16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Supporting Vulnerable Populations During the Pandemic: Stakeholders’ Experiences and Perceptions of Social Prescribing in Scotland During Covid-19

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Social prescribing schemes refer people toward personalized health/wellbeing interventions in local communities. Since schemes hold different representations of social prescribing, responses to the pandemic crisis will vary. Intersectionality states that social divisions build on one another, sustaining unequal health outcomes. We conducted and inductively analysed interviews with twenty-three professional and volunteer stakeholders across three social prescribing schemes in urban and rural Scotland at the start and end of year one of the pandemic. Concerns included identifying and digitally supporting disadvantaged and vulnerable individuals and reduced capacity statutory and third-sector services, obliging link workers to assume new practical and psychological responsibilities. Social prescribing services in Scotland, we argue, represent a collage of practices superimposed on a struggling healthcare system. Those in need of such services are unlikely to break through disadvantage whilst situated within a social texture wherein inequalities of education, health and environmental arrangements broadly intersect with one another.

          Related collections

          Most cited references69

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Using thematic analysis in psychology

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            The Socio-Economic Implications of the Coronavirus and COVID-19 Pandemic: A Review

            The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in over 1.4 million confirmed cases and over 83,000 deaths globally. It has also sparked fears of an impending economic crisis and recession. Social distancing, self-isolation and travel restrictions forced a decrease in the workforce across all economic sectors and caused many jobs to be lost. Schools have closed down, and the need of commodities and manufactured products has decreased. In contrast, the need for medical supplies has significantly increased. The food sector has also seen a great demand due to panic-buying and stockpiling of food products. In response to this global outbreak, we summarise the socio-economic effects of COVID-19 on individual aspects of the world economy.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Mental health before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal probability sample survey of the UK population

              Summary Background The potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on population mental health is of increasing global concern. We examine changes in adult mental health in the UK population before and during the lockdown. Methods In this secondary analysis of a national, longitudinal cohort study, households that took part in Waves 8 or 9 of the UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS) panel, including all members aged 16 or older in April, 2020, were invited to complete the COVID-19 web survey on April 23–30, 2020. Participants who were unable to make an informed decision as a result of incapacity, or who had unknown postal addresses or addresses abroad were excluded. Mental health was assessed using the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). Repeated cross-sectional analyses were done to examine temporal trends. Fixed-effects regression models were fitted to identify within-person change compared with preceding trends. Findings Waves 6–9 of the UKHLS had 53 351 participants. Eligible participants for the COVID-19 web survey were from households that took part in Waves 8 or 9, and 17 452 (41·2%) of 42 330 eligible people participated in the web survey. Population prevalence of clinically significant levels of mental distress rose from 18·9% (95% CI 17·8–20·0) in 2018–19 to 27·3% (26·3–28·2) in April, 2020, one month into UK lockdown. Mean GHQ-12 score also increased over this time, from 11·5 (95% CI 11·3–11·6) in 2018–19, to 12·6 (12·5–12·8) in April, 2020. This was 0·48 (95% CI 0·07–0·90) points higher than expected when accounting for previous upward trends between 2014 and 2018. Comparing GHQ-12 scores within individuals, adjusting for time trends and significant predictors of change, increases were greatest in 18–24-year-olds (2·69 points, 95% CI 1·89–3·48), 25–34-year-olds (1·57, 0·96–2·18), women (0·92, 0·50–1·35), and people living with young children (1·45, 0·79–2·12). People employed before the pandemic also averaged a notable increase in GHQ-12 score (0·63, 95% CI 0·20–1·06). Interpretation By late April, 2020, mental health in the UK had deteriorated compared with pre-COVID-19 trends. Policies emphasising the needs of women, young people, and those with preschool aged children are likely to play an important part in preventing future mental illness. Funding None.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Qual Health Res
                Qual Health Res
                spqhr
                QHR
                Qualitative Health Research
                SAGE Publications (Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA )
                1049-7323
                1552-7557
                30 December 2021
                March 2022
                : 32
                : 4
                : 670-682
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Ringgold 164128, universityUniversity of Westminster; , London, UK
                [2 ]Ringgold 5994, universityNewcastle University; , Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
                [3 ]Ringgold 3526, universityUniversity of Glasgow; , MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Glasgow, UK
                Author notes
                [*]Alison Fixsen, University of Westminster, 115 New Cavendish Street, London W1W 6UW, UK. Email: A.Fixsen@ 123456westminster.ac.uk
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9449-2784
                Article
                10.1177_10497323211064229
                10.1177/10497323211064229
                8948336
                34969344
                f227071b-c652-4669-80ea-f6dc6430ab3d
                © The Author(s) 2021

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                Funding
                Funded by: University of Westminster Community Research Development Fund;
                Categories
                Research Articles
                Custom metadata
                ts10

                Medicine
                social prescribing,qualitative studies,covid-19,third sector,vulnerable communities
                Medicine
                social prescribing, qualitative studies, covid-19, third sector, vulnerable communities

                Comments

                Comment on this article