Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25331912›Full record

ArticleHealth & social care in the community2015

Reaching out or missing out: approaches to outreach with family carers in social care organisations.

Jo Moriarty, Jill Manthorpe, Michelle Cornes

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health & social care in the community, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
13.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Informal carers, paramedics, chronic pain, and Twitter.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2015
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jo MoriartySocial Care Workforce Research Unit, King's College London, London, UK.
Jill Manthorpe
Michelle Cornes
King's College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Outreach is advocated as a way of improving the uptake of services among underserved populations and of filling the gaps between mainstream services and the populations they are intended to support. Despite the policy emphasis on providing better help for family carers, research consistently shows that many of those providing unpaid care to a family member or friend report difficulties in finding out about the assistance to which they are entitled. This article presents results from a concurrent mixed-methods study, which aimed to describe different ways of working with family carers in adult social care departments and to collect the views of a range of stakeholders about the advantages and disadvantages of the approaches that were identified. A total of 86 semi-structured face-to-face interviews were undertaken with a purposive sample of funders, carers' workers, representatives of voluntary organisations and family carers based in four contrasting localities. An email survey was sent to all local councils in England with social care responsibilities and resulted in a 53% response rate. Data collection took place in 2012, with a small number of interviews being completed in 2011. Our approach to data analysis combined methodological, data and theoretical triangulation. The findings presented here mainly draw on the interview data to highlight the different models of outreach that we identified. The article highlights important differences between outreach and the provision of information. It concludes that organisations providing support for carers need to consider the advantages and disadvantages of different models of outreach as they develop carers' support and the extent to which different models might be more effective than others in reaching particular types of carer.

Indexed as

CaregiversFamilyEnglandFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleSocial SupportSocial Workcarersequalitiesexclusioninformationinterviewsoutreachsocial carestigmasurvey

Identifiers

PMID25331912
PMCPMC4282470
OpenAlexW2061654826

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.