SynthesisBMC public health2006
A systematic review of the health, social and financial impacts of welfare rights advice delivered in healthcare settings.
Synthesis in BMC public health, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
44 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Maximising the health impacts of free advice services in the UK: A mixed methods systematic review.Health & social care in the community · 2022Pooled it
- The experience of financial burden for people with multimorbidity: A systematic review of qualitative research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Pooled it
- Interventions to reduce the impact of unemployment and economic hardship on mental health in the general population: a systematic review.Psychological medicine · 2017Pooled it
- Trial
- Trial
- Randomised controlled trial of welfare rights advice accessed via primary health care: pilot study [ISRCTN61522618].BMC public health · 2006Trial
- Income Security Health Promotion: Addressing Patients' Unmet Income Needs in a Toronto Family Practice, a Qualitative Study.International journal of social determinants of health and health services · 2026Article
- Effects of the Liverpool Citizens Support Scheme on mental health-related service utilisation: evidence from a natural experiment using instrumental variable analysis.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Financial well-being advice delivered within the context of social prescribing in the UK and the Republic of Ireland.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- The impacts of Liverpool Citizen's Advice on Prescription (CAP) on mental health outcomes- an Instrumental Variable (IV) approach.SSM - population health · 2025Article
- How do people with multimorbidity prioritise healthcare when faced with tighter financial constraints? A national survey with a choice experiment component.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Exploring the feasibility of evaluating a community alliance welfare advice programme co-located in primary care in Bradford: an uncontrolled before and after study.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Implementing social interventions in primary care.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2021Article
- Should we screen for poverty in primary care?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021Article
- Effectiveness of community interventions for protecting and promoting the mental health of working-age adults experiencing financial uncertainty: a systematic review.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2021Review
- A comprehensive review of prioritised interventions to improve the health and wellbeing of persons with lived experience of homelessness.Campbell systematic reviews · 2021Review
- Article
- Health Inequalities During COVID-19 and Their Effects on Morbidity and Mortality.Journal of healthcare leadership · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSocio-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.
methodsPublished 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.
results55 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.
conclusionThere 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.