participation in these areas.
-
ItemPopulation level impact of the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme on incidence of type 2 diabetes in England: An observational study.(Elsevier BV, 2022-08)Background: The NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme (DPP) is the first nationwide type 2 diabetes prevention programme targeting people with prediabetes. It was rolled out across England from 2016 in three waves. We evaluate the population level impact of the NHS DPP on incidence rates of type 2 diabetes. Methods: We use data from the National Diabetes Audit, which records all individuals across England who have been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes by 2019. We use difference-in-differences regression models to estimate the impact of the phased introduction of the DPP on type 2 diabetes incidence. We compare patients registered with the 3,282 general practices enrolled from 2016 (wave 1) and the 1,610 practices enrolled from 2017 (wave 2) to those registered with the 1,584 practices enrolled from 2018 (final wave). Findings: Incidence rates of type 2 diabetes in wave 1 practices in 2018 and 2019 were significantly lower than would have been expected in the absence of the DPP (difference-in-differences Incident Rate Ratio (IRR) = 0·938 (95% CI 0·905 to 0·972)). Incidence rates were also significantly lower than expected for wave 2 practices in 2019 (difference-in-differences IRR = 0·927 (95% CI 0·885 to 0·972)). These results remained consistent across several robustness checks. Interpretation: Introduction of the NHS DPP reduced population incidence of type 2 diabetes. Longer follow-up is required to explore whether these effects are maintained or if diabetes onset is delayed. Funding: This research was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (Health Services and Delivery Research, 16/48/07 - Evaluating the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme (NHS DPP): the DIPLOMA research programme (Diabetes Prevention - Long Term Multimethod Assessment)). The views and opinions expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health and Care Research or the Department of Health and Social Care.
-
ItemCorrection: Ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake and comparison to seasonal influenza vaccine uptake in Greater Manchester, UK: A cohort study.(Public Library of Science (PLoS), 2022-04)[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003932.].
-
ItemEvaluation of the mental health impacts of Universal Credit: protocol for a mixed methods study.(BMJ, 2022-04-08)INTRODUCTION: The UK social security system is being transformed by the implementation of Universal Credit (UC), which combines six existing benefits and tax credits into a single payment for low-income households. Despite extensive reports of hardship associated with the introduction of UC, no previous studies have comprehensively evaluated its impact on mental health. Because payments are targeted at low-income households, impacts on mental health will have important consequences for health inequalities. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a mixed methods study. Work package (WP) 1 will compare health outcomes for new recipients of UC with outcomes for legacy benefit recipients in two large population surveys, using the phased rollout of UC as a natural experiment. We will also analyse the relationship between the proportion of UC claimants in small areas and a composite measure of mental health. WP2 will use data collected by Citizen's Advice to explore the sociodemographic and health characteristics of people who seek advice when claiming UC and identify features of the claim process that prompt advice-seeking. WP3 will conduct longitudinal in-depth interviews with up to 80 UC claimants in England and Scotland to explore reasons for claiming and experiences of the claim process. Up to 30 staff supporting claimants will also be interviewed. WP4 will use a dynamic microsimulation model to simulate the long-term health impacts of different implementation scenarios. WP5 will undertake cost-consequence analysis of the potential costs and outcomes of introducing UC and cost-benefit analyses of mitigating actions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We obtained ethical approval for the primary data gathering from the University of Glasgow, College of Social Sciences Research Ethics Committee, application number 400200244. We will use our networks to actively disseminate findings to UC claimants, the public, practitioners and policy-makers, using a range of methods and formats. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The study is registered with the Research Registry: researchregistry6697.
-
ItemA Comparison of Methods for Identifying Informal Carers: Self-Declaration Versus a Time Diary(ADIS INT LTD, 2022-04-08)OBJECTIVES: Two main methods for identifying whether an individual is an informal carer are self-declaration and the use of a time diary. We analysed the level and predictors of agreement between these two methods among co-residential informal carers of adult recipients. METHODS: We used the 2014/15 UK Time Use Survey, which is a large-scale household survey for those aged 8 years old and over. It contains an individual questionnaire for self-declaration and a time diary for activity-based identification that records all activity in 10-min slots for two 24-h periods. Our analysis: (i) assesses the degree of overlap across approaches; (ii) explores the differences in characteristics between carers identified via one approach relative to non-carers using a bivariate probit estimator; and (iii) shows what factors are associated with being identified by both approaches using two independent probit estimators. RESULTS: Out of 6301 individuals, we identified 545 carers (8.6%) by at least one method and only 104 (19.1% of 545 carers) by both methods. We found similar factors predicted caregiving using either method but the magnitudes of the effects of these factors were larger for self-declared carers. Activity-based carers who provided more activities to a dependent adult and spent more time caregiving were more likely to also self-declare. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show low levels of agreement between the two main methods used to identify informal carers. Any assessment of current caregiving research or future means to collect caregiving information should pay particular attention to the identification method as it may only relate to certain carer groups.
-
ItemNo Preview AvailableThe diagonal approach: A theoretic framework for the economic evaluation of vertical and horizontal interventions in healthcare(PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD, 2022-05-01)The diagonal approach is a health system funding concept wherein vertical approaches targeting specific diseases are combined with horizontal approaches intended to strengthen health systems broadly. This taxonomy can also be used to classify health system interventions as either vertical or horizontal. Previous studies have used mathematical programming to evaluate horizontal interventions, but these models have not allowed concurrent evaluation of different types of horizontal interventions or captured spillovers and intertemporal effects. This paper aims to develop a theoretic framework for the diagonal approach. The framework is articulated through integer programming, maximizing health benefits given constraints by identifying the optimal set of both vertical and horizontal interventions to fund. The theoretic framework for the diagonal approach is developed by synthesizing and expanding three prior works. The decision problem is synthesised to allow concurrent evaluation of three different types of horizontal interventions, those: (i) improving health system efficiency, (ii) improving capacity, and (iii) investing in new platforms. Linear programs are converted to integer form, relaxing previous assumptions related to constant returns to scale and divisibility of interventions. The framework is expanded to evaluate multiple budget constraints and options for new platforms. A new form for the value function is used to estimate the benefits of intervention combinations, capturing spillovers between vertical and horizontal interventions and dynamic returns to scale. The decision problem is specified inferotemporally, explicitly capturing the impact of the time horizon on the optimal choice set. Dynamic examples are provided to demonstrate the advantages of the diagonal approach over prior frameworks. This framework extends existing works, enabling simultaneous comparison of various combinations of both vertical and horizontal interventions, capturing spillovers and intertemporal effects. The diagonal approach framework defines decision problems flexibly and realistically, forming the basis for future applied work. Implementation would improve resource allocation and patient health outcomes.
-
ItemUnseen patterns of preventable emergency care: Emergency department visits for ambulatory care sensitive conditions(SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC, 2022-02-06)OBJECTIVE: Admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs) are often used to measure potentially preventable emergency care. Visits to emergency departments with ACSCs may also be preventable care but are excluded from such measures if patients are not admitted. We established the extent and composition of this preventable emergency care. METHODS: We analysed 1,505,979 emergency department visits (5% of the national total) between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2017 at six hospital Trusts in England, using International Classification of Diseases diagnostic coding. We calculated the number of visits for each ACSC and examined the proportions of these visits that did not result in admission by condition and patient characteristics. RESULTS: 11.1% of emergency department visits were for ACSCs. 55.0% of these visits did not result in hospital admission. Whilst the majority of ACSC visits were for acute rather than chronic conditions (59.4% versus 38.4%), acute visits were much more likely to conclude without admission (70.3% versus 33.4%). Younger, more deprived and ethnic minority patients were less likely to be admitted when they visited the emergency department with an ACSC. CONCLUSIONS: Over half of preventable emergency care is not captured by measures of admissions. The probability of admission at a preventable visit varies substantially between conditions and patient groups. Focussing only on admissions for ACSCs provides an incomplete and skewed picture of the types of conditions and patients receiving preventable care. Measures of preventable emergency care should include visits in addition to admissions.
-
ItemFramework for identification and measurement of spillover effects in policy implementation: intended non-intended targeted non-targeted spillovers (INTENTS).(Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2022-03-14)BACKGROUND: There is increasing awareness among researchers and policymakers of the potential for healthcare interventions to have consequences beyond those initially intended. These unintended consequences or "spillover effects" result from the complex features of healthcare organisation and delivery and can either increase or decrease overall effectiveness. Their potential influence has important consequences for the design and evaluation of implementation strategies and for decision-making. However, consideration of spillovers remains partial and unsystematic. We develop a comprehensive framework for the identification and measurement of spillover effects resulting from changes to the way in which healthcare services are organised and delivered. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to map the existing literature on spillover effects in health and healthcare interventions and used the findings of this review to develop a comprehensive framework to identify and measure spillover effects. RESULTS: The scoping review identified a wide range of different spillover effects, either experienced by agents not intentionally targeted by an intervention or representing unintended effects for targeted agents. Our scoping review revealed that spillover effects tend to be discussed in papers only when they are found to be statistically significant or might account for unexpected findings, rather than as a pre-specified feature of evaluation studies. This hinders the ability to assess all potential implications of a given policy or intervention. We propose a taxonomy of spillover effects, classified based on the outcome and the unit experiencing the effect: within-unit, between-unit, and diagonal spillover effects. We then present the INTENTS framework: Intended Non-intended TargEted Non-Targeted Spillovers. The INTENTS framework considers the units and outcomes which may be affected by an intervention and the mechanisms by which spillover effects are generated. CONCLUSIONS: The INTENTS framework provides a structured guide for researchers and policymakers when considering the potential effects that implementation strategies may generate, and the steps to take when designing and evaluating such interventions. Application of the INTENTS framework will enable spillover effects to be addressed appropriately in future evaluations and decision-making, ensuring that the full range of costs and benefits of interventions are correctly identified.
-
ItemEthnic inequalities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake and comparison to seasonal influenza vaccine uptake in Greater Manchester, UK: A cohort study(PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE, 2022-03-01)BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccine uptake is lower amongst most minority ethnic groups compared to the White British group in England, despite higher COVID-19 mortality rates. Here, we add to existing evidence by estimating inequalities for 16 minority ethnic groups, examining ethnic inequalities within population subgroups, and comparing the magnitudes of ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake to those for routine seasonal influenza vaccine uptake. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Greater Manchester Care Record, which contains de-identified electronic health record data for the population of Greater Manchester, England. We used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate ethnic inequalities in time to COVID-19 vaccination amongst people eligible for vaccination on health or age (50+ years) criteria between 1 December 2020 and 18 April 2021 (138 days of follow-up). We included vaccination with any approved COVID-19 vaccine, and analysed first-dose vaccination only. We compared inequalities between COVID-19 and influenza vaccine uptake adjusting by age group and clinical risk, and used subgroup analysis to identify populations where inequalities were widest. The majority of individuals (871,231; 79.24%) were White British. The largest minority ethnic groups were Pakistani (50,268; 4.75%), 'other White background' (43,195; 3.93%), 'other ethnic group' (34,568; 3.14%), and Black African (18,802; 1.71%). In total, 83.64% (919,636/1,099,503) of eligible individuals received a COVID-19 vaccine. Uptake was lower compared to the White British group for 15 of 16 minority ethnic groups, with particularly wide inequalities amongst the groups 'other Black background' (hazard ratio [HR] 0.42, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.44), Black African (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.44), Arab (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.48), and Black Caribbean (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.45). In total, 55.71% (419,314/752,715) of eligible individuals took up influenza vaccination. Compared to the White British group, inequalities in influenza vaccine uptake were widest amongst the groups 'White and Black Caribbean' (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.68) and 'White and Black African' (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.72). In contrast, uptake was slightly higher than the White British group amongst the groups 'other ethnic group' (HR 1.11, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.12) and Bangladeshi (HR 1.08, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.11). Overall, ethnic inequalities in vaccine uptake were wider for COVID-19 than influenza vaccination for 15 of 16 minority ethnic groups. COVID-19 vaccine uptake inequalities also existed amongst individuals who previously took up influenza vaccination. Ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake were concentrated amongst older and extremely clinically vulnerable adults, and the most income-deprived. A limitation of this study is the focus on uptake of the first dose of COVID-19 vaccination, rather than full COVID-19 vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake exceeded those for influenza vaccine uptake, existed amongst those recently vaccinated against influenza, and were widest amongst those with greatest COVID-19 risk. This suggests the COVID-19 vaccination programme has created additional and different inequalities beyond pre-existing health inequalities. We suggest that further research and policy action is needed to understand and remove barriers to vaccine uptake, and to build trust and confidence amongst minority ethnic communities.
-
ItemA cluster randomised controlled trial of a ward-based intervention to improve access to psychologically-informed care and psychological therapy for mental health in-patients(BMC, 2022-02-03)BACKGROUND: There is good evidence that psychological interventions improve patient well-being and independent living, but patients on acute mental health wards often do not have access to evidence-based psychological therapies which are strongly advised by NICE guidance for severe mental health problems. The overall aim of this programme of work is to increase patient access to psychological therapies on acute mental health inpatient wards. Stage one of the programme (which is complete) aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to delivering therapy in these settings through a large qualitative study. The key output of stage one was an intervention protocol that is designed to be delivered on acute wards to increase patient access to psychologically-informed care and therapy. Stage two of the programme aims to test the effects of the intervention on patient wellbeing and serious incidents on the ward (primary outcomes), patient social functioning and symptoms, staff burnout, ward atmosphere from staff and patient perspectives and cost effectiveness of the intervention (secondary outcomes). METHODS: The study is a single blind, pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial and will recruit thirty-four wards across England that will be randomised to receive the new intervention plus treatment as usual, or treatment as usual only. Primary and secondary outcomes will be assessed at baseline and 6-month and 9-month follow-ups, with serious incidents on the ward collected at an additional 3-month follow-up. DISCUSSION: The key output will be a potentially effective and cost-effective ward-based psychological intervention that increases patient access to psychological therapy in inpatient settings, is feasible to deliver in inpatient settings and is acceptable to patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03950388. Registered 15th May 2019. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03950388.