Search

Background: Libraries in the UK have evolved from traditional book-lending institutions into dynamic community hubs, This study aims to explore the potential of libraries to act as community hubs to promote mental and physical health and wellbeing of community-dwelling adults, drawing on insights from both library users and library staff in England. Design: A mixed-method, cross-sectional study using online survey and interviews with community-dwelling adults and library staff. Methods: We collected data using a 14-item electronic survey and interviews with library users and staff to gauge perceptions. Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis were used to identify key trends and emergent themes. Results: We included 605 respondents from the survey and interviewed 12 library users and staff. Libraries remain popular and are considered a 'safe place by members of the community, regardless of their frequency of service usage irrespective of whether they are frequent users of services. However, a lack of awareness among library users about community-facing services could act as a hurdle to improving community health and wellbeing. Targeted engagement with residents is needed to increase awareness of libraries' services, including community interventions to help tackle loneliness and inequalities in digital and health literacy. Library staff often did not feel involved in important decision-making. Various barriers, drivers and practical recommendations were identified to leverage libraries as hubs to promote community health and wellbeing. Conclusion: Libraries already offer a variety of resources that directly or indirectly support the health and wellbeing of community-dwelling adults and young people. However, public awareness of these services is limited. As we navigate post-pandemic recovery, libraries can serve as platforms for community engagement, fostering resilience, mental health support and reducing social isolation. Recognising libraries' untapped potential can lead to healthier communities and improved wellbeing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Even prior to the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was ample evidence that loneliness and social isolation negatively impacted physical and mental health, employability, and are a financial burden on the state. In response, there has been significant policy-level attention on tackling loneliness. The objective of this scoping review was to conduct a loneliness policy landscape analysis across 52 countries of the UN European country groups. Our policy analysis sought to highlight commonalities and differences between the different national approaches to manage loneliness, with the goal to provide actionable recommendations for the consideration of policymakers wishing to develop, expand or review existing loneliness policies. Methods: We searched governmental websites using the Google search engine for publicly available documents related to loneliness and social isolation. Seventy-eight documents were identified in total, from which 23 documents were retained. Exclusion of documents was based on predetermined criteria. A structured content analysis approach was used to capture key information from the policy documents. Contextual data were captured in a configuration matrix to highlight common and unique themes. Results: We could show that most policies describe loneliness as a phenomenon that was addressed to varying degrees in different domains such as social, health, geographical, economic and political. Limited evidence was found regarding funding for suggested interventions. We synthesised actionable recommendations for the consideration of policy makers focusing on the use of language, prioritisation of interventions, revisiting previous campaigns, sharing best practice across borders, setting out a vision, evaluating interventions, and the need for the rapid and sustainable scalability of interventions. Conclusions: Our study provides the first overview of the national loneliness policy landscape, highlighting the increasing prioritisation of loneliness and social isolation as a major public health and societal issue. Our findings suggest that policymakers can sustain this momentum and strengthen their strategies by incorporating rigorous, evidence-based intervention evaluations and fostering international collaborations for knowledge sharing. We believe that policymakers can more effectively address loneliness by directing funds to develop and implement interventions that impact the individual, the community and society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic led to the implementation of a national policy of shielding to safeguard clinically vulnerable patients. To ensure consistent care for high-risk patients with hypertension, NHS England introduced the BP@home initiative to enable patients to self-monitor their blood pressure by providing them with blood pressure monitors. This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the initiative based on the experience and perspectives of programme managers and healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in its implementation in London. Methods and findings: We conducted five semi-structured focus groups and one individual interview with a total of 20 healthcare professionals involved at different levels and stages in the BP@home initiative across four of the five London Integrated Care Systems (ICSs). All focus groups and interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically following the Framework Method. Respondents reported being challenged by the lack of adequate IT, human and financial resources to support the substantial additional workload associated with the programme. These issues resulted in and reinforced the differential engagement capacities of PCNs, practices and patients, thus raising equity concerns among respondents. However respondents also identified several facilitators, including the integration of the eligibility criteria into the electronic health record (EHR), especially when combined with the adoption of practice-specific, pragmatic and opportunistic approaches to the onboarding of patients. Respondents also recommended the provision of blood pressure monitors (BPMs) on prescription, additional funding and training based on needs assessment, the incorporation of BP@home into daily practice and simplification of IT tools, and finally the adoption of a person-centred care approach. Contextualised using the second iteration of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), these findings support key evidence-based recommendations to help streamline the implementation of the BP@home initiative in London's primary care setting. Conclusions: Programs such as BP@Home are likely to become more common in primary care. To successfully support HCPs' aim to care for their hypertensive patients, their implementation must be accompanied by additional financial, human and training resources, as well as supported task-shifting for capacity building. Future studies should explore the perspectives of HCPs based in other parts of the UK as well as patients' experiences with remote monitoring of blood pressure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]