Co-location of services: an umbrella review to consider how primary care estates could be better used to support disadvantaged groups.

IF 1.7
Helena Painter, Jatinder Hayre, Ananya Arora, Lucy Johnson, Anna Gkiouleka, Amy Dehn Lunn, Liam Loftus, Rebecca Rosen, John Ford
{"title":"Co-location of services: an umbrella review to consider how primary care estates could be better used to support disadvantaged groups.","authors":"Helena Painter, Jatinder Hayre, Ananya Arora, Lucy Johnson, Anna Gkiouleka, Amy Dehn Lunn, Liam Loftus, Rebecca Rosen, John Ford","doi":"10.1017/S1463423626101728","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To examine how co-located community and health services in primary care could support disadvantaged groups.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Co-locating services is thought to improve access, collaboration, and patient outcomes. There are thousands of primary care premises across the UK. At a time of stagnating or widening health inequalities, they present an ideal opportunity to support communities, especially in disadvantaged areas.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We conducted a systematic umbrella review. Articles were retrieved from Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid Embase with supplementary snowball and grey literature searches. Reviews of co-located services supporting disadvantaged groups in primary care between 2010 and February 2024 were included. Quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. Two reviewers assessed eligibility, extracted data and assessed quality. Outcomes relating to health, welfare, healthcare utilization, and activity and processes were assessed. Data were narratively synthesized using a convergent integrated approach.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>2626 studies were screened, supplemented by snowball and grey literatures searches. Thirteen reviews were included for synthesis. One review included meta-analysis. Three models of care were identified; legal advice, welfare advice, and complementary health care. Data were synthesized according to themes: access and engagement, quality of care, efficiency, improved health, and improved social factors. We found co-located services can improve access to care, engagement in treatment, and quality of care for disadvantaged groups. Improvements to social determinants of health and mental health and well-being outcomes were reported. Findings were inconsistent when considering the impact of co-location on efficiency. We conclude that co-located services in primary care have the potential to improve identification of people most in need and improve their access to high quality health care and social support. Policy makers and practitioners should maximize the use of primary care estates to support disadvantaged groups and communities.</p>","PeriodicalId":74493,"journal":{"name":"Primary health care research & development","volume":"27 ","pages":"e97"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Primary health care research & development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1463423626101728","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: To examine how co-located community and health services in primary care could support disadvantaged groups.

Background: Co-locating services is thought to improve access, collaboration, and patient outcomes. There are thousands of primary care premises across the UK. At a time of stagnating or widening health inequalities, they present an ideal opportunity to support communities, especially in disadvantaged areas.

Method: We conducted a systematic umbrella review. Articles were retrieved from Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid Embase with supplementary snowball and grey literature searches. Reviews of co-located services supporting disadvantaged groups in primary care between 2010 and February 2024 were included. Quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. Two reviewers assessed eligibility, extracted data and assessed quality. Outcomes relating to health, welfare, healthcare utilization, and activity and processes were assessed. Data were narratively synthesized using a convergent integrated approach.

Findings: 2626 studies were screened, supplemented by snowball and grey literatures searches. Thirteen reviews were included for synthesis. One review included meta-analysis. Three models of care were identified; legal advice, welfare advice, and complementary health care. Data were synthesized according to themes: access and engagement, quality of care, efficiency, improved health, and improved social factors. We found co-located services can improve access to care, engagement in treatment, and quality of care for disadvantaged groups. Improvements to social determinants of health and mental health and well-being outcomes were reported. Findings were inconsistent when considering the impact of co-location on efficiency. We conclude that co-located services in primary care have the potential to improve identification of people most in need and improve their access to high quality health care and social support. Policy makers and practitioners should maximize the use of primary care estates to support disadvantaged groups and communities.

统筹服务:全面检讨基层医疗屋如何更有效地支援弱势社群。
目的:研究在初级保健中共同定位的社区和卫生服务如何支持弱势群体。背景:共同定位服务被认为可以改善访问、协作和患者预后。英国有成千上万的初级保健场所。在卫生不平等停滞不前或扩大的时候,它们提供了一个理想的机会来支持社区,特别是在处境不利的地区。方法:我们进行了系统的总括性综述。文章从Ovid MEDLINE和Ovid Embase检索,并辅以滚雪球和灰色文献检索。包括对2010年至2024年2月期间支持弱势群体初级保健的同址服务的审查。使用乔安娜布里格斯研究所的检查表评估偏倚的质量和风险。两名审稿人评估合格性、提取数据和评估质量。评估了与健康、福利、医疗保健利用、活动和过程相关的结果。采用聚合综合方法对数据进行叙述性综合。结果:共筛选2626项研究,并辅以滚雪球和灰色文献检索。13篇综述被纳入综合。一篇综述包括荟萃分析。确定了三种护理模式;法律咨询,福利咨询,补充医疗保健。数据根据以下主题进行综合:获取和参与、护理质量、效率、健康改善和社会因素改善。我们发现,同一地点的服务可以改善弱势群体获得护理的机会、参与治疗和护理质量。据报告,健康和精神健康及福祉结果的社会决定因素有所改善。当考虑到共址对效率的影响时,研究结果并不一致。我们的结论是,初级保健中的同址服务有可能更好地识别最需要帮助的人,并改善他们获得高质量保健和社会支持的机会。决策者和从业人员应最大限度地利用初级保健地产来支持弱势群体和社区。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书