Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31272984›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Impact of Universal Credit in North East England: a qualitative study of claimants and support staff.

Mandy Cheetham, Suzanne Moffatt, Michelle Addison, Alice Wiseman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

Mandy CheethamSchool of Health and Social Care, Centre for Public Health Research, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2616-9205
Suzanne MoffattFuse, The Centre for Translational Research in Public Health, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Michelle AddisonFuse, The Centre for Translational Research in Public Health, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Alice WisemanPublic Health Department, Gateshead Council, Gateshead, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K02325X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo understand the impact of the roll-out of Universal Credit (UC) from the perspectives of claimants and staff supporting them in North East England.

designQualitative study comprising interviews and focus groups.

settingGateshead and Newcastle, two localities in North East England characterised by high levels of socioeconomic deprivation, where the roll-out of UC started in 2017 as a new way to deliver welfare benefits for the UK working age population.

participants33 UC claimants with complex needs, disabilities and health conditions and 37 staff from local government, housing, voluntary and community sector organisations.

resultsParticipants' accounts of the UC claims process and the consequences of managing on UC are reported; UC negatively impacts on material wellbeing, physical and mental health, social and family lives. UC claimants described the digital claims process as complicated, disorientating, impersonal, hostile and demeaning. Claimants reported being pushed into debt, rent arrears, housing insecurity, fuel and food poverty through UC. System failures, indifference and delays in receipt of UC entitlements exacerbated the difficulties of managing on a low income. The threat of punitive sanctions for failing to meet the enhanced conditionality requirements under UC added to claimant's vulnerabilities and distress. Staff reported concerns for claimants and additional pressures on health services, local government and voluntary and community sector organisations as a result of UC.

conclusionsThe findings add considerable detail to emerging evidence of the deleterious effects of UC on vulnerable claimants' health and wellbeing. Our evidence suggests that UC is undermining vulnerable claimants' mental health, increasing the risk of poverty, hardship, destitution and suicidality. Major, evidence-informed revisions are required to improve the design and implementation of UC to prevent further adverse effects before large numbers of people move on to UC, as planned by the UK government.

Indexed as

Financial SupportSocial WelfareAdultEnglandFemaleFocus GroupsHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMental DisordersMental HealthMental Health ServicesMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchYoung Adultmental healthpublic healthqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID31272984
PMCPMC6615785

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.