The Value of Health-Justice Partnerships
Research type
Research Study
Full title
The Value of Health-Justice Partnerships: Exploring the health impact of free legal advice in a primary care setting
IRAS ID
206170
Contact name
Hazel Genn
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
University College London
Duration of Study in the UK
0 years, 11 months, 31 days
Research summary
The circumstances in which people are born, live and work have a significant impact on their health (Marmot et al, 2010). Recent changes to the benefits system and the current agenda for social welfare reform come at a time of great economic instability for those individuals most reliant on the social welfare system. In these circumstances, the poorest and most vulnerable in society turn to free legal and welfare advice services for help. But these advice services are similarly affected by cuts in local authority funding and the recent loss of free legal aid provision.
Vulnerable patient groups with complex socio-legal problems are now faced with a paucity of resources to help them,and there is considerable potential for these problems to overspill into the few remaining sources of free professional advice, particularly General Practice.Some GP practices and Clinical Commissioning Groups have chosen to fund free advice services to help patients attending with welfare problems, but evidence for their impact on health related outcomes is lacking. Welfare advice services have been able to indicate financial benefits for their clients, but there has been a dearth of robust research indicating impacts on individuals' health or healthcare utilisation.
This observational study aims to investigate how the provision of free legal advice in a primary care setting affects, or is associated with, the health related quality of life for those who use the service. Self-reported health outcomes will be measured at the time of the first free legal advice session, and followed up over six months. This includes: measures of physical and mental wellbeing, health behaviours and GP consultation rates. The study also includes a qualitative component exploring the links between legal and health problems through semi-structured interviews. Stakeholder interviews will also address the acceptability and health impact of co-located legal advice clinics in primary care settings.
REC name
London - Chelsea Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
16/LO/2155
Date of REC Opinion
22 Dec 2016
REC opinion
Favourable Opinion