Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42621558›Full record

ReviewCochrane evidence synthesis and methods2026

Social and Health Conditions That Drive the Need and Demand for, Use of and Expenditure on Social Care in the UK: A Systematic Review.

Anna Mae Scott, Ben Amies-Cull, Emre Oguzman, James Webster, Rhys Llewellyn Thomas, Anne Mason, Laura Bojke, Matthew Quinn, Paul Clarkson, Joe Spearing and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

11 authors.

Anna Mae ScottWarwick Medical School University of Warwick Coventry UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0109-9001
Ben Amies-CullNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences University of Oxford Oxford UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7079-1288
Emre OguzmanNuffield Department of Population Health University of Oxford Oxford UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-2506-3293
James WebsterNuffield Department of Population Health University of Oxford Oxford UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6999-6959
Rhys Llewellyn ThomasNuffield Department of Population Health University of Oxford Oxford UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0124-0391
Anne MasonCentre for Health Economics University of York York UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5823-3064
Laura BojkeCentre for Health Economics University of York York UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7921-9109
Matthew QuinnNuffield Department of Population Health University of Oxford Oxford UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1655-991X
Paul ClarksonDivision of Nursing University of Manchester Manchester UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0778-312X
Joe SpearingCentre for Health Economics University of York York UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1437-1780
Sasha ShepperdNuffield Department of Population Health University of Oxford Oxford UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6384-8322

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The need for social care, in the form of practical assistance and personal care, is increasing alongside a growing older population with long-term conditions and places those with limited or no access to publicly funded care at risk of increasing levels of unmet need. Aim: This systematic review sought to understand the role of social and health conditions in the need, demand, utilization, and expenditure on social care in the United Kingdom. Methods: We searched Medline, CINAHL, EconLit, ASSIA, and the Campbell Collaboration from January 1, 2009 to April 14, 2025, and gray literature on August 21, 2024, for randomized trials, cohort studies, case control studies, and interrupted time series, cross-sectional, and modeling studies of populations aged ≥ 60 years old, in a UK setting, that examined the association of social and health conditions with the need and demand for, use of and expenditure on social care. We conducted risk of bias assessments using ROBINS-E for longitudinal studies, and intended to use Risk of Bias 2 for randomized trials. We applied GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. Results were synthesized narratively, and presented in an Evidence Gap Map. Results: We included 10 longitudinal cohort and eight cross sectional studies, study sample size ranged from 526 to > 400,000 participants. Five of the cohort studies were assessed as high risk of bias, and the cross sectional studies as moderate concern or high risk of bias. Older age was associated with increased unmet need for care in most studies, and living alone with increased unmet need for care and use of residential care. Results for ethnicity, deprivation and sex varied across studies, with studies using different measures of deprivation that limited comparability of findings. A range of long-term health conditions were assessed, some studies indicated an association with an increased need and use of care; there were mixed findings for cost. For populations with cognitive impairment or dementia, the association with age and the use and cost of care varied, there was no clear association for sex, ethnicity and living alone; a previous hospital admission or ongoing health problems that included severity of dementia were associated with increased use of care. Conclusion: Our review of UK evidence indicates that there is insufficient evidence to accurately identify populations age > 60 years that are at increasing risk for needing care due to their social and health conditions.

Indexed as

inequalitiessocial care

Identifiers

PMID42621558
PMCPMC13489229

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.