A systematic review of the factors - barriers and enablers - affecting the implementation of clinical commissioning policy to reduce health inequalities in the National Health Service (NHS), UK

Lists

Regmi, K. and Mudyarabikwa, Oliver (2020) A systematic review of the factors - barriers and enablers - affecting the implementation of clinical commissioning policy to reduce health inequalities in the National Health Service (NHS), UK. Public Health, 186. pp. 271-282. ISSN 0033-3506

[thumbnail of Regmi_and_Mudyarabikwa_2020_A_systematic_review_of_the_factors_-_barriers_and_enablers_-_affecting_the_implementation_of_clinical_commissioning_policy_to_reduce_health_inequalities_in_the_National_Health_Service_(NHS)_UK.pdf]

Preview

PDF
Regmi_and_Mudyarabikwa_2020_A_systematic_review_of_the_factors_-_barriers_and_enablers_-_affecting_the_implementation_of_clinical_commissioning_policy_to_reduce_health_inequalities_in_the_National_Health_Service_(NHS)_UK.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.
Download (1MB) | Preview

Official URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2020.07.027

Abstract

Objective
The aim of the present study is two-fold. First, it attempts to identify the barriers and enablers of implementing clinical commissioning policy. Second, it synthesises how these barriers and enablers affect the success of National Health Service (NHS) efforts to reduce health inequalities in the UK.

Methods
A systematic review was conducted. We searched large biomedical bibliographic databases, namely MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Allied & Complementary Medicine, DH-DATA, Global Health and CINAHL for primary studies, conducted in the UK, that assessed the factors - barriers and enablers related to health inequalities, published from 2010 onwards and in English, and reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. We used Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal and Mixed Methods Appraisal tools to assess the methodological qualities, and synthesised by performing thematic analysis. Two reviewers independently screened the articles and extracted data.

Results
We included six primary studies (including a total of 1155 participants) in the final review. The studies reported two broad categories, under four separate themes: (1) the agenda of health inequalities has not been given priority; (2) there was very little evidence for reducing health inequalities through the clinical commissioning (CC) process; (3) CC was positively associated with the restructuring of NHS; and (4) CC brings better collaboration and engagement, which led to some improvements in health services access, utilisation and delivery at the local level.

Conclusion
This study provides useful factors – barriers and enablers – to implement and deliver clinical commissioning policy in improving health and well-being. These factors could be assessed in future to develop objective measures and interventions to establish the link between commissioning and health inequalities.

Item Type:	Article
Identifier:	10.1016/j.puhe.2020.07.027
Keywords:	General Practitioner commissioning, Population health, Health inequalities, National Health Service, Systematic review
Subjects:	Medicine and health
Related URLs:	Publisher
Depositing User:	Oliver Mudyarabikwa
Date Deposited:	28 Jul 2021 08:34
Last Modified:	04 Nov 2024 11:45
URI:	https://repository.uwl.ac.uk/id/eprint/8142