Results for 'evidence'
Results 1 - 3 of 3
GRAHAM Jullie Tran, RUTHERFORD Katy
This report looks at the value of peer support and the part it can play in a people-powered health system. It also shares practical insights from 10 organisations involved in Nesta’s Centre for Social Action Innovation Fund on how peer support can be effectively scaled and spread to benefit more people. The ten case studies provide details of the peer support innovations and evidence of their impact to date. The peer support models developed included one-to-one peer support, group peer support and digital approaches. From the ten peer support innovations, the report highlights key learning about the realities of delivering peer support across a range of conditions and with very different groups of people. These covers engaging people in peer support; recruiting, training and supporting peer facilitators; and evaluating and improving peer support. The report finds that peer support has the potential to improve psychosocial outcomes, behaviour, wellbeing outcomes, and service use. It also found that reciprocity was an important motivator for volunteers and that the most effective volunteers were trained and well supported. It concludes with what the future might hold for those working with and commissioning peer support in England. Recommendations include developing relationships with public service professionals to help them understand the value of peer support and embedding peer support alongside existing services.
This report explores the evidence base around effective and cost-effective preventative services and the role that they can play in supporting older people’s independence, health and wellbeing. It looks at the available evidence to support the benefits of preventative services in mitigating social inclusion and loneliness and improving physical health. It also highlights evidence on the effectiveness of information, advice and signposting in helping people access preventative services and the benefits of providing practical interventions such as minor housing repairs. It considers a wide range of primary and secondary preventative services, including: health screening, vaccinations, day services, reablement, and care coordination and management. It then outlines two teritary prevention services which aim to prevent imminent admission to acute health settings. These are community based rapid response services and ambulatory emergency care units, which operation within the secondary care environment. The report then highlights gaps in the evidence base and and looks at what is needed to develop preventative services to achieve health and independent ageing by 2013. It looks at the changes needed in service funding and commissioning, the balance between individual responsibility and organisational support, and how preventative services should be implemented.
The importance of health, social care and other sectors working together has been recognised for many decades by governments of all political persuasion. This is true within the current policy environment, in which integration has been proposed as the binding force to connect an increasingly diverse range of providers around individual patients and their families. Initiatives to promote integration are being introduced at all levels of the system, with a patient experience based narrative setting the standard against which success should be judged. This integration is being encouraged not only in respect of statutorily funded clinical, public health and social care services but also with other policy areas such as housing and leisure and other sectors (in particular the third sector). Despite this continued belief in policy that integration will lead to a more preventative focus, there is not a strong research base to support this view. However, accepting the limitations of the evidence base, this Policy Paper looks at five key lessons which can still be drawn for national policy makers with responsibility for promoting integration and prevention. These are to: start with what is fragmented; be clear what is meant (by integration); know what success looks like; understand the impact; and be wary of further change. The paper draws attention to key findings from reviews of integrated care; and notes that the interventions that have been most effective have been those with more preventative approaches. It concludes that patients and service users have to integrate support from statutory services, community resources and their personal networks to improve their quality of life and maintain their health and independence. To understand how and when to integrate, we first need to be clear what links are required and how they could operate in practice. That is why fragmentation rather than integration should be the starting point to achieve a prevention orientated health and social care system. This policy paper is based on a discussion paper which was commissioned by the Institute for Social Change at Manchester University as part of a series of Knowledge Exchange Trials workshops which brought together academics, policy makers and programme stakeholders to facilitate exchange of ideas, expertise and research.
Results 1 - 3 of 3