Kate Bernard
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Previous Organizations / Institutes
The organizations / institutes from the scholar's other articles in the past ten years
Research Subjects
Research Interests
Kate Bernard has a total of 10 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Akvile Stoniute
Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
2 shared publications - Claire Eastaugh
NIHR Innovation Observatory, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University
2 shared publications - John Wildman
Frederick Douglass Centre, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
2 shared publications - Katie Thomson
Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
2 shared publications - Louise Tanner
Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
2 shared publications - Madeleine Still
National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), Innovation Observatory, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
2 shared publications
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 8 July 2024
- Published by Elsevier in Social Science & Medicine
- Vol. 355, 117089
“Power, control, strain”: Lay perceptions of health inequalities across England's ‘North South divide’
- 8 July 2024
- Published by Elsevier in Social Science & Medicine
- Vol. 355, 117089
Open Access“Power, control, strain”: Lay perceptions of health inequalities across England's ‘North South divide’
- Open Access
- 23 March 2023
- Published by MDPI AG in International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
- Vol. 20 (7) , 5237
Experiences of Non-Pharmaceutical Primary Care Interventions for Common Mental Health Disorders in Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Groups: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies
Common mental health disorders (CMDs) disproportionately affect people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage. Non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as ‘social prescribing’ and new models of care and clinical practice, are becoming increasingly prevalent in primary care. However, little is known about how these interventions work and their impact on socioeconomic inequalities in health. Focusing on people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, this systematic review aims to: (1) explore the mechanisms by which non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions impact CMD-related health outcomes and inequalities; (2) identify the barriers to, and facilitators of, their implementation in primary care. This study is a systematic review of qualitative studies. Six bibliographic databases were searched (Medline, ASSIA, CINAHL, Embase, PsycInfo and Scopus) and additional grey literature sources were screened. The included studies were thematically analysed. Twenty-two studies were included, and three themes were identified: (1) agency; (2) social connections; (3) socioeconomic environment. The interventions were experienced as being positive for mental health when people felt a sense of agency and social connection. The barriers to effectiveness and engagement included socioeconomic deprivation and underfunding of community sector organisations. If non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions for CMDs are to avoid widening health inequalities, key socioeconomic barriers to their accessibility and implementation must be addressed.
- 23 March 2023
- Published by MDPI AG in International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
- Vol. 20 (7) , 5237
Open AccessExperiences of Non-Pharmaceutical Primary Care Interventions for Common Mental Health Disorders in Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Groups: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies
Common mental health disorders (CMDs) disproportionately affect people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage. Non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as ‘social prescribing’ and new models of care and clinical practice, are becoming increasingly prevalent in primary care. However, little is known about how these interventions work and their impact on socioeconomic inequalities in health. Focusing on people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, this systematic review aims to: (1) explore the mechanisms by which non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions impact CMD-related health outcomes and inequalities; (2) identify the barriers to, and facilitators of, their implementation in primary care. This study is a systematic review of qualitative studies. Six bibliographic databases were searched (Medline, ASSIA, CINAHL, Embase, PsycInfo and Scopus) and additional grey literature sources were screened. The included studies were thematically analysed. Twenty-two studies were included, and three themes were identified: (1) agency; (2) social connections; (3) socioeconomic environment. The interventions were experienced as being positive for mental health when people felt a sense of agency and social connection. The barriers to effectiveness and engagement included socioeconomic deprivation and underfunding of community sector organisations. If non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions for CMDs are to avoid widening health inequalities, key socioeconomic barriers to their accessibility and implementation must be addressed.
- Open Access
- 22 November 2022
- Published by Royal College of General Practitioners in British Journal of General Practice
- Vol. 73 (729) , e242-e248
Non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions to improve mental health in deprived populations: a systematic review
Background: Common mental health disorders are especially prevalent among people from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds. Non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions, such as social prescribing and collaborative care, provide alternatives to pharmaceutical treatments for common mental health disorders, but little is known about the impact of these interventions for patients who are socioeconomically disadvantaged.Aim: To synthesise evidence for the effects of non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions on common mental health disorders and associated socioeconomic inequalities.Design and setting: Systematic review of quantitative primary studies published in English and undertaken in high-income countries.Method: Six bibliographic databases were searched and additional grey literature sources screened. Data were extracted onto a standardised proforma and quality assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool. Data were synthesised narratively and effect direction plots were produced for each outcome.Results: Thirteen studies were included. Social-prescribing interventions were evaluated in 10 studies, collaborative care in two studies, and a new model of care in one study. Positive results (based on effect direction) were reported for the impact of the interventions on wellbeing in groups that were socioeconomically deprived. Inconsistent (mainly positive) results were reported for anxiety and depression. One study reported that people from the group with least deprivation, compared with the group with greatest deprivation, benefitted most from these interventions. Overall, study quality was weak.Conclusion: Targeting non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions at areas of socioeconomic deprivation may help to reduce inequalities in mental health outcomes. However, only tentative conclusions can be drawn from the evidence in this review and more-robust research is required.
- 22 November 2022
- Published by Royal College of General Practitioners in British Journal of General Practice
- Vol. 73 (729) , e242-e248
Open AccessNon-pharmaceutical primary care interventions to improve mental health in deprived populations: a systematic review
Background: Common mental health disorders are especially prevalent among people from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds. Non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions, such as social prescribing and collaborative care, provide alternatives to pharmaceutical treatments for common mental health disorders, but little is known about the impact of these interventions for patients who are socioeconomically disadvantaged.Aim: To synthesise evidence for the effects of non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions on common mental health disorders and associated socioeconomic inequalities.Design and setting: Systematic review of quantitative primary studies published in English and undertaken in high-income countries.Method: Six bibliographic databases were searched and additional grey literature sources screened. Data were extracted onto a standardised proforma and quality assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool. Data were synthesised narratively and effect direction plots were produced for each outcome.Results: Thirteen studies were included. Social-prescribing interventions were evaluated in 10 studies, collaborative care in two studies, and a new model of care in one study. Positive results (based on effect direction) were reported for the impact of the interventions on wellbeing in groups that were socioeconomically deprived. Inconsistent (mainly positive) results were reported for anxiety and depression. One study reported that people from the group with least deprivation, compared with the group with greatest deprivation, benefitted most from these interventions. Overall, study quality was weak.Conclusion: Targeting non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions at areas of socioeconomic deprivation may help to reduce inequalities in mental health outcomes. However, only tentative conclusions can be drawn from the evidence in this review and more-robust research is required.