Do welfare benefit reassessments of people with mental health conditions lead to worse mental health? A prospective cohort study
Background: There have been cases of suicide following the Work Capability Assessment (WCA), a questionnaire and interview for those claiming benefits due to ill health or disability in the United Kingdom. Aims: To examine whether experiencing problems with welfare benefits, including WCA, among peo...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | International journal of social psychiatry 2020-03, Vol.66 (2), p.136-149 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 149 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 136 |
| container_title | International journal of social psychiatry |
| container_volume | 66 |
| creator | Stuart, Ruth Campbell, Sanchika Osumili, Beatrice Robinson, Emily J Frost-Gaskin, Mary Pacitti, Richard McCrone, Paul Henderson, Claire |
| description | Background:
There have been cases of suicide following the Work Capability Assessment (WCA), a questionnaire and interview for those claiming benefits due to ill health or disability in the United Kingdom.
Aims:
To examine whether experiencing problems with welfare benefits, including WCA, among people with pre-existing mental health conditions was associated with poorer mental health and wellbeing and increased health service use and costs.
Methods:
A prospective cohort study of an exposed group (n = 42) currently seeking help from a Benefits Advice Service in London and a control group (n = 45) who had recently received advice from the same service. Questionnaires at baseline and 3-, 6- and 12-month follow-ups.
Results:
The exposed group had higher mean scores for anxiety (p = .008) and depression (p = .016) at baseline and the control group higher mean scores for wellbeing at baseline (p = .034) and 12 months (p = .035). However, loss to follow-up makes overall results difficult to interpret. The control group had higher incomes throughout the study, particularly at the 12-month follow-up (p = .004), but the differences could have been accounted for by other factors. Health service costs were skewed by a few participants who used day-care services intensively or had inpatient stays. Over the study period the proportion of exposed participants engaged in benefits reassessment ranged from 50% to 88%, and 40% to 76% of controls.
Conclusion:
The hardship of living with financial insecurity and a mental health condition made it difficult for our participants to sustain involvement in a 12-month study and the frequency of benefit reviews meant that the experiences of our controls were similar to our exposed group. These limitations limit interpretation but confirm the relevance of our research. The control data raise the question of whether people with mental health conditions are being disproportionately reassessed. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1177/0020764019888955 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2320375295</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_0020764019888955</sage_id><sourcerecordid>2357339394</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-6a0a482dd211e01899fdfc58d6f0e7283888fbe5c1747ade4617ce7758e46cc63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kU1P3DAQhq0KVBbaOydkiUsvKf6IY-dUoW1LkZC40HPktcfdoGycehwQN346Xi0tAomTPZ5n3pnxS8gxZ1851_qMMcF0UzPeGmNapT6QBdc1r4RR9R5ZbNPVNn9ADhFvWYk5kx_JgeTaiMawBXn8Huk9DMEmoCsYIfSZJrCIgLiBMSONgU4QpwHofZ_XdPtoB7oGO5TIxdH3uY8j0gGsp7moxYTwGvtGz-mUIk7gcn8HpWodU6aYZ__wiewHOyB8fj6PyO-fP26Wv6qr64vL5flV5WTDctVYZmsjvBecA-OmbYMPThnfBAZaGFk-IKxAubK_th7qhmsHWitTrs418oh82emWQf7OgLnb9OhgGOwIccZOSMGkVqJVBT19g97GOY1lukIpLWUr27pQbEe5shkmCN2U-o1NDx1n3dad7q07peTkWXhebcD_L_hnRwGqHYD2D7x0fVfwCTHnmCs</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2357339394</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Do welfare benefit reassessments of people with mental health conditions lead to worse mental health? A prospective cohort study</title><source>Access via SAGE</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><creator>Stuart, Ruth ; Campbell, Sanchika ; Osumili, Beatrice ; Robinson, Emily J ; Frost-Gaskin, Mary ; Pacitti, Richard ; McCrone, Paul ; Henderson, Claire</creator><creatorcontrib>Stuart, Ruth ; Campbell, Sanchika ; Osumili, Beatrice ; Robinson, Emily J ; Frost-Gaskin, Mary ; Pacitti, Richard ; McCrone, Paul ; Henderson, Claire</creatorcontrib><description>Background:
There have been cases of suicide following the Work Capability Assessment (WCA), a questionnaire and interview for those claiming benefits due to ill health or disability in the United Kingdom.
Aims:
To examine whether experiencing problems with welfare benefits, including WCA, among people with pre-existing mental health conditions was associated with poorer mental health and wellbeing and increased health service use and costs.
Methods:
A prospective cohort study of an exposed group (n = 42) currently seeking help from a Benefits Advice Service in London and a control group (n = 45) who had recently received advice from the same service. Questionnaires at baseline and 3-, 6- and 12-month follow-ups.
Results:
The exposed group had higher mean scores for anxiety (p = .008) and depression (p = .016) at baseline and the control group higher mean scores for wellbeing at baseline (p = .034) and 12 months (p = .035). However, loss to follow-up makes overall results difficult to interpret. The control group had higher incomes throughout the study, particularly at the 12-month follow-up (p = .004), but the differences could have been accounted for by other factors. Health service costs were skewed by a few participants who used day-care services intensively or had inpatient stays. Over the study period the proportion of exposed participants engaged in benefits reassessment ranged from 50% to 88%, and 40% to 76% of controls.
Conclusion:
The hardship of living with financial insecurity and a mental health condition made it difficult for our participants to sustain involvement in a 12-month study and the frequency of benefit reviews meant that the experiences of our controls were similar to our exposed group. These limitations limit interpretation but confirm the relevance of our research. The control data raise the question of whether people with mental health conditions are being disproportionately reassessed.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0020-7640</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1741-2854</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0020764019888955</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31782680</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Adult ; Anxiety ; Anxiety - psychology ; Cohort analysis ; Control groups ; Depression - psychology ; Disability ; Female ; Health risk assessment ; Health services ; Health services utilization ; Humans ; Inpatient care ; Job insecurity ; London ; Male ; Mental depression ; Mental disorders ; Mental Health ; Middle Aged ; Prospective Studies ; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales ; Questionnaires ; Social Welfare - economics ; Social Welfare - statistics & numerical data ; Suicide ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Welfare benefits ; Well being ; Work Capacity Evaluation</subject><ispartof>International journal of social psychiatry, 2020-03, Vol.66 (2), p.136-149</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2019</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-6a0a482dd211e01899fdfc58d6f0e7283888fbe5c1747ade4617ce7758e46cc63</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-6998-5659 ; 0000-0002-9764-3840</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0020764019888955$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0020764019888955$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,21819,27924,27925,30999,43621,43622</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31782680$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Stuart, Ruth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Campbell, Sanchika</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Osumili, Beatrice</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robinson, Emily J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Frost-Gaskin, Mary</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pacitti, Richard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McCrone, Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Henderson, Claire</creatorcontrib><title>Do welfare benefit reassessments of people with mental health conditions lead to worse mental health? A prospective cohort study</title><title>International journal of social psychiatry</title><addtitle>Int J Soc Psychiatry</addtitle><description>Background:
There have been cases of suicide following the Work Capability Assessment (WCA), a questionnaire and interview for those claiming benefits due to ill health or disability in the United Kingdom.
Aims:
To examine whether experiencing problems with welfare benefits, including WCA, among people with pre-existing mental health conditions was associated with poorer mental health and wellbeing and increased health service use and costs.
Methods:
A prospective cohort study of an exposed group (n = 42) currently seeking help from a Benefits Advice Service in London and a control group (n = 45) who had recently received advice from the same service. Questionnaires at baseline and 3-, 6- and 12-month follow-ups.
Results:
The exposed group had higher mean scores for anxiety (p = .008) and depression (p = .016) at baseline and the control group higher mean scores for wellbeing at baseline (p = .034) and 12 months (p = .035). However, loss to follow-up makes overall results difficult to interpret. The control group had higher incomes throughout the study, particularly at the 12-month follow-up (p = .004), but the differences could have been accounted for by other factors. Health service costs were skewed by a few participants who used day-care services intensively or had inpatient stays. Over the study period the proportion of exposed participants engaged in benefits reassessment ranged from 50% to 88%, and 40% to 76% of controls.
Conclusion:
The hardship of living with financial insecurity and a mental health condition made it difficult for our participants to sustain involvement in a 12-month study and the frequency of benefit reviews meant that the experiences of our controls were similar to our exposed group. These limitations limit interpretation but confirm the relevance of our research. The control data raise the question of whether people with mental health conditions are being disproportionately reassessed.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Anxiety</subject><subject>Anxiety - psychology</subject><subject>Cohort analysis</subject><subject>Control groups</subject><subject>Depression - psychology</subject><subject>Disability</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Health risk assessment</subject><subject>Health services</subject><subject>Health services utilization</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Inpatient care</subject><subject>Job insecurity</subject><subject>London</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mental depression</subject><subject>Mental disorders</subject><subject>Mental Health</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Psychiatric Status Rating Scales</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Social Welfare - economics</subject><subject>Social Welfare - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Suicide</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Welfare benefits</subject><subject>Well being</subject><subject>Work Capacity Evaluation</subject><issn>0020-7640</issn><issn>1741-2854</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kU1P3DAQhq0KVBbaOydkiUsvKf6IY-dUoW1LkZC40HPktcfdoGycehwQN346Xi0tAomTPZ5n3pnxS8gxZ1851_qMMcF0UzPeGmNapT6QBdc1r4RR9R5ZbNPVNn9ADhFvWYk5kx_JgeTaiMawBXn8Huk9DMEmoCsYIfSZJrCIgLiBMSONgU4QpwHofZ_XdPtoB7oGO5TIxdH3uY8j0gGsp7moxYTwGvtGz-mUIk7gcn8HpWodU6aYZ__wiewHOyB8fj6PyO-fP26Wv6qr64vL5flV5WTDctVYZmsjvBecA-OmbYMPThnfBAZaGFk-IKxAubK_th7qhmsHWitTrs418oh82emWQf7OgLnb9OhgGOwIccZOSMGkVqJVBT19g97GOY1lukIpLWUr27pQbEe5shkmCN2U-o1NDx1n3dad7q07peTkWXhebcD_L_hnRwGqHYD2D7x0fVfwCTHnmCs</recordid><startdate>202003</startdate><enddate>202003</enddate><creator>Stuart, Ruth</creator><creator>Campbell, Sanchika</creator><creator>Osumili, Beatrice</creator><creator>Robinson, Emily J</creator><creator>Frost-Gaskin, Mary</creator><creator>Pacitti, Richard</creator><creator>McCrone, Paul</creator><creator>Henderson, Claire</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Sage Publications Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6998-5659</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9764-3840</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202003</creationdate><title>Do welfare benefit reassessments of people with mental health conditions lead to worse mental health? A prospective cohort study</title><author>Stuart, Ruth ; Campbell, Sanchika ; Osumili, Beatrice ; Robinson, Emily J ; Frost-Gaskin, Mary ; Pacitti, Richard ; McCrone, Paul ; Henderson, Claire</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-6a0a482dd211e01899fdfc58d6f0e7283888fbe5c1747ade4617ce7758e46cc63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Anxiety</topic><topic>Anxiety - psychology</topic><topic>Cohort analysis</topic><topic>Control groups</topic><topic>Depression - psychology</topic><topic>Disability</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Health risk assessment</topic><topic>Health services</topic><topic>Health services utilization</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Inpatient care</topic><topic>Job insecurity</topic><topic>London</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mental depression</topic><topic>Mental disorders</topic><topic>Mental Health</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Psychiatric Status Rating Scales</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Social Welfare - economics</topic><topic>Social Welfare - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Suicide</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Welfare benefits</topic><topic>Well being</topic><topic>Work Capacity Evaluation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Stuart, Ruth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Campbell, Sanchika</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Osumili, Beatrice</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robinson, Emily J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Frost-Gaskin, Mary</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pacitti, Richard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McCrone, Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Henderson, Claire</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>International journal of social psychiatry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Stuart, Ruth</au><au>Campbell, Sanchika</au><au>Osumili, Beatrice</au><au>Robinson, Emily J</au><au>Frost-Gaskin, Mary</au><au>Pacitti, Richard</au><au>McCrone, Paul</au><au>Henderson, Claire</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Do welfare benefit reassessments of people with mental health conditions lead to worse mental health? A prospective cohort study</atitle><jtitle>International journal of social psychiatry</jtitle><addtitle>Int J Soc Psychiatry</addtitle><date>2020-03</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>66</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>136</spage><epage>149</epage><pages>136-149</pages><issn>0020-7640</issn><eissn>1741-2854</eissn><abstract>Background:
There have been cases of suicide following the Work Capability Assessment (WCA), a questionnaire and interview for those claiming benefits due to ill health or disability in the United Kingdom.
Aims:
To examine whether experiencing problems with welfare benefits, including WCA, among people with pre-existing mental health conditions was associated with poorer mental health and wellbeing and increased health service use and costs.
Methods:
A prospective cohort study of an exposed group (n = 42) currently seeking help from a Benefits Advice Service in London and a control group (n = 45) who had recently received advice from the same service. Questionnaires at baseline and 3-, 6- and 12-month follow-ups.
Results:
The exposed group had higher mean scores for anxiety (p = .008) and depression (p = .016) at baseline and the control group higher mean scores for wellbeing at baseline (p = .034) and 12 months (p = .035). However, loss to follow-up makes overall results difficult to interpret. The control group had higher incomes throughout the study, particularly at the 12-month follow-up (p = .004), but the differences could have been accounted for by other factors. Health service costs were skewed by a few participants who used day-care services intensively or had inpatient stays. Over the study period the proportion of exposed participants engaged in benefits reassessment ranged from 50% to 88%, and 40% to 76% of controls.
Conclusion:
The hardship of living with financial insecurity and a mental health condition made it difficult for our participants to sustain involvement in a 12-month study and the frequency of benefit reviews meant that the experiences of our controls were similar to our exposed group. These limitations limit interpretation but confirm the relevance of our research. The control data raise the question of whether people with mental health conditions are being disproportionately reassessed.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>31782680</pmid><doi>10.1177/0020764019888955</doi><tpages>14</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6998-5659</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9764-3840</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0020-7640 |
| ispartof | International journal of social psychiatry, 2020-03, Vol.66 (2), p.136-149 |
| issn | 0020-7640 1741-2854 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2320375295 |
| source | Access via SAGE; MEDLINE; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA) |
| subjects | Adult Anxiety Anxiety - psychology Cohort analysis Control groups Depression - psychology Disability Female Health risk assessment Health services Health services utilization Humans Inpatient care Job insecurity London Male Mental depression Mental disorders Mental Health Middle Aged Prospective Studies Psychiatric Status Rating Scales Questionnaires Social Welfare - economics Social Welfare - statistics & numerical data Suicide Surveys and Questionnaires Welfare benefits Well being Work Capacity Evaluation |
| title | Do welfare benefit reassessments of people with mental health conditions lead to worse mental health? A prospective cohort study |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T09%3A48%3A36IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Do%20welfare%20benefit%20reassessments%20of%20people%20with%20mental%20health%20conditions%20lead%20to%20worse%20mental%20health?%20A%20prospective%20cohort%20study&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20social%20psychiatry&rft.au=Stuart,%20Ruth&rft.date=2020-03&rft.volume=66&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=136&rft.epage=149&rft.pages=136-149&rft.issn=0020-7640&rft.eissn=1741-2854&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0020764019888955&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2357339394%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2357339394&rft_id=info:pmid/31782680&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0020764019888955&rfr_iscdi=true |