Search

Common mental health disorders (CMDs) disproportionately affect people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage. Non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as ‘social prescribing’ and new models of care and clinical practice, are becoming increasingly prevalent in primary care. However, little is known about how these interventions work and their impact on socioeconomic inequalities in health. Focusing on people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, this systematic review aims to: (1) explore the mechanisms by which non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions impact CMD-related health outcomes and inequalities; (2) identify the barriers to, and facilitators of, their implementation in primary care. This study is a systematic review of qualitative studies. Six bibliographic databases were searched (Medline, ASSIA, CINAHL, Embase, PsycInfo and Scopus) and additional grey literature sources were screened. The included studies were thematically analysed. Twenty-two studies were included, and three themes were identified: (1) agency; (2) social connections; (3) socioeconomic environment. The interventions were experienced as being positive for mental health when people felt a sense of agency and social connection. The barriers to effectiveness and engagement included socioeconomic deprivation and underfunding of community sector organisations. If non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions for CMDs are to avoid widening health inequalities, key socioeconomic barriers to their accessibility and implementation must be addressed.

COVID-19 is disproportionately impacting people in low-income communities. Primary care staff in deprived areas have unique insights into the challenges posed by the pandemic. This study explores the impact of COVID-19 from the perspective of primary care practitioners in the most deprived region of England. Deep End general practices serve communities in the region’s most socioeconomically disadvantaged areas. This study used semi-structured interviews followed by thematic analysis. In total, 15 participants were interviewed (11 General Practitioners (GPs), 2 social prescribing link workers and 2 nurses) with Deep End careers ranging from 3 months to 31 years. Participants were recruited via purposive and snowball sampling. Interviews were conducted using video-conferencing software. Data were analysed using thematic content analysis through a social determinants of health lens. Our results are categorised into four themes: the immediate health risks of COVID-19 on patients and practices, factors likely to exacerbate existing deprivation, the role of social prescribing during COVID-19, wider implications for remote consulting. We add qualitative understanding to existing quantitative data, showing patients from low socioeconomic backgrounds have worse outcomes from COVID-19. Deep End practitioners have valuable insights into the impact of social distancing restrictions and remote consulting on patients’ health and wellbeing. Their experiences should guide future pandemic response measures and any move to “digital first” primary care to ensure that existing inequalities are not worsened.

The effectiveness of immunization is widely accepted: it can successfully improve health outcomes by reducing the morbidity and mortality associated with vaccine-preventable diseases. In the era of pandemics, there is a pressing need to identify and understand the factors associated with vaccine uptake amongst different socioeconomic groups. The knowledge generated from research in this area can be used to inform effective interventions aimed at increasing uptake. This umbrella systematic review aims to determine whether there is an association between socioeconomic inequalities and rate of vaccine uptake globally. Specifically, the study aims to determine whether an individual’s socioeconomic status, level of education, occupation, (un)-employment, or place of residence affects the uptake rate of routine vaccines. The following databases will be searched from 2011 to the present day: Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Cochrane CENTRAL, Science Citation Index (Web of Science), DARE, SCOPUS (Elsevier), and ASSIA (ProQuest). Systematic reviews will be either included or excluded based on a priori established eligibility criteria. The relevant data will then be extracted, quality appraised, and narratively synthesised. The synthesis will be guided by the theoretical framework developed for this review. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Equity extension (PRISMA-E) guidance will be followed. This protocol has been registered on PROSPERO, ID: CRD42022334223.