Abstract
Background Social care is the personal and practical assistance provided to individuals in their daily activities, personalised around their circumstances to promote wellbeing. It is provided by formal and informal carers, with formal care supported by considerable public resources through the Adult Social Care function of local authorities. While it is a matter of great public and policy concern that the system better meet people’s needs and that public finances are not unsustainably strained, some key drivers of adult social care need, such as the relationships between age, social determinants, environmental conditions, and health status are not well understood at the system level. This is a protocol for a systematic review of the evidence to determine the health and social drivers that contribute to adults’ need and demand for and utilisation of social care in the UK, and how these interact.
Methods We will include quantitative studies of any experimental, observational or simulation/modelling design with average participant age ≥60, that examine the relationships between health status and/or social conditions, and their impact on adult social care need, demand, utilisation and expenditure. Informal and formal domiciliary, residential and nursing care, professional social work and occupational therapy will be included.
Medline, CINAHL, EconLit, ASSIA Campbell Collaboration and grey literature will be searched. A single reviewer will screen titles/abstracts for eligibility, and two reviewers will independently screen the full-text of studies initially considered eligible. 15% of the included studies will be double-extracted, and remainder single extracted with an accuracy check.
Risk of bias will be assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 and ROBINS-I.
The findings will be grouped by health condition(s), the type of determinant, outcome and will be presented in an evidence gap map. If three or more comparable studies are identified, we will consider calculating the effect size. We will use GRADE to assess the evidence certainty.
Discussion We will detail the evidence on the relationships (to include an indication of their contribution) between health status and social conditions with the need, demand, utilisation and expenditure on adult social care in the UK, informing further analyses in key evidence gaps.
Competing Interest Statement
BAC: is a co-investigator on a grant from NIHR awarded to the University of Cambridge. SS: is a founding member of the Cochrane Thematic Group People, Health Systems and Public Health, is a principal investigator on a grant from the Health Foundation and co-investigator on a grant from Cancer Research UK awarded to the University of Oxford. NR: declares no competing interests. AM: is a co-investigator on a grant from the Health Foundation awarded to the University of Oxford. LB: is a co-investigator on a grant from the Health Foundation awarded to the University of Oxford. PC: is a chief investigator on grants from NIHR awarded to the University of Manchester. AMS: Salary paid from the Health Foundation's REAL (Research and Economic Analysis for the Long-term) Demand Unit grant to the University of Oxford, whose focus is on design and delivery of research programmes to improve the quality of decision-making in health and social care. Associate Editor of the Systematic Reviews journal.
Funding Statement
This review was completed as part of work on a grant received by (SS, AM, LB) from the Health Foundation. The funder was not involved in the design, conduct, analysis, or interpretation of the review, or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
ben.amies-cull{at}phc.ox.ac.uk, sasha.shepperd{at}ndph.ox.ac.uk, nia.roberts{at}bodleian.ox.ac.uk, anne.mason{at}york.ac.uk, laura.bojke{at}york.ac.uk, paul.clarkson{at}manchester.ac.uk, anna.scott{at}ndph.ox.ac.uk
Data Availability
N/A - Review Protocol, no data available
List of abbreviations
- ASSIA
- Applied Social Sciences Indexes and Abstracts
- CINAHL
- Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature
- EPPI-mapper
- Evidence for Policy and Practice Information-mapper
- GRADE
- Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation
- NHS
- National Health Service
- NICE
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
- PRISMA-P
- Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta Analysis Protocols
- RCT
- Randomised Controlled Trial
- REAL
- Research and Economic Analysis for the Long-term
- UK
- United Kingdom
