Trial reportBMC public health2006
Randomised controlled trial of welfare rights advice accessed via primary health care: pilot study [ISRCTN61522618].
Trial report 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 13 papers, 2 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Equity and inclusion in UK adult social care: a systematic review of trials.BMC health services research · 2026Pooled it
- Collaboration between local health and local government agencies for health improvement.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- Trial
- Trial
- Review
- Primary care-based interventions to address the financial needs of patients experiencing poverty: a scoping review of the literature.International journal for equity in health · 2021Article
- International Evidence on the Impact of Health-Justice Partnerships: A Systematic Scoping Review.Public health reviews · 2021Article
- Exploratory study of "real world" implementation of a clinical poverty tool in diverse family medicine and pediatric care settings.International journal for equity in health · 2019Article
- Impact of co-located welfare advice in healthcare settings: prospective quasi-experimental controlled study.The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science · 2017Article
- A novel income security intervention to address poverty in a primary care setting: a retrospective chart review.BMJ open · 2017Article
- HOPE: Help fOr People with money, employment, benefit or housing problems: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2017Article
- Assessing the health benefits of advice services: using research evidence and logic model methods to explore complex pathways.Health & social care in the community · 2013Review
- The acceptability and impact of a randomised controlled trial of welfare rights advice accessed via primary health care: qualitative study.BMC public health · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLittle research has directly evaluated the impact of increasing financial or material resources on health. One way of assessing this lies with assisting people to obtain full welfare benefit entitlements. In 2000-1, 2.3 million pensioners were living in poverty in the UK and estimates suggest that around one million do not claim the financial support to which they are entitled. The effectiveness of welfare rights advice services delivered via primary health care to promote health and reduce health inequalities is unknown.
methodsThe main objectives of this study were to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a randomised controlled trial of welfare rights advice in a community setting and identify appropriate health and social outcome measures in order to plan a definitive trial. This was a single blind, community-based, pilot randomised controlled trial. 126 men and women aged 60 years and over, recruited from 4 general practices in Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, participated. The intervention comprised a structured welfare rights assessment followed by active assistance with welfare benefit claims over the following 24 months. The control group received the intervention after a six month delay. A range of socio-economic, health, behavioural and psycho-social outcomes were measured.
results126 out of 400 people invited agreed to participate and 109 were followed up at 24 months. Both the intervention and research procedures were feasible and acceptable to participants and professionals involved. 68 (58%) of all participants received a welfare benefit award (31 financial, 16 non-financial and 21 both). Median time to receipt of benefits from initial assessment was 14 (range 1 to 78) weeks and median financial award was pounds 55 (Euro 81, dollar 98) per household per week. There was little evidence of health-related differences between groups or over time, which could be due to limitations of the study design.
conclusionModification of the study design, including selection of study participants, timing of interventions and length of follow up are recommended for a definitive trial. More appropriate health and psycho-social outcome measures relevant to the elderly population should be sought, particularly focussing on those issues highlighted in the accompanying qualitative study.
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.