Socio-economic variations in health, including variations in health according to wealth and income, have been widely reported. A potential method of improving the health of the most deprived groups is to increase their income. State funded welfare programmes of financial benefits and benefits in kind are common in developed countries. However, there is evidence of widespread under claiming of welfare benefits by those eligible for them. One method of exploring the health effects of income supplementation is, therefore, to measure the health effects of welfare benefit maximisation programmes. We conducted a systematic review of the health, social and financial impacts of welfare rights advice delivered in healthcare settings.
Methods
Published and unpublished literature was accessed through searches of electronic databases, websites and an internet search engine; hand searches of journals; suggestions from experts; and reference lists of relevant publications. Data on the intervention delivered, evaluation performed, and outcome data on health, social and economic measures were abstracted and assessed by pairs of independent reviewers. Results are reported in narrative form.
Results
55 studies were included in the review. Only seven studies included a comparison or control group. There was evidence that welfare rights advice delivered in healthcare settings results in financial benefits. There was little evidence that the advice resulted in measurable health or social benefits. This is primarily due to lack of good quality evidence, rather than evidence of an absence of effect.
Conclusion
There are good theoretical reasons why income supplementation should improve health, but currently little evidence of adequate robustness and quality to indicate that the impact goes beyond increasing income.
The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2458-6-81) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Competing interests
DH, JM, SM and MW have recently completed a pilot randomised controlled trial of welfare rights advice in primary care.
Authors' contributions
MW and SM conceived the idea for this review. All authors contributed to protocol development. JA performed the literature searches, reviewed all studies found and drafted the manuscript. MW, SM, DH and JM provided second reviews for all studies included. All authors read and approve the final manuscript.
Background
Socio-economic variations in health, including variations in health according to wealth and income, have been widely reported [1‐4]. However, interventions to overcome socio-economic variations in health have achieved little success[5, 6]. One potential method of improving the health of the most deprived groups is to increase their income. Despite a number of income supplementation experiments – particularly in the USA in the 1960s and 1970s – little investigation of the impact of these experiments on health has been performed[7].
State funded welfare programmes of financial benefits and benefits in kind for, amongst others, the unemployed, the elderly and the sick are common in developed countries. However, there is evidence of widespread under claiming of welfare benefits by those eligible for them, with take up of income related benefits in the UK around 80% in 2002[8]. Take up rates in the rest of Europe are around 40–80% with generally lower rates in the USA[9]. One method of exploring the health effects of income supplementation is, therefore, to measure the health effects of welfare benefit maximisation programmes[7].
Anzeige
Efforts to provide advice on claiming welfare benefits are increasingly being made in the UK[10]. In general, 'welfare rights advice' involves review of eligibility for welfare benefits and active assistance with claims for any benefits to which the client is found to be entitled. Active assistance includes help with completing forms, telephone calls, obtaining letters of support and references, and attendance in person at benefit tribunals. Welfare rights advisors are also often able to offer debt counselling and legal advice, or refer to other appropriate agencies. In the UK, where the majority of welfare rights advice programmes are based, advice is primarily offered through local government, Citizens Advice Bureaux (CAB – a voluntary organisation that "helps people resolve their legal, money and other problems by providing free information and advice"[11] from community locations) or primary care, with clients accessing the services either through self referral, referral from another agency, or a combination of both.
Welfare rights advice services delivered at, or through, primary care premises work within a holistic model of primary health care that "involves continuity of care, health promotion and education, integration of prevention with sick care, a concern for population as well as individual health, community involvement and the use of appropriate technology"[12]. In the UK, all individuals who have been legally resident for at least six months are entitled to be registered with a local primary care practice and receive free treatment there. As over 98% of the population is registered with a primary care practice[13], primary care provides a setting in which the great majority of the population can be accessed.
Given the increasing interest in this area, particularly in the UK, the funding that is now being committed to it by primary care organisations and local authorities, and the opportunity it offers to assess the impact of income supplementation on health, it is timely to bring together the available evidence on the impacts of welfare rights advice delivered in healthcare settings. Two previous reviews have focused on welfare rights advice in healthcare settings[14, 15]. However, neither of these took a systematic approach to literature searching and were primarily descriptions of the different programmes on offer, rather than an assessment of the impacts of these.
We performed a systematic review in order to answer the question: what are the health, social and financial impacts of welfare rights advice delivered in healthcare settings?
Anzeige
Methods
Search strategy
The following strategies were used (by JA) to find and access potentially relevant studies for consideration for inclusion in the review:
1. Searches of electronic databases: the keyword search "(welfare OR benefit OR social welfare OR citizen OR money OR assistance) AND (advice OR right OR prescrip$ OR counsel$)" was used to search the electronic databases listed in Box 1 (see Figure 1) (where $ = wildcard symbol). All available years of all databases were searched up to and including October 2004.
Figure 1
Box 1. Electronic databases searched.
2. Hand searches of specific journals: the electronic contents pages of Health and Social Care in the Community (volumes 6–12, 1998–2004), and the Journal of Social Policy (volumes 26–33, 1997–2004) were scanned to identify relevant publications[16]. These journals were chosen because of their relevance to the subject area and the perception that substantial relevant work had been published in them.
3. Searches of internet search engine: searches were made of the internet search engine Google http://www.google.com using the same strategies as above. The first 100 results returned by each search strategy were scanned for relevance and those judged to be potentially relevant followed up.
4. Suggestions from experts and those working in the field: requests for help with accessing relevant literature were sent to relevant e-mail distribution lists (listed in Box 2 – see Figure 2), posted on the rightsnet.org.uk discussion forum and published in the 'trade magazines' Poverty and Welfare Rights Bulletin. 'Experts' – identified as such either by frequent publication in the area, or through personal contacts of the research team – were also contacted directly and asked for help with identifying relevant literature or providing further contacts[17].
Figure 2
Box 2. Email distribution lists sent requests for information.
5. Searches of specific websites: the websites of a number of specific organisations that sponsor and conduct social policy research (listed in Box 3 – see Figure 3) were searched to identify publications of interest.
Figure 3
Box 3. Websites hand searched for relevant publications.
6. Reference lists from relevant studies: the reference lists of all studies assessed to be relevant were scanned to identify other relevant work, as were the reference lists of previous reviews in this area[14, 15].
7. Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index: citation searches of the Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index were performed to identify all citations of studies identified as relevant.
Anzeige
8. Author searches: searches for other articles by all authors of articles included in the review were performed in Medline and Health Management Information Consortium (the two databases that provided the greatest number of relevant hits) for all available years up to and including October 2004.
×
×
×
Inclusion and exclusion criteria for studies included in the review
Studies were considered relevant and included in the review if they reported an evaluation of welfare rights advice in a healthcare setting in terms of health, social or financial outcomes. We defined 'welfare rights advice' as expert advice concerning entitlement to and claims for welfare benefits. 'Healthcare settings' were defined as health related buildings – including primary, secondary or tertiary care centres – or where clients were identified through primary, secondary or tertiary care patient lists.
A preliminary scoping review revealed that: there is substantial 'grey literature' in this area; the main study design used is uncontrolled before and after studies; and outcome variables studied vary widely. In order to provide an overview of the wide variety of impacts of welfare rights advice delivered in healthcare settings, we did not restrict our review to any particular outcomes, study design, methods, study population or place of publication (i.e. studies not published in peer reviewed journals were not necessarily excluded). Although searches were conducted in English, no a priori exclusions were made based on the language of publication. However, we did not identify any potentially relevant studies that were not written in English.
The process of determining whether studies should be included in the review was made by one reviewer (JA) in the majority of cases. The review team discussed any cases where doubt concerning inclusion remained after retrieval of reports.
Anzeige
Data abstraction
Data were abstracted from reports and papers ("studies") in the review using a structured proforma. Data collected included: descriptive details of interventions delivered and evaluations performed, and outcome data on all financial, social and health outcomes measured. Data abstraction from each report was performed independently by pairs of reviewers with information entered onto a Microsoft Access database for recording and analysis. In cases where reviewers were found to disagree about the data abstracted, reviewers met to discuss disagreements. If agreement could not be reached, the whole review team was asked to consider the issue and reach a consensus.
Where investigators reported data on the same outcome at a number of different follow up times, information from all follow ups was abstracted and reported. Where information on a number of different outcomes was reported from the same project, information on all outcomes reported was abstracted and the results presented to highlight that these are not independent findings. When we retrieved both an internal report and peer reviewed paper on the same project, both documents were scrutinised and if discrepancies were found, results reported in peer-reviewed journals were used in our assessment.
Assessment of study quality
As the majority of quantitative evaluations of welfare rights advice delivered in healthcare settings use a simple before and after design (6 of 8 studies that reported data on health and social outcomes employed a before and after design, all 29 studies that reported data on financial outcomes employed a before and after design), we felt it inappropriate to assess the quality of studies reported in terms of a formal scoring framework. Instead, we collected information on various aspects of methodology and report this in a descriptive analysis.
As with the quantitative evaluative work in this area, few qualitative studies, or components of studies, identified in the scoping review appeared to meet many of the quality standards for qualitative research that have been proposed[18, 19]. As before, we did not apply any formal framework for determining quality in qualitative work. Instead, information on various aspects of methodology were recorded and are reported descriptively
Anzeige
Analyses and reporting
Given the wide variety of studies that we anticipated including in the review, a formal meta-analysis was not planned and results are reported primarily in a narrative form according, as far as possible, to the schema proposed by Stroup et al (2000) – a checklist of topics that should be covered in meta-analyses of observational studies under the general headings of background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion and conclusions devised by an expert working group (The Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) Group)[20].
Ethics and research governance
This review of published and publicly available literature did not require ethical approval.
Results
Search results
Results of electronic database searches for articles, citation searches and author searches are reported in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 respectively. Numerous reports were identified by responders to the requests for information. Overall, 55 different studies, considered to meet the inclusion criteria, were included in the review and are summarised in Table 4. Where single reports contained data on two or more projects that differed substantially in design[21, 22], these different projects are reported as separate studies in the results. Table 5 lists those papers and reports retrieved but not included in the review with reasons for exclusion. Only one study included in the review was not UK based[23].
Table 1
results of electronic database searches
Database
Hits
Of some relevance
Included in review
Ageinfo
5
1[34]
1[34]
British Humanities Index
67
0
0
CINAHL
99
6[35–40]
1[40]
Embase
141
7[25, 37, 41–45]
4[25, 42–44]
Health Management Information Consortium
38
14[14, 36–38, 40, 42, 43, 45–47]
4[14, 40, 42, 43]
Health Financials Evaluations Database
0
0
0
International Bibliography of the Social Sciences
113
0
0
MDX health
0
0
0
Medline
286
15[25, 34, 36, 38, 41–45, 48–53]
5[25, 34, 42–44]
PAISArchive
82
0
0
PAISInternational
83
2[54, 55]
0
PsycINFO
686
3[41, 53, 56]
0
Science citation index
150
8[25, 37, 41–45, 57]
5[25, 42–44, 57]
SIRS researcher
5
0
0
Social science citation index
237
7[36–38, 41–43, 45]
2[42, 43]
Social Services Abstracts
147
3[36, 38, 58]
0
Sociological Abstracts
293
2[59, 60]
0
Zetoc
0
0
0
Table 2
results of citation searches
Article
Hits
Of some relevance
Included in review
Abbott and Hobby (2000)[42]
3
3[36, 37, 61]
1[61]
Coppel et al (1999)[43]
7
7[36, 37, 42, 61–64]
3[42, 61, 63]
Cornwallis and O'Neil (1998)[65]
Journal (Hoolet) not listed
Dow and Boaz (1994)[23]
4
1[66]
1[66]
Frost-Gaskin et al (2003)[66]
0
0
0
Galvin et al (2000)[67]
4
4[25, 36, 37, 61]
2[25, 61]
Greasley and Small (2005)
0
0
0
Hoskins and Smith (2002)[63]
2
1[68]
1[68]
Langley et al (2004)[25]
1
1[68]
1[68]
Memel and Gubbay (1999)[57]
2
2[24, 61]
2[24, 61]
Memel et al (2002)[24]
3
2[25, 68]
2[25, 68]
Middleton et al (1993)[69]
4
4[36, 37, 63, 64]
1[63]
Moffatt et al (2004)[70]
Journal (Critical Public Health) not listed
Paris and Player (1993)[71]
21
14[36, 37, 43, 44, 61, 63, 64, 67, 68, 72–76]
7[43, 44, 61, 63, 67, 68, 72]
Powell et al (2004)[68]
0
0
0
Reading et al (2002)[72]
1
1[61]
1[61]
Sherratt et al (2000)[77]
Journal (Primary Healthcare Research and Development) not listed
Toeg et al (2003)[61]
1
0
0
Veitch and Terry (1993)[44]
0
0
0
Table 3
results of author searches
Medline
Health Management Information Consortium
Author
Hits
Of some relevance
Included in review
Hits
Of some relevance
Included in review
Abbott, S
38
4[36, 37, 42, 78]
1[42]
3
1[42]
1[42]
Boaz, TL
9
1[23]
1[23]
0
0
0
Coppel, DH
1
1[43]
1[43]
3
0
0
Cornwallis, E
0
0
0
0
0
0
Dow, MG
17
1[23]
1[23]
0
0
0
Downey, D
45
0
0
1
0
0
Frost-Gaskin, M
1
1[66]
1[66]
0
0
0
Galvin, K
35
0
0
12
1[67]
1[67]
Greasley, P
8
0
0
6
0
0
Gubbay, D
3
2[25, 68]
2[25, 68]
0
0
0
Hehir, M
34
1[24]
1[24]
1
0
0
Henderson, C
147
1[66]
1[66]
17
0
0
Hewlett, S
21
3[24, 25, 68]
3[24, 25, 68]
3
0
0
Hobby, L
5
3
10
6[34, 36, 40, 42, 78, 79]
4[34, 40, 42, 79]
Hoskins, RA
12
1[63]
1[63]
5
2[63, 64]
1[63]
Hudson, E
42
0
0
2
0
0
Illife, S
85
1[61]
1[61]
2
0
0
Jackson, D
501
0
0
19
1[67]
1[67]
Jones, K
581
0
0
90
1[77]
1[77]
Kirwan, J
47
1[68]
1[68]
6
0
0
Langley, C
25
3[24, 25, 68]
3[24, 25, 68]
6
0
0
Lenihan, P
13
1[61]
1[61]
10
1[61]
1[61]
Means, R
13
1[68]
1[68]
63
0
0
Memel, D
6
1[68]
1[68]
5
0
0
Mercer, L
16
1[61]
1[61]
1
1[61]
1[61]
Middleton, P
51
0
0
7
1[77]
1[77]
Moffatt, S
29
0
0
2
0
0
O'Kelly, R
6
1[66]
1[66]
8
0
0
O'Neil, J
101
0
0
6
0
0
Packham, CK
11
1[43]
1[43]
1
0
0
Paris, JA
14
1[71]
1[71]
2
1[71]
1[71]
Player, D
11
1[71]
1[71]
13
1[71]
1[71]
Pollock, J
86
2[25, 68]
2[25, 68]
2
0
0
Powell, JE
57
1[68]
1[68]
22
0
0
Reading, R
28
1[80]
1[80]
14
0
0
Reynolds, S
106
1[72]
1[72]
13
0
0
Sharples, A
25
0
0
2
1[67]
1[67]
Sherratt, M
4
0
0
2
1[77]
1[77]
Small, P
15
0
0
25
0
0
Smith, LN
40
1[63]
1[63]
26
0
0
Stacy, R
21
0
0
5
0
0
Steel, S
18
1[72]
1[72]
5
0
0
Toeg, D
6
1[61]
1[61]
1
1[61]
1[61]
Varnam, MA
13
1[43]
1[43]
7
1[43]
1[43]
White, M
579
0
0
0
0
0
Table 4
summary of interventions delivered and evaluations performed (studies included in the review)
Authors (date)
Intervention delivered
Evaluation performed
Who gave advice?
Where was advice given?
Referral system
Eligibility criteria (size of eligible population)
Financial
Non-financial, before-and-after design
Non-financial comp./control group
Qualitative
Abbott & Hobby (1999)[79]
CAB worker
primary care or client's home
PHCT, self
all registered at 7 practices
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Abbott & Hobby (2002)[34]
CAB worker and city council welfare rights officer
primary care
variable
(94+ practices)
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Actions (2004)[81]
welfare rights advisers
primary care, clients' homes, telephone
self, medical staff, friends and family, voluntary and community _rganizations, social services, various other services
not reported
Yes
No
No
Yes
Bennett (1997)[82]
CAB worker
CAB office
PHCT
all registered at 3 practices
Yes
No
No
No
Borland (2004)[83, 84]
CAB worker
primary care, community hospitals, CAB offices, client's home
PHCT, self, any other agency
(Wales wide)
No
No
No
Yes
Bowran (1997)[85]
CAB worker
primary care
not reported
(n = 12500)
No
No
No
Yes
Broseley Health and Advice Partnership (2004)[86]
CAB worker
Primar care
self and all those registered at practice aged over 75 invited to take part
those registered at health centre
Yes
No
No
Yes
Bundy (2002)[87, 88]
city council welfare rights officer and CAB worker
primary care
PHCT, self
(9 practices)
Yes
No
No
No
Bundy (2003)[88]
city council welfare rights officer and CAB worker
primary care
PHCT, self, any other agency
all registered at practices covering 1/3 of those registered in Salford
Yes
No
No
No
Coppell et al (1999)[43]
welfare rights officer
primary care
PHCT, self
anyone (n = 4057)
Yes
No
No
Yes
Cornwallis & O'Neil (1998)[65]
Money advice worker
primary care
PHCT, self
all registered at practice(s) (n = 7600)
No
No
No
Yes
Derbyshire CC WRS (1997)[89]
welfare rights officer
primary care
PHCT, self
all registered at practice(s) (n = 23 039)
Yes
No
No
No
Derbyshire CC WRS (1998a)[22]
welfare rights officer
primary care
not reported
all registered at 2 practices
Yes
No
No
No
Derbyshire CC WRS (1998b)[22]
Welfare rights service worker
primary care
PHCT and targeted mailshots
(4 practices)
Yes
No
No
No
Dow & Boaz (1994)[23]
Linkage worker trained to assist in application for benefit
Clients' home or treatment facility
All individuals registered at 2 community mental health centres over 18 not currently claiming benefits, random sample of those meeting criteria at third centre, possibly eligible for benefits at screening
Screening form used – US citizen or resident alien, income <$600/month ($900 if married), one of: HIV+, 65+, blind, deaf, disabled
No
No
Yes
No
Emanuel & Begum (2000)[90]
CAB worker
primary care
PHCT, self
anyone (n = 12 601)
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Farmer & Kennedy (2001)[91]
CAB worker
primary care, hospital
at hospitals – from ward staff to social work staff to CAB worker
not reported
No
No
No
Yes
Fleming & Golding (1997)[92]
CAB worker
primary care
not reported
all registered at 21 practices
No
No
No
Yes
Frost-Gaskin et al (2003)[66]
Mind benefit advisor
Mental health resource and day centres (primary care)
None – advisors approached as many regular attendees as possible
all regular attendees (population of those eleigible to attend = 313 510)
Yes
No
No
No
Ferguson & Simmons[93]
Community Links workers (local advice provider)
primary care
Mailshot to registered patients, GP referral
(50% of surgeries in London Borough of Newham)
No
No
Mp
Yes
Galvin et al (2000)[67, 94]
CAB worker
primary care
PHCT
(7 practices)
No
No
No
Yes
Greasley (2003)[95] and Greasley & Small (2005)[96]
12 advisors from 6 agencies
primary care
PHCT, self, any other agency
(n = 106 707)
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Griffiths (1992)[97]
city council welfare rights officer
primary care
PHCT, self, any other agency
(2 health centres)
Yes
No
No
No
Hastie (2003)[98]
CAB worker
primary care, 2 other local locations
GP, self
not reported
Yes
No
No
Yes
High Peak CAB (1995)[99]
CAB worker
primary care
not reported
all those in town (n = 2500)
No
No
No
No
High Peak CAB (2001)[100]
CAB workers
not reported
not reported
not reported
Yes
No
No
No
High Peak CAB (2003)[101]
CAB workers
primary care
PHCT, self, other agencies
all registered at practices involved
Yes
No
No
No
Hoskins & Smith (2002)[63]
welfare rights officer
client's home
community nurses screened for attendance allowance eligibility opportunistically from their client list and referred screen positive
those >64 who in community nurses opinion were physically/mentally frail (population>64 = 1690)
Yes
No
No
Yes
Hoskins et al (in press)[102]
money advice workers
clients' homes
community nurses screened for attendance allowance eligibility from their client list and referred screen positive
those over 64 who appeared to have unmet clinical needs
Yes
No
No
No
Knight (2002)[103]
welfare benefits advisor
primary care and client's home
all aged 75+ identified through GP and sent invitation to take part
all aged 75+ in central Liverpool PCT area (n = 31 000)
No
No
No
Yes
Lancashire CC WRS (2001)[104]
welfare rights officer
client's home
all patients aged 80+ invited to take part
all registered at 3 practices 80+
No
No
No
No
Langley et al (2004)[25]
Welfare benefits advice worker
primary care, hospital, client's home, local CAB
after consent obtained, sent health assessment questionnaire. Those with score >1/5 contacted by advisor and offered advice session
over 16 with rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis of knee or hip for >1 yr plus NSAID recruited from 20 practices. If >100 eligible from any practice, random sample of 100
No
No
No
No
Lishman-Peat & Brown (2002)[105]
not reported
primary care and client's home
PHCT, self
(5 practices)
Yes
No
No
Yes
MacMillan & CAB Partnership (2004)[106]
CAB workers
clients' homes, "acute and primary care locations" and cancer information centres
from nursing staff at 3 hospitals and community MacMillan nurses
cancer patients and their families
Yes
No
No
Yes
Memel & Gubbay (1999)[57]
welfare rights advisor
primary care
not reported
not reported
No
No
No
No
Memel et al (2002)[24]
CAB worker
primary care or hospital
those with RA or OA from follow up patients at rheumatology outpatients at a teaching hospital and those from two GP surgeries who had take part in other research project
diagnosis of OA or RA, being seen at outpatients or registered at participating GP, health assessment questionnaire score of 2 or more, not currently claiming attendant's allowance or disability living allowance
No
No
No
No
Middlesbrough WRU (1999)[107]
city council welfare rights officer
primary care and client's home where necessary
PHCT
all registered at practice(s) (n = 90 500)
No
No
No
No
Middlesbrough WRU (2004)[108]
welfare rights officers
primary care and clients' homes
GPs, practice receptionists, district nurses, health visitors, health and social care assessors, Macmillan nurses, social workers, age concern
those registered at practice aged over 50
Yes
No
No
No
Middleton et al (1993a)[69]
housing department welfare rights advisor
primary care
not reported
(n = 15 000)
Yes
No
No
No
Middleton et al (1993b)[69]
CAB worker
primary care
not reported
(4 practices)
Yes
No
No
No
Moffatt (2004)[109]
Welfare rights worker
client's home
invitation to take part sent to random sample of those aged 65+
random sample (n = 400+) of those aged 65+ registered at 4 practices
Yes
No
No
Yes
Moffatt et al (2004)[110, 111]
CAB worker
primary care
PHCT, self
all registered at practice
No
No
No
Yes
Paris & Player (1993)[71]
CAB worker
primary care
PHCT
(n = 64 779)
Yes
No
No
No
Reading et al (2002)[72, 80]
CAB worker
primary care
letter to all eligible families
all families registered at 3 health centres with child under 1 year
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Roberts (1999)[112]
CAB worker
primary care, client's home, letter, telephone
PHCT, self
(5 practices)
No
No
No
Yes
Sedgefield and district AIS (2004)[113]
CAB worker
primary care
PHCT
all registered at practice(s)
No
No
No
Yes
Sherratt et al (2000)[77]
CAB worker
3 models – primary care, telephone, client's home
PHCT (GP surgery, telephone) or targeted at housebound (home visits only)
all registered at 7 or 4 practices (in-surgery and telephone advice), all housebound patients registered with GP in Gateshead (home visits)
No
No
No
Yes
Southwark CC MAS (1998)[114]
welfare rights officer
primary care
not reported
(n = 76 417)
Yes
No
No
Yes
Toeg et al (2003)[61]
CAB worker
primary care, client's home or telephone
all those eligible invited by letter from GP
registered at practice, 80 years +, living in own home (n = 12 000)
Yes
No
No
No
Vaccarello (2004)[115]
HABIT officer
client's home
invitation letters from GPs to those aged 75+
all aged 75 in Liverpool (n = 31 000)
No
No
No
Yes
Veitch (1995) GP[21]
CAB worker
primary care
not reported
(21 practices)
Yes
Yes
No
No
Veitch (1995) mental health[21]
CAB worker
health and social services sites (mental health centres)
not reported
not reported
Yes
Yes
No
No
Veitch & Terry (1993)[44]
CAB worker
primary care
PHCT
(n = 64 779)
No
No
No
No
Widdowfield & Rickard (1996)[116]
CAB worker
primary care
PHCT, self
all registered at practice(s)
No
No
No
Yes
Woodcock (2004)[117]
city council welfare rights officer
primary care
PHCT
not reported
No
No
No
Yes
CAB = Citizen's Advice Bureau; PHCT = any member of primary healthcare team; GP = general practitioner; OA = osteoarthritis; RA = rheumatoid arthritis
Table 5
Papers, reports and book chapters retrieved but not included in the review with reasons for exclusion
Author (date)
Description of content and reason for exclusion
Abbot & Hobby (2003)[36]
Description of service users rather than evaluation of impacts of service.
Abbott (2000)[118]
Multi-disciplinary support service for patients with mixed social and health needs with small welfare rights component but no evaluation of welfare rights component in isolation.
Abbott (2002)[37]
Discussion of where welfare rights advice fits in terms of health interventions. No evaluation of any specific intervention programme.
Alcock (1994)[119]
Discussion of potential benefits of welfare advice in primary healthcare settings and recommendations for development of such services, not evaluation of single/multiple project(s)
Barnes (2000)[120]
Citizens advice service for patients at a long stay psychiatric hospital – including a limited amount of welfare rights advice. No specific evaluation of welfare rights advice component.
Barnsley Community Legal Service Partnership (2003)[121]
Very brief mention of a welfare rights advice project in primary care within a larger report – no evaluation of service.
Bebbington & Unell (2003)[122]
Description of a multidisciplinary telephone advice line for older people with some evaluation of use. No evaluation of welfare rights advice component.
Bebbington et al (?year)[123]
Description of a multidisciplinary telephone advice line for older people with some evaluation of use. No evaluation of welfare rights advice component.
Bird (1998)[124]
Audit of CAB services for those with mental illness – not evaluation of any specific intervention programme delivered in a healthcare setting.
Buckle (1986)[125]
Discussion of eligibility for various benefits. No evaluation of specific intervention.
Bundy (2001)[39]
Brief description of 'The Health and Advice Project' – full evaluation report included in review
Burton & Diaz de Leon (2002)[126]
Review of a number of welfare advice services but only service for which any outcomes are report does not appear to have been delivered in a healthcare setting.
Clarke et al (2001)[127]
Multidisciplinary service to provide advice and support to individuals and families with complex social and health problems – including welfare rights advice. No specific evaluation of welfare rights advice component.
Craig et al (2003)[128]
Review and primary research on the impact of addition welfare benefit income in older people – not specifically of welfare rights advice delivered in a healthcare setting.
Dowling et al (2003)[129]
Systematic review of effectiveness of financial benefits in reducing inequalities in child health with limitation to randomised controlled trials. Not evaluation of welfare rights advice.
Emanuel (2002)[130]
Description of service rather than evaluation of impacts of service.
Ennals (1990)[131]
Discussion of importance of welfare benefits in relation to health and eligibility for benefits.
Ennals (1993)[74]
Editorial relating to article (Paris and Player, 1993) included in review
Evans (1998)[132]
Report of client profile, sources of referrals and problems raised at a welfare rights advice service in primary care. No evaluation of effect on clients.
Forrest (2003)[133]
Very brief mention of a welfare rights advice project in primary care within a larger report – no evaluation of service.
Gask et al (2000)[134]
Very brief mention of a welfare rights advice project in primary care within a larger report – no evaluation of service.
Greasley & Small (2002)[135]
A review of previously published work on welfare rights advice delivered in primary care. Not an evaluation of a specific intervention.
Greasley (2005)[136]
Discussion of the process of videoing interviews that happened to be with users of a welfare rights advice service in primary healthcare. No evaluation of the impact of the intervention service itself.
Green (1998)[137]
Description of eligibility for benefits whilst an in-patient.
Green et al (2004)[138]
Review of health impact assessments in a variety of areas with very limited mention of Longworth et al (2003)
Harding et al (2002)[38]
Audit of provision of welfare rights advisors in general practices and perceived impact of these facilities on the primary healthcare team. No evaluation of any specific programme on clients.
Hobby & Abbott (1999)[78]
Brief description of 'The Health and Advice Project' – full evaluation report included in review
Hobby et al (1998)[15]
A survey of CAB offering outreach in primary care settings with collation of some information. Limited data on impacts of advice not included in other, primary, reports.
Hoskins et al (2000)[64]
Discussion of potential importance of welfare benefits advice for health with proposal that nurses could become involved in giving advice. No actual intervention described or evaluated.
Jarman (1985)[45]
Description of computer programme to help determine eligibility for various welfare benefits. No evaluation of impact of programme.
Kalra et al (2003)[48]
Methods of family planning _ounseling, not welfare rights advice related.
Longworth et al (2003)[139]
Discussion of potential, rather than actual, impact of service
NACAB (1999)[10]
Magazine type articles on various different studies with case studies, not evaluation of single/multiple project(s)
Norowska (2004)[62]
Description of delayed application for and provision of attendance allowance. No intervention to improve take-up discussed.
Okpaku (1985)[140]
Audit of mentally ill people applying for benefit and problems they encounter. No intervention programme to provide advice with claiming.
Pacitti & Dimmick (1996)[56]
Descriptive study of extend and correlates of underclaiming of welfare benefits amongst individuals with mental illness.
Powell et al (2004)[68]
Financial evaluation of welfare rights advice programme with repetition of financial impacts for clients of data in Langley et al (2004) and Memel et al (2004)
Reid et al (1998)[141]
Assessment of staff awareness and involvement in an ongoing welfare rights advice project in primary care. No evaluation of impact of service on users.
Riverside Advice Ltd (2004)[142]
Report of welfare rights project for those with mental illnesses. No evaluation of impact of service on users.
Scully (1999)[143]
Report of training programme for welfare rights advisors working within primary care settings, not evaluation of a specific service.
Searle (2001)[144]
Description of a multidisciplinary telephone advice line for older people. No evaluation of welfare rights advice component.
Sherr et al (2002)[145]
Audit of current practice in three London boroughs with exploration of attitudes to potential services, not evaluation of service in place.
Stenger (2003)[35]
Discussion of moving from welfare to work, not of advice to help claim welfare benefits.
Strachan (1995)[146]
Proceedings of a conference with descriptions but no evaluations of welfare rights advice services in healthcare settings.
Tameside MBC [33, 147]
Description of rationale for service and recommendations for the future, not evaluation of service
Thomson et al (2004)[95]
Discussion of problems involved in rigorous scientific evaluation of social interventions – including welfare rights advice – but no evaluation of specific intervention.
Venables (2004)[148]
Annual report of welfare rights service not based in a healthcare setting.
Watson (2000)[149]
Multidisciplinary intervention project with small welfare rights component but no evaluation of welfare rights component in isolation.
Waterhouse (1996)[150]
Profile of users of a welfare rights advice service in primary care, along with advice sought, service provided and discussion of logistic issues. No evaluation of effect on clients.
Waterhouse (2003)[151]
Report on logistical problems and solutions to setting up welfare advice service in primary care. No evaluation of effect on clients.
Waterhouse and Benson (2002)[152]
Background paper proposing establishment of a welfare rights service within a PCT. No evaluation of new project.
West Berkshire CAB (2004)[153]
Report of service activity and financial statement – no evaluation of service.
Williams (1982)[154]
Description of a hospital based services. Evaluation limited to type of contacts and activity engaged in by welfare advisor.
Interventions delivered
Interventions delivered took a number of different forms. Some identification of who delivered the intervention was reported in 54 (98%) cases. In 30 (55%) instances all or some of the advice was delivered by employees of, or volunteers for, the CAB. In a further 22 (40%) studies all or some of the advice was delivered by welfare rights workers, officers and advisers – sometimes, but not always, explicitly identified as employees of local government.
The location where advice was delivered was reported in 54 (98%) cases. In 31 (57%) instances advice was delivered only in primary care premises such as general practice surgeries or health centres. In a further 16 (29%) cases advice was delivered in primary care premises along with one or more other locations, including clients' homes, hospitals and local CAB. Overall, 18 (33%) studies offered advice within clients' own homes – either exclusively or as an available option.
The referral system by which individuals gained access to the welfare rights advice was reported in 44 (80%) studies. In 32 (73%) studies referral could be from any member of the primary care team, a member of another relevant agency, via self referral from clients or via a combination of these modes. In 11 (25%) studies there were more formal eligibility criteria and invitational processes.
Criteria for who was eligible to receive the welfare rights advice given were reported in 31 (56%) studies. In 14 (45%) studies all patients registered at the general practice or practices participating in the project were eligible to receive advice. In a further 15 (48%) studies some sort of screening or sampling procedure was used to restrict eligibility to certain subgroups of the population – often those suffering from particular conditions or over a certain age. In two cases it was explicitly stated that welfare rights advice was only offered for a limited number of specified benefits (Attendance Allowance and Disability Living Allowance in both cases)[24, 25].
The size of the population eligible to receive the advice given was reported in 17 (31%) studies. Eligible populations ranged in size from 1690 to 313 510 with a median of 23 039.
Health and social outcomes – studies with a comparison or control group
Results from studies that reported the use of a comparison or control group are summarised in Table 6. Of the seven studies with a control or comparison group that reported non-financial outcomes, only one[23] randomly assigned individuals to the intervention or control group.
Table 6
health and social outcomes (validated measurement instruments), studies with a control or comparison group (studies included in the review)
Authors (date)
Outcome measure
Nature of control/comparison group
Random allocation?
Control group N at baseline
Intervention group N at baseline
Control group mean score at baseline
Intervention group mean score at baseline
Follow up period
Control N at follow up
Intervention N at follow up
Control group mean score at follow up
Intervention group man score at follow up
p-value*
Abbott & Hobby (1999)[79]
SF36 physical functioning (change in score)
Those whose income didn't increase following advice allocated to comparison group
No
20
48
NR
NR
6 months
20
48
0
2.4
p > 0.05
SF36 role functioning physical (change in score)
No
20
48
NR
NR
6 months
20
48
-2.5
2.1
p > 0.05
SF36 bodily pain (change in score)
No
20
48
NR
NR
6 months
20
48
1
-0.5
p > 0.05
SF36 general health (change in score)
No
20
48
NR
NR
6 months
20
48
2.5
3.3
p > 0.05
SF36 vitality (change in score)
No
20
48
NR
NR
6 months
20
48
-7
7.7
p = 0.001
SF36 social functioning (change in score)
No
20
48
NR
NR
6 months
20
48
-1.3
2.9
p > 0.05
SF36 role functioning emotional (change in score)
No
20
48
NR
NR
6 months
20
48
8.3
14.6
p > 0.05
SF36 mental health (change in score)
No
20
48
NR
NR
6 months
20
48
-4.8
7.2
p = 0.019
Abbott & Hobby (2002)[34]
SF36 physical functioning
Those whose income didn't increase following advice allocated to comparison group
No
50
150
34
29.5
6 months
50
150
34.2
30.6
p = 0.65
SF36 physical functioning
No
50
150
34
29.5
12 months
50
150
37.7
28.9
p = 0.17
SF36 role functioning physical
No
50
150
15.5
18.9
6 months
50
150
24.5
28.1
p = 0.5
SF36 role functioning physical
No
50
150
15.5
18.9
12 months
50
150
27
26
p = 0.74
SF36 bodily pain
No
50
150
29.2
34.8
6 months
50
150
30
43.1
p = 0.013
SF36 bodily pain
No
50
150
29.2
34.8
12 months
50
150
36.4
39.4
p = 0.71
SF36 general health
No
50
150
35.6
31.7
6 months
50
150
34
32.3
p = 0.59
SF36 general health
No
50
150
35.6
31.7
12 months
50
150
32.3
32.1
p = 0.35
SF36 vitality
No
50
150
33.2
28.7
6 months
50
150
28.4
32.3
p = 0.13
SF36 vitality
No
50
150
33.2
28.7
12 months
50
150
29.2
28.4
p = 0.26
SF36 social functioning
No
50
150
45.8
42.3
6 months
50
150
52.5
50.2
p = 0.58
SF36 social functioning
No
50
150
45.8
42.3
12 months
50
150
54.6
49.2
p = 0.58
SF36 role functioning emotional
No
50
150
48.7
40.8
6 months
50
150
36.7
51.7
p = 0.17
SF36 role functioning emotional
No
50
150
48.7
40.8
12 months
50
150
42.7
52.2
p = 0.02
SF36 mental health
No
50
150
57.1
53
6 months
50
150
56
55.9
p = 0.84
SF36 mental health
No
50
150
57.1
53
12 months
50
150
56
58.3
p = 0.03
Emanuel & Begum (2000)[90]
HADS anxiety
Those whose income didn't increase following advice allocated to comparison group
No
28
12
12.03
12
9 months
28
13
11.14
12.58
p > 0.05
HADS depression
No
28
12
8.21
9.75
9 months
28
13
7.86
9.33
p > 0.05
MYMOP symptom 1
No
28
12
4.48
4.64
9 months
28
13
3.86
4.36
p > 0.05
MYMOP symptom 2
No
28
12
3.59
4.67
9 months
28
13
2.41
5.33
p > 0.05
MYMOP activity
No
28
12
4.17
5.7
9 months
28
13
3.83
5
p > 0.05
MYMOP wellbeing
No
28
12
3.86
4.55
9 months
28
13
3.14
4.65
p > 0.05
MYMOP profile
No
28
12
4.53
4.28
9 months
28
13
3.44
4.79
p > 0.05
GP consultations in last 9 months
Control identified as next in individual on practice register matched for age and sex.
No
39
39
70
187
9 months
39
39
111
165
p > 0.05
prescriptions in last 9 months
No
39
39
122
239
9 months
39
39
146
278
p > 0.05
referrals to secondary care in last 9 months
No
39
39
3
21
9 months
39
39
5
18
p > 0.05
Visits to A&E in last 9 months
No
39
39
0
1
9 months
39
39
2
0
p > 0.05
practice nurse contacts in last 9 months
No
39
39
13
12
9 months
39
39
6
11
p > 0.05
home visits in last 9 months
No
39
39
5
3
9 months
39
39
1
3
p > 0.05
out of hours calls in last 9 months
No
39
39
2
3
9 months
39
39
3
5
p > 0.05
social service referrals in last 9 months
No
39
39
0
0
9 months
39
39
0
0
p > 0.05
cervical cancer screening in last 9 months
No
39
39
1
1
9 months
39
39
5
7
p > 0.05
Reading et al (2002)[72]
Edinburgh postnatal depression scale
Six practices recruited – three allocated to intervention group, three to control group.
Yes
173
88
7.7
9.7
NR
153
66
7.1
8.1
p > 0.05
Prevalence of maternal smoking
Yes
173
88
25
34
NR
153
66
20
36
p > 0.05
Maternal non-routine GP visits per year
Yes
173
88
NR
NR
NR
153
66
3.1
3.5
p > 0.05
Maternal prescriptions
Yes
173
88
NR
NR
NR
153
66
2.4
2.1
p > 0.05
Child general health "very good"
Yes
173
88
NR
NR
NR
153
66
51
44
p > 0.05
Child more than 2 minor illnesses in last 3 months
Yes
173
88
NR
NR
NR
153
66
18
22
p > 0.05
Child accident requiring attention in last year
Yes
173
88
NR
NR
NR
153
66
10
6
p > 0.05
Child behaviour problems
Yes
173
88
NR
NR
NR
153
66
5
10
p > 0.05
Child sleeping problems
Yes
173
88
12
13
NR
153
66
12
14
p > 0.05
Child currently breast fed or stopped aged >4 months
Yes
173
88
31
31
NR
153
66
23
17
p > 0.05
Child non-routine GP visits per year
Yes
173
88
NR
NR
NR
153
66
4.2
4.2
p > 0.05
Child prescriptions
Yes
173
88
NR
NR
NR
153
66
2.4
2
p > 0.05
Veitch (1995) GP[21]
NHP total score
Those identified by control practices who would have been referred had service been available.
No
5
5
NR
NR
NR
5
5
NR
NR
p > 0.05
NHP energy
No
5
5
NR
NR
NR
5
5
NR
NR
p > 0.05
NHP pain
No
5
5
NR
NR
NR
5
5
NR
NR
p > 0.05
NHP emotional reaction
No
5
5
NR
NR
NR
5
5
NR
NR
p > 0.05
NHP sleep
No
5
5
NR
NR
NR
5
5
NR
NR
p > 0.05
NHP social isolation
No
5
5
NR
NR
NR
5
5
NR
NR
p > 0.05
NHP physical mobility
No
5
5
NR
NR
NR
5
5
NR
NR
p = 0.09
Veitch (1995) mental health[21]
NHP total score
Those identified by control mental health centres who would have been referred had service been available.
No
12
36
NR
NR
NR
12
18
NR
NR
p = 0.4588
NHP energy
No
12
36
NR
NR
NR
12
18
NR
NR
p = 0.2312
NHP pain
No
12
36
NR
NR
NR
12
18
NR
NR
p = 0.0700
NHP emotional reaction
No
12
36
NR
NR
NR
12
18
NR
NR
p = 0.0466
NHP sleep
No
12
36
NR
NR
NR
12
18
NR
NR
p = 0.3095
NHP social isolation
No
12
36
NR
NR
NR
12
18
NR
NR
p = 0.4872
NHP physical mobility
No
12
36
NR
NR
NR
12
18
NR
NR
p = 0.1312
Dow & Boaz (1994)[23]
applied for award
Random allocation to intervention/control group
Yes
389
387
0
0
6 months
311
303
20
63
p < 0.001
applied for award
Yes
389
387
0
0
8 months
311
303
26
67
p < 0.05
applied for award
Yes
389
387
0
0
11 months
311
303
26
67
p < 0.05
received award
Yes
389
387
0
0
6 months
311
303
8
17
p < 0.05
received award
Yes
389
387
0
0
8 months
311
303
12
22
p < 0.05
received award
Yes
389
387
0
0
11 months
311
303
13
23
p < 0.051
*comparison of change in score in intervention group with change in score in control or comparison group; SF36 = short form 36; MYMOP = Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile scale; GP = general practitioner; A&E = accident and emergency; NHP = Nottingham Health Profile; NR = not reported
Outcome measures used included the Short Form 36 (SF-36 – a general health scale)[26, 27], the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS – a questionnaire commonly used to screen for anxiety or depression)[28], the Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile scale (MYMOP – a patient generated wellbeing scale)[29], the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP – a quality of life scale)[30], and the Edinburgh Post-natal Depression Scale[31], as well as whether or not benefits had been applied for or received, and a variety of measures of use of health services. The size of intervention groups at follow up ranged from 13 to 303 with five studies reporting intervention group sizes at follow up of less than 70. Control or comparison group sizes at follow up ranged from 12 to 311 with five studies having control or comparison group sizes at follow up of less than 51. Follow up periods ranged from six to 12 months.
The majority of studies assessed the effect of the advice by comparing change in scores between baseline and follow up in the control or comparison group with the intervention group. Out of 72 separate comparisons reported, 11 (15%) were statistically significant at the 5% level including comparisons relating to SF36 vitality, SF36 mental health, SF36 bodily pain, SF36 role functioning emotional, SF36 mental health, NHP emotional reactions and the proportion of participants who had both applied for and received an award.
Health and social outcomes – before-and-after study design
The six studies that reported non-financial results using recognised measurement scales and a before-and-after study design are summarised in Table 7. These studies used four different outcome measures – the SF36, HADS, MYMOP and NHP. Sample sizes included in follow up ranged from 22 to 244 with five out of six studies completing follow up on less than 55 individuals. Reported follow up periods ranged from six to 12 months. Out of 59 separate statistical comparisons reported, 6 (10%) were found to be significant – SF36 vitality, SF36 role functioning emotional, SF36 mental health, SF36 general health, NHP pain and NHP emotional reactions. Three studies, including one with a follow up sample size of 244 at six months and 200 at 12 months, reported no statistically significant comparisons at all.
Table 7
Quantitative scalar health outcomes, before and after studies (studies included in the review)
Authors (date)
Outcome measure
Baseline N
Baseline mean score
Follow up period
Follow up N
Follow up mean score
p-value*
Abbott & Hobby (1999)[79]
SF36 physical functioning
48
20.8
before vs after income increase
48
23.1
p > 0.05
SF36 role functioning physical
48
12.5
before vs after income increase
48
14.6
p > 0.05
SF36 bodily pain
48
25.5
before vs after income increase
48
24.9
p > 0.05
SF36 general health
48
26.7
before vs after income increase
48
30
p > 0.05
SF36 vitality
48
20.8
before vs after income increase
48
28.5
p = 0.002
SF36 social functioning
48
29.4
before vs after income increase
48
32
p > 0.05
SF 36 role functioning emotional
48
36.8
before vs after income increase
48
51.4
p = 0.037
SF36 mental health
48
45.9
before vs after income increase
48
53.1
p = 0.005
Abbott & Hobby (2002)[34]
SF36 physical functioning
345
35.8
6 months
244
31.5
p > 0.05
SF36 physical functioning
345
35.8
12 months
200
30.6
p > 0.05
SF36 role functioning physical
345
22.8
6 months
244
18.9
p > 0.05
SF36 role functioning physical
345
22.8
12 months
200
18
p > 0.05
SF36 bodily pain
345
35.7
6 months
244
33.2
p > 0.05
SF36 bodily pain
345
35.7
12 months
200
33.4
p > 0.05
SF36 general health
345
34.8
6 months
244
32.9
p > 0.05
SF36 general health
345
34.8
12 months
200
32.6
p > 0.05
SF36 vitality
345
31.3
6 months
244
29.9
p > 0.05
SF36 vitality
345
31.3
12 months
200
29.8
p > 0.05
SF36 social functioning
345
40.9
6 months
244
42.5
p > 0.05
SF36 social functioning
345
40.9
12 months
200
43.2
p > 0.05
SF36 role functioning emotional
345
40.9
6 months
244
40.4
p > 0.05
SF36 role functioning emotional
345
40.9
12 months
200
42.8
p > 0.05
SF36 mental health
345
51.7
6 months
244
53.1
p > 0.05
SF36 mental health
345
51.7
12 months
200
54
p > 0.05
Emanuel & Begum (2000)[90]
HADS anxiety
40
12.03
9 months
40
11.58
p > 0.05
HADS depression
40
8.68
9 months
40
8.3
p > 0.05
MYMOP symptom 1
31
4.58
9 months
31
4.1
p > 0.05
MYMOP symptom 2
25
3.92
9 months
25
3.48
p > 0.05
MYMOP activity 1
27
4.67
9 months
27
4.26
p > 0.05
MYMOP wellbeing
31
4.13
9 months
31
3.71
p > 0.05
MYMOP profile
31
4.45
9 months
31
3.94
p > 0.05
Greasley (2003)[95]
SF36 physical functioning
22
39.09
6 months
22
48.64
p > 0.05
SF36 physical functioning
22
39.09
12 months
22
57.50
p > 0.05
SF36 role functioning physical
22
30.11
6 months
22
36.36
p > 0.05
SF36 role functioning physical
22
30.11
12 months
22
40.34
p > 0.05
SF36 bodily pain
22
30.45
6 months
22
25.91
p > 0.05
SF36 bodily pain
22
30.45
12 months
22
29.18
p > 0.05
SF36 general health
22
22.90
6 months
22
31.09
p < 0.002
SF36 general health
22
22.90
12 months
22
33.59
p < 0.076
SF36 vitality
22
25.28
6 months
22
26.98
ANOVA across 3 time points, p < 0.079
SF36 vitality
22
25.28
12 months
22
33.52
SF36 social functioning
22
34.09
6 months
22
43.75
ANOVA across 3 time points, p < 0.077
SF36 social functioning
22
34.09
12 months
22
43.75
SF36 role functioning emotional
22
34.85
6 months
22
47.72
p > 0.05
SF36 role functioning emotional
22
34.85
12 months
22
39.77
p > 0.05
SF36 mental health
22
37.14
6 months
22
42.85
p > 0.05
SF36 mental health
22
37.14
12 months
22
47.86
p < 0.076
Greasley (2003)[95] cont.
HADS anxiety
22
13.31
6 months
22
11.73
ANOVA across 3 time points, p < 0.051
HADS anxiety
22
13.31
12 months
22
11.36
HADS depression
22
10.59
6 months
22
10.41
p > 0.05
HADS depression
22
10.59
12 months
22
9.59
p > 0.05
Veitch (1995) – GP[21]
NHP total score
52
Not reported
6 months
52
Not reported
p-0.6344
NHP energy
52
Not reported
6 months
52
Not reported
p = 0.3970
NHP pain
52
Not reported
6 months
52
Not reported
p = 0.8368
NHP emotional reactions
52
Not reported
6 months
52
Not reported
p = 0.4249
NHP sleep
52
Not reported
6 months
52
Not reported
p = 0.3138
NHP social isolation
52
Not reported
6 months
52
Not reported
p = 0.9011
NHP physical mobility
52
Not reported
6 months
52
Not reported
p = 0.8489
Veitch (1995) – mental health[21]
NHP total score
52
Not reported
6 months
52
Not reported
p = 0.1084
NHP energy
52
Not reported
6 months
52
Not reported
p = 0.3359
NHP pain
52
Not reported
6 months
52
Not reported
p = 0.0127
NHP emotional reactions
52
Not reported
6 months
52
Not reported
p = 0.0333
NHP sleep
52
Not reported
6 months
52
Not reported
p = 0.1309
NHP social isolation
52
Not reported
6 months
52
Not reported
p = 0.8928
NHP physical mobility
52
Not reported
6 months
52
Not reported
p = 0.2061
*comparison of follow up versus baseline score; SF36 = short form 36; MYMOP = Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile scale; HADS = Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; NHP = Nottingham Health Profile
Seven studies reported health and social results using in-house questionnaires with little evidence of validation. These are summarised in Table 8. These studies found consistently high levels of clients agreeing with statements concerning the positive impact of the advice on their health, quality of life and living situations.
Table 8
Quantitative non-scalar health and social outcomes, studies without a control or comparison group (studies included in the review)
Authors (date)
Sample size and composition
Sample selection strategy
Data collection method
Summary of results
Abbott & Hobby (1999)[79]
48 clients
all clients whose income increased as a result of the advice
structured interview
69% felt increase in income "affected how they felt about life and/or that their health had improved"
Borland (2004)[83, 84]
1088 clients
all clients asked to complete questionnaire
postal questionnaire
88% felt better after seeing the advice worker
Broseley Health and Advice Partnership (2004)[86]
unspecified number of clients
not reported
postal questionnaire
100% "felt less worried or stressed" following the advice 75% "had more money to buy food or provide heating" following the advice 75% "felt better in themselves" following the advice
Hastie (2003)[98]
86 clients
not reported
postal questionnaire
87% thought the service "made a positive difference to them" 83% "felt less worried, calmer and supported" following the advice 60% "felt their health had improved" following the advice 53% "felt that their housing situation had improved" following the advice
Lishman-Peat & Brown (2002)[105]
34 clients
not reported
structured interview
73% "felt happier having been helped by ad advisor, even if that help did not result in extra income"
Sedgefield and district AIS (2004)[113]
33 clients
not reported
postal questionnaire
73% felt advice had "improved quality of life"
Vaccarello (2004)[115]
unspecified number of clients
10% random sample of clients invited to take part
postal questionnaire
98% felt service "had improved their quality of life" 91% said the service "had helped them to keep independent and remain in their own home" 83% "felt they were able to manage more safely in their homes" following the advice 77% felt they "cope better with their day-to-day living" following the advice
Ferguson & Simmons[93]
unspecified number of clients
not reported
not reported
46% felt "less anxious or worried" after seeing the advisor 11% "reported an improvement in their health" 13% "reported that they could now afford a better diet" 13% "stated that they could afford increased heating" as a result of the advice
Health and social outcomes – qualitative studies
Aspects of the qualitative investigations within studies included in the review are summarised in Table 9. The 14 studies that reported qualitative data collected information from a variety of individuals including those who received advice, advice givers and primary care staff. Sample sizes ranged from six to 41. In 12 of the 14 (86%) studies, data were collected via interviews with participants whilst questionnaires were relied on in two (14%) cases. Six of 12 (50%) studies that reported a rationale for participant selection, gave a theoretical reason for participant selection, rather than reporting that selection was random, opportunistic or just those who responded to a postal questionnaire. The analytical approach used for drawing results from the data was reported in 10 (71%) cases.
Table 9
Quality of qualitative studies (studies included in the review)
Authors (date)
Sample Size
Sample composition
Sample selection strategy
Data collection method
Analytical method
Abbott & Hobby (2002)[34]
6
clients
illustrative of "complex interactions between social situation, income and health"
interviews
development of case studies
Actions (2004)[81]
Not stated
clients
Not stated
questionnaire with free text
non stated – verbatim reporting of free text comments
Bowran (1997)[85]
25
17 successful claimants, 7 unsuccessful claimants
all those seen in 1996 invited to take part, 43 consented, purposefully sampled
focus groups and telephone unstructured interviews
thematic analysis
MacMillan & CAB Partnership (2004)[106]
38
clients
Those clients who gave permission to be contacted for research
telephone interview
not stated – verbatim reporting of comments given
Moffatt et al (2004)[70]
11
all white, 7 women, age range 46–76 years, all unemployed/retired/unable to work, all chronic health problems, 8 never used welfare advice before
purposeful of those who benefited financially
semi-structured interviews
establish analytical categories, grouping into overarching key themes
Moffatt (2004)[109]
25
14 in intervention arm, 14 female, mean age 75
purposeful to get those who did and didn't receive intervention and those who did and didn't benefit financially
semi-structured interviews
development of conceptual framework and thematic charting
Reading et al (2002)[72]
10
5 service users and 5 non-service users who were eligible and expressed debt concerns at start of project
random selection of two groups represented
semi-structure interviews
modified grounded theory with more descriptive approach
Sherratt et al (2000)[77]
41
13 patients
4 patients randomly chosen per month and invited to take part
semi-structured interviews with clients, focus groups with staff
thematic analysis
Woodcock (2004)[117]
Not stated
clients
all clients seen sent satisfaction questionnaire
postal questionnaire with free text
not stated – verbatim reporting of few text comments
Some of the common themes identified in the qualitative results are listed in Box 4 (see Figure 4). Money gained as a result of the advice was commonly reported as being spent on healthier food, avoidance of debt, household bills, transport and socialising. A number of negative issues concerning the advice were raised, primarily by general practitioners. These included the suggestion that the health benefits of increased welfare benefits may be temporary or offset by ongoing, irreversible, health deterioration.
Figure 4
Box 4. Common areas identified in qualitative work.
×
Financial outcomes
Data on either lump sums (generally back dated payments and arrears for the period between claim submission and claim approval) or recurring benefits or both gained as a result of the advice were reported in 28 cases (51%). Financial data from these studies are summarised in Table 10. Although a number of other studies reported some information on financial outcomes, this was often given as a combined figure of both lump sum payments and recurring benefits – making comparisons difficult. Furthermore, the specific benefits gained for clients was inconsistently reported and are not, therefore, reported here. The studies reporting analysable financial data gained a mean of £194 (US$353, €283) lump sum plus £832 (US$1514, €1215) per year in recurring benefits per client seen – a total of £1026 (US$1867, €1498) in the first year following the advice per client seen. As, the number of successful claimants was only reported in 17 (59%) cases where all other financial data were reported, we have not reported gains per successful claimant. As the number of successful claimants is likely to be less than the total number of clients seen, the actual financial benefit to those who successfully claimed is likely to be greater than the figures summarised here. Furthermore, a number of authors stated that their data did not include the outcomes of claims or appeals still pending at the time of reporting, making the definitive amount gained as a result of advice likely to be greater still.
Table 10
Quantitative financial outcomes (studies included in review where data provided)
Authors (date)
Number of clients seen
Total lump sum/one off payments gained
Mean lump sum/one off payments per client seen
Recurring benefits gained (per year)
Mean recurring benefits (per year) per client seen
Bennett (1997)[82]
49
£28 121.00
£573.898
£41 860.00
£854.29
Bundy (2002)[87]
561
£183 147.00
£326.47
£762 042.00
£1358.36
Bundy (2003)[88]
818
£261 231.00
£319.35
£474 587.00
£580.18
Coppell et al (1999)[43]
270
£15 863.00
£58.75
£28 028.00
£103.81
Cornwallis & O;Neill (1997)[65]
102
£66 785.00
£654.75
not reported
not reported
Derbyshire CC WRS (1997)[89]
428
£73 643.07
£172.06
£527 352.90
£1232.13
Derbyshire CC WRS (1998a)[22]
480
£117 405.20
£244.59
£573 995.20
£1195.82
Derbyshire CC WRS (1998b)[22]
290
£56 967.87
£196.44
£374 630.40
£1291.83
Frost-Gaskin et al (2003)[66]
153
£60 323.34
£394.27
£281 805.80
£1841.87
Greasley (2003)[95] & Greasley and Small (2005)[96]
2484
£431 198.00
£173.59
£1 940 543.00
£781.22
Griffiths (1992)[97]
157
£32 708.00
£208.33
£87 131.20
£554.98
Hastie (2003)[98]
492
£39 688.00
£80.67
£173 108.00
£351.85
High Peak CAB (1995)[99]
39
not reported
not reported
£38 646.40
£990.93
High Peak CAB (2001)[100]
236
£9 069.74
£38.43
£24 934.52
£105.65
High Peak CAB (2003)[101]
156
£4765.63
£30.55
£60 201.96
£385.91
Hoskins et al (in press)[102]
630
£119 515.44
£189.71
£1 016 908.70
£1 614.14
Memel & Gubbay (1999)[57]
46
not reported
not reported
£73 872.00
£1605.91
Memel et al (2002)[24]
19
not reported
not reported
£38 725.00
£2038.16
Middlesbrough WR (1999)[107]
272
not reported
not reported
£473 053.00
£1739.17
Middleton et al (1993a)[69]
52
£10 393.00
£199.87
£14 359.00
£276.13
Middleton et al (1993b)[69]
583
£12 559.80
£21.54
£8 373.20
£14.36
Moffatt (2004)[109]
25
£5 766.00
£230.64
£37 442.08
£1497.68
Paris & Player (1993)[71]
150
£3 371.00
£22.47
£54 929.58
£366.20
Reading et al (2002)[72]
23
£4 389.00
£190.83
£6 480.00
£281.74
Southwark CC MAC (1998)[114]
621
£160 593.00
£258.60
£390 500.00
£628.82
Vaccarello (2004)[115]
206
£11 433.00
£55.50
£137 819.00
£669.02
Veitch (1995)[21] – mental health
35
£16 122.90
£460.65
£25 581.40
£730.90
Veitch (1995)[21] – GP
37
£28 783.69
£777.94
£74 025.64
£2000.69
Widdowfield & Rickard (1996)[116]
106
not reported
not reported
£183 790.20
£1733.87
Totals
£1 753 843 and 9038 clients, mean = £194 per client
£7 864 910 and 9418 clients, mean = £832 per year per client
CAB = Citizen's Advice Bureau
Discussion
Summary of results
We found 55 studies reporting on the health, social and economic impact of welfare advice delivered in healthcare settings. The majority of these studies were grey literature, not published in peer reviewed journals, and were of limited scientific quality: full financial data were only reported in 50% of cases, less than 10% of studies used a control or comparison group to assess the impact of the advice, and qualitative approaches did not always reflect best practice. Only one study – based in the USA – included in the review was not UK based.
Amongst those studies included in the review, most welfare rights advice was delivered by CAB workers or local government welfare rights officers, most advice was delivered in primary care with around a third of studies offering advice in clients' homes. Few studies had restrictive eligibility criteria or referral procedures.
There was evidence that welfare rights advice delivered in healthcare settings leads to worthwhile financial benefits with a mean financial gain of £1026 per client seen in the year following advice amongst those studies reporting full financial data. This equates to around 9% of average individual gross income in the UK in 1999–2001[32]. However, this is by no means a precise estimate of typical gains: there was considerable variation in the gains reported and many studies identified that their data were incomplete with a number of claims still 'pending'.
Studies that included control or comparison groups tended to use non-specific measures of general health (e.g. SF36, NHP and HADS) and found few statistically significant differences between intervention and control or comparison groups. However, sample sizes were often small and follow up limited to a maximum of 12 months – likely to be too short a period to detect changes in health following changes in financial circumstances. Where statistically significant results were found, these tended to be in relation to measures of psychological or social, rather than physical, health. Qualitative methods were commonly used to assess both clients' and staff's perceptions of the impact of the advice. The advice was generally welcomed with extra money gained as a result of the advice commonly reported as being spent on household necessities and social activities.
Limitations of review methods
The majority of the studies included in this review were grey literature not published in peer reviewed journals and were accessed via requests for information sent to email distribution lists. Although often of limited scientific quality, we included these studies in our review as they often included legitimate data on financial benefits of the intervention and let us describe the current scope of welfare rights advice as far as possible. Because grey literature is not comprehensively indexed, it is hard to be sure that we accessed all that is available, despite our use of a systematic approach to both literature searching and data abstraction[17]. In particular, we collected very little information from non-UK settings, despite sending requests for information to a number of international distribution lists. Whilst welfare rights advice may be rare outside the UK, it is also possible that it is described differently in different contexts and that the vocabulary used in our requests for information had little meaning for those outside the UK. We did not conduct searches of non-English language electronic databases or place posts in other languages to international email distribution lists. These additional techniques may have revealed additional relevant work from outside the UK.
The variations and limitations of methods used by the studies included in this review meant that it was inappropriate to perform formal meta-analysis. Similarly, limitations in data availability prevented us from performing potentially interesting comparisons of the cost of providing welfare rights advice versus the financial benefits gained for clients. The interpretation of our findings and conclusions that can be drawn are, therefore, more subjective than might be the case in other systematic reviews. In order to confirm that we were using the best possible methods, we considered performing our review under the umbrella of one of the evidence and review collaborations. However, there was no obvious appropriate review group within the Cochrane Collaboration for this sort of work. The Campbell Collaboration supports systematic reviews of behavioural, social and educational interventions but were unwilling to consider inclusion of any uncontrolled studies in our review. Although this would undoubtedly have increased the overall quality of studies included, we felt it would have led to a review that was not representative of the evidence base – which is largely of poor scientific quality, as described here. This problem has been previously described[12].
Interpretation of results
Our review supports previous findings that the provision of welfare rights advice in healthcare settings is increasingly common in the UK[14, 15] – although as these are non-statutory services, coverage is inevitable patchy. However, there was also some evidence that similar programmes can be provided in other settings with one study from the USA included in the review[23]. Whilst we have found substantial evidence that welfare rights advice in healthcare settings leads to financial benefits, there is little evidence that the advice leads to measurable health and social benefits. This is primarily due to absence of good quality evidence, rather than evidence of absence of an effect.
Whilst some sort of evaluation of welfare rights advice programmes is commonplace, the scientific rigour of these evaluations appears to be limited. Many of these advice services appear to operate in conditions of limited resources. Although performing some sort of evaluation of their service is frequently a requirement of funding, additional resources to support such evaluation and the skills to conduct it rigorously are scarce.
Implications for policy, practice and research
There is now substantial evidence that welfare rights advice delivered in healthcare settings leads to financial benefits for clients – although typical levels cannot be precisely estimated. There is little need to conduct additional work to determine whether such advice has a financial effect, although further work is required to explore the characteristics of those most likely to benefit financially in order that such advice can be effectively targeted.
As there is little evidence either that welfare rights advice in healthcare settings does or does not have health and social effects, and this remains an intervention with theoretical potential to improve health, there is a need for further studies to examine these effects using robust methods. In particular, future work should: use randomised and controlled approaches; put careful consideration into the outcome measures to be used – general measures of health such as the SF36 may not be able to pick up subtle changes in psychological and social aspects of health; and make efforts to follow up participants over an appropriate time period – as the health and social effects of increased financial resources may take years, rather than months, to become apparent. There has been some discussion concerning the ethics of conducting randomised controlled trials of welfare rights advice interventions as it may be considered unethical to randomise some participants to a control group when there is good reason to believe that the intervention will lead to financial benefit for many participants[33]. However, if the control condition comprises 'usual care' and control group participants are free to seek out welfare rights advice from routine sources should they wish, it is not clear why such trials should necessarily be unethical.
There is also a need for evaluations of the effects of welfare rights advice in healthcare settings outside the UK. All welfare benefits systems are country specific and it can not be assumed that results for one country – such as the majority of those included in this review – are necessarily generalisable internationally. However, many of the conclusions of this review, in terms of how interventions are evaluated, will be applicable internationally.
Conclusion
This review has revealed the poor quality of many evaluations of welfare rights advice in healthcare settings. If firm conclusions about the health and social effects of such advice are to be drawn, future evaluative work should be well resourced and carried out by those with appropriate skills. Those funding such programmes should think carefully about the benefits of requiring evaluations to be performed without providing additional resources and skills – poor quality evaluations could be argued to be a waste of money.
This review confirms that there is a substantial under claiming of welfare benefits amongst those referred to welfare rights advice services and that such services can go some way to resolving under claiming. However, there is currently little evidence of adequate robustness and quality to indicate that such services lead to health improvements.
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to all those who responded to the requests for help with finding literature. This review was not supported by any specific funding. JA was supported by a Wellcome Trust Value in People award from Newcastle University when this review was conducted.
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Competing interests
DH, JM, SM and MW have recently completed a pilot randomised controlled trial of welfare rights advice in primary care.
Authors' contributions
MW and SM conceived the idea for this review. All authors contributed to protocol development. JA performed the literature searches, reviewed all studies found and drafted the manuscript. MW, SM, DH and JM provided second reviews for all studies included. All authors read and approve the final manuscript.
