ArticleBMC health services research2025
Health and social care use, costs, and satisfaction among key workers accessing Resilience Hub support during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Key workers are vulnerable to adverse mental health. To ensure service sustainability during COVID-19, Resilience Hubs were established across England offering outreach, screening, and mental health support. This evaluation aimed to describe wider service use, associated costs, and satisfaction among Hub clients (key workers) accessing Hub support. Clients accessing support across four Hubs were invited to complete a service use questionnaire, between 5 and 8 months post referral, collecting satisfaction, wider service use and cost data. Exploratory linear regression assessed the relationship between demographic variables and service use. Most Hub clients reported Hub contact post referral (219/299, 73.2%), with many accessing mental health support (171/299, 57.2%) or on waitlists (34/299, 11.4%). Satisfaction was high, with median helpfulness rated 92 (out of 100), and many stating that Hubs either fully (148/299, 49.5%) or partially (54/299, 18.1%) met their needs. Mental health support accounted for most service use, with higher total service use and costs when including Hub services (£514 versus £213). Key workers have complex needs. Hub services helped clients to access support, with high reported satisfaction indicating that Hubs met clients needs. Further research is required to assess how service use varies according to occupation or demographic characteristics, and whether Hubs are clinically and cost-effective.
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.