Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background Evaluations of primary healthcare co-located welfare advice services have been methodologically limited. Aims To examine the impact and cost-consequences of co-located benefits and debt advice on mental health and service use. Method Prospective, controlled quasi-experimental study in eight intervention and nine comparator sites across North Thames. Changes in the proportion meeting criteria for common mental disorder (CMD, 12-item General Health Questionnaire); well-being scores (Shortened Warwick and Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale), 3-month GP consultation rate and financial strain were measured alongside funding costs and financial gains. Results Relative to controls, CMD reduced among women (ratio of odds ratios (rOR) = 0.37, 95% CI 0.20–0.70) and Black advice recipients (rOR=0.09, 95% CI 0.03–0.28). Individuals whose advice resulted in positive outcomes demonstrated improved well-being scores (β coefficient 1.29, 95% CI 0.25–2.32). Reductions in financial strain (rOR=042, 95% CI 0.23–0.77) but no changes in 3-month consultation rate were found. Per capita, advice recipients received £15 per £1 of funder investment. Conclusions Co-located welfare advice improves short-term mental health and well-being, reduces financial strain and generates considerable financial returns.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Woodhead et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: