Search

Introduction: The aim of this paper is to investigate what factors are associated to cardiovascular disease and what differences exists between Asians living in the UK (from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing) and the Asians living in India (from the Longitudinal Ageing Study in India). Methods: Logistic regression was used to investigate how demographic and physical performance factors were associated with cardiovascular disease using data from Wave 6 of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing and Wave 1 of the Longitudinal Study of Ageing in India, with the main variable of interest being country of residence, Asians in England or Asians in India. Results: A total of 83,997 participants were included in the analyses. In the primary analysis, 73,396 participants from LASI were compared to 171 Asians in ELSA. After adjusting for age, blood pressure, resting heart rate, sex, waist circumference, gait, handgrip strength and standing balance, there was a statistically significant difference for the outcome of CVD between Whites ELSA (reference) and the participants of LASI (odds ratio = 0.77; 95% confidence interval = 0.60 to 0.99). There were no significant differences in CVD between the LASI participants, Asian ELSA, and the Non-White but not Asian ELSA groups. Discussion: No difference was found between Asians that live in India compared to ethnic minorities living in England, including Asians, after adjusting for confounders, but was found between Whites in ELSA compared to LASI participants. A key limitation was the massive disparity in sample sizes between the ELSA subgroups and LASI. Further work is required where comparable sample sizes and longitudinal analyses allow trends to be identified and to investigate the factors associated with the difference in CVD between two similar ethnicities living in distinct locations. Conclusion: After adjusting for risk factors, there was no difference in CVD between localised Asians and the ethnic minorities in the UK, but there was a difference between the majority ethnicities in the respective countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The prevalence of dyslexia identification has increased significantly over the last two decades. Yet there is debate over whether there are distinct biological and cognitive differences between those with literacy difficulties and the subgroup of people identified as dyslexic. This is the first paper that provides evidence for this ongoing debate by investigating the socio-demographic factors, outside biology and cognition, that predict whether a child is identified as dyslexic in the UK. Using secondary data from the UK's Millennium Cohort Study, this paper examines the socio-demographic factors that predict whether a child's teacher identifies them as dyslexic at age 11. Gender, season of birth, socio-economic class and parental income are found to be significant predictors of the dyslexia label. Therefore, factors seemingly unrelated to the clinical aspects of dyslexia influence whether a child is identified as dyslexic in England and Wales. This suggests that label may not be evenly distributed across a population; furthermore, it may also indicate that resources for support may not be fairly allocated. The findings further support the argument that a 'dyslexic sub-group' within poor readers is created due to the impact of environmental factors. The results from this national-scale study thus questions the reliability, validity and moral integrity of the allocation of the dyslexia label across current education systems in the UK. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Higher education students' mental health has been a growing concern in recent years even before the COVID-19 pandemic. The stresses and restrictions associated with the pandemic have put university students at greater risk of developing mental health issues, which may significantly impair their academic success, social interactions and their future career and personal opportunities. This paper aimed to understand the mental health status of University students at an early stage in the pandemic and to investigate factors associated with higher levels of distress. An online survey including demographics, lifestyle/living situations, brief mental well-being history, questions relating to COVID-19 and standardised measures of depression, anxiety, resilience and quality of life was completed by 1173 students at one University in the North of England. We found high levels of anxiety and depression, with more than 50% experiencing levels above the clinical cut offs, and females scoring significantly higher than males. The survey also suggested relatively low levels of resilience which we attribute to restrictions and isolation which reduced the opportunities to engage in helpful coping strategies and activities rather than enduring personality characteristics. Higher levels of distress were associated with lower levels of exercising, higher levels of tobacco use, and a number of life events associated with the pandemic and lockdown, such as cancelled events, worsening in personal relationships and financial concerns. We discuss the importance of longer-term monitoring and mental health support for university students. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Despite a decline in Sudden Unexpected Death in Infancy in the UK since 2004, inequalities have widened with higher rates among families from deprived backgrounds and those known to child protection services. Almost all cases involve parents who had engaged in unsafe sleeping practices despite awareness of safer sleeping advice. Objective: To understand the perspectives surrounding safer sleep of families supported by statutory child protection agencies, and use behavior change theory to inform how approaches to providing safer sleep advice to these families may be modified. Participants and setting: We interviewed 14 mothers, 2 fathers and one grandmother, who had recent contact with child protection services in northeast England. Methods: In-depth, semi-structured interviews, with purposive sampling. The COM-B model (Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation) structured our analysis. Results: Parents described how anxiety, sleep deprivation, settling infants, illness, and a desire to bond with infants influence their decision making about sleep. Parents valued credible, trusted sources and understanding how safer sleep practices protect infants. Responses to questions about 'out of routine' situations suggested social pressures surrounding routines and 'good parenting' may preclude parents from acknowledging risks and planning for these situations. Conclusion: Open conversations tailored to the needs of families, focused upon understanding why and when parent(s) do or do not follow safer sleep guidance seem a promising way of promoting safer sleep practices. Safer sleep discussions with these families are likely to be best delivered as part of wider infant care by professionals who have an established and continuing trusting relationship with parents. While advice and information should be provided by any professional in contact with the family with the necessary expertise, sensitive conversations around sleeping practices, particularly co-sleeping, may be more easily facilitated by professionals where the statutory responsibility for safeguarding is less apparent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Current research ethics frameworks were developed on the footprint of biomedical, experimental research and present several pitfalls when applied to non-experimental social sciences. This work explores how the normative principles underpinning policy and regulatory frameworks of research ethics and the related operational processes work in practice in the context of collaborative health and social care research. The work was organised in three phases. First, UK research ethics policy documents were analysed thematically, with themes further organised under the categories of 'Principles' and 'Processes'. Next, we conducted a scoping review of articles about research ethics in the context of collaborative health and social care research, published in English between 2010 and 2022. We then held an exploratory focus group with ten academic researchers with relevant experience to gather their views on how the research ethics system works in practice in England (UK). The thematic framework developed in the first phase supported the analysis of the articles included in the scoping review and of focus group data. The analysis of policy documents identified twelve themes. All were associated to both a principle and a related operational process. The scoping review identified 31 articles. Across these, some themes were barely acknowledged (e.g., Compliance with legislation). Other themes were extensively covered (e.g., The working of Research Ethics Committees), often to discuss issues and limitations in how, in practice, the research ethics system and its processes deal with collaborative research and to suggest options for improvement. Focus group data were largely consistent with the findings of the scoping review. This work provides evidence of the poor alignment between how the research ethics system is normatively expected to work and how it works in practice and offers options that could make research ethics more fit for purpose when addressing collaborative research in health and social care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OptiBreech collaborative care is a multi-disciplinary care pathway for breech presentation at term, with continuity from a breech specialist midwife, including where chosen, for vaginal breech birth (VBB). Pilot randomised trial using unblinded 1:1 parallel group allocation to OptiBreech versus standard care, within a cohort. Participants were women with a breech-presenting fetus > 33 weeks, at four sites in England, January–June 2022. A two-stage consent process was used. Participants consented to undergo random selection to be offered a 'new care process', with a choice to accept it, or not. Primary objectives were to identify recruitment, acceptance, and attrition rates. Randomisation procedures and potential primary outcomes for a substantive study were also feasibility-tested. 68 women were randomised between January–June 2022. The consent process was acceptable to participants, but randomisation was unacceptable to women who specifically sought OptiBreech care. Two women withdrew due to concerns about sharing personal information. More women planned a VBB when randomised to OptiBreech Care (23.5% vs 0, p =.002, 95% CI = 9.3%,37.8%). Women randomised to OptiBreech care had: lower rates of cephalic presentation at birth (38.2% vs 54.5%), higher rates of vaginal birth (32.4% vs 24.2%), lower rates of in-labour caesarean birth (20.6% vs 36.4%), lower rates of neonatal intensive care (5.9% vs 9.1%), and lower rates of severe neonatal morbidity (2.9% vs 9.1%). Randomisation was stopped on the advice of the steering committee before the planned sample of 104, as lack of access to VBB within standard care prohibited comparison of outcomes. Demand for VBB is sufficient for a cohort study, but comparison of outcomes by 1:1 randomisation is not feasible. OptiBreech care would be best evaluated using stepped wedge cluster randomisation. Funded by the United Kingdom National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR300582). Clinical trial registration: ISRCTN 14521381. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In England (UK), at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic the public were required to reduce their physical contacts to slow the spread of COVID-19. We investigated the factors associated with children having: 1) close contact with family members from outside their household ('non-adherent behaviour'); and 2) low well-being (Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale). We conducted an online cross-sectional survey, completed at any location of the participant's choice between 8 and 11 June 2020 in parents (n = 2,010) who were aged eighteen years or over and had a school-aged child (4–18 years old). Parents reported that 15% (n = 309) of children had non-adherent contact and that 26% (n = 519) had low well-being. We used a series of binary logistic regressions to investigate associations between outcomes and child and parent characteristics. Children had higher odds of having non-household contact when they had special educational needs [adjusted odds ratio, 2.19 (95% CI, 1.47 to 3.27)], lower well-being [2.65 (95% CI, 2.03 to 3.46)], were vulnerable to COVID-19 [2.17 (95% CI, 1.45 to 3.25)], lived with someone who was over 70 years old [2.56 (95% CI, 1.55 to 4.24)] and their parent had low well-being [1.94 (95% CI, 1.45 to 2.58)]. Children had higher odds of lower well-being when they had special educational needs [4.13 (95% CI, 2.90 to 5.87)], were vulnerable to COVID-19 [3.06 (95% CI, 2.15 to 4.36)], lived with someone else who was vulnerable to COVID-19 [2.08 (95% CI, 1.64 to 2.64)], or lived with someone who was over 70 years old [2.41 (95% CI, 1.51 to 3.83)]. Many children came into contact with non-household family members, mainly for childcare. Factors relating to COVID-19, children's well-being and education were also important. If school closures are needed in future, addressing these issues may help reduce contact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To provide quantitative evidence for systematically prioritising individuals for full formal cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment using primary care records with a novel tool (eHEART) with age- and sex- specific risk thresholds. Methods and analysis: eHEART was derived using landmark Cox models for incident CVD with repeated measures of conventional CVD risk predictors in 1,642,498 individuals from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Using 119,137 individuals from UK Biobank, we modelled the implications of initiating guideline-recommended statin therapy using eHEART with age- and sex-specific prioritisation thresholds corresponding to 5% false negative rates to prioritise adults aged 40–69 years in a population in England for invitation to a formal CVD risk assessment. Results: Formal CVD risk assessment on all adults would identify 76% and 49% of future CVD events amongst men and women respectively, and 93 (95% CI: 90, 95) men and 279 (95% CI: 259, 297) women would need to be screened (NNS) to prevent one CVD event. In contrast, if eHEART was first used to prioritise individuals for formal CVD risk assessment, we would identify 73% and 47% of future events amongst men and women respectively, and a NNS of 75 (95% CI: 72, 77) men and 162 (95% CI: 150, 172) women. Replacing the age- and sex-specific prioritisation thresholds with a 10% threshold identify around 10% less events. Conclusions: The use of prioritisation tools with age- and sex-specific thresholds could lead to more efficient CVD assessment programmes with only small reductions in effectiveness at preventing new CVD events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To explore cancer survivors' experiences of living with chronic pain after curative cancer treatment in England, UK. Methods: A qualitative study using telephone interviews with adult cancer survivors experiencing chronic pain after curative cancer treatment. Interview data was analysed using a reflexive thematic approach [1–3]. Findings: Nineteen participants: 14 female, 5 male, mean age 62.4 years, 1.5–48 years since cancer diagnosis, eight tumour groups represented. Six participants (31.6%) developed chronic pain more than ten years after completing cancer treatment (range 0–25 years). Five themes were generated which highlighted the experience of chronic pain after cancer treatment for cancer survivors: 1) 'Hear me... believe me.... Please'. Survivors felt that they had not been listened to when they tried to talk about their chronic pain after cancer treatment, nor at times, believed. 2) 'Expectation versus reality'. Survivors had anticipated returning to pre cancer quality of life yet living in chronic pain prevented them from doing so. 3) 'They don't understand.... We don't understand'. Cancer survivors did not feel informed or prepared for the risk or reality of chronic pain after cancer treatment and this compounded the difficulties of coping with and managing their pain. They felt health care professionals lacked knowledge and understanding of chronic pain after cancer. 4) 'Negotiating the maze'. Cancer survivors encountered unclear and limited pathways for support, often bouncing from one support team to another. Identifying and accessing services was a challenge, and the responsibility of this was often left to the survivor. 5) 'Validate my pain, validate me'. Palpable relief and benefit was felt when health care professionals diagnosed and acknowledged their chronic pain after cancer treatment. Conclusions: Cancer survivors can feel ill prepared for the risk of chronic pain after cancer treatment and can experience challenges accessing support from healthcare professionals and clinical services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

UK 'Lockdown' measures introduced in March 2020 aimed to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. Although seeking healthcare was still permitted within restrictions, paediatric emergency department attendances reduced dramatically and led to concern over risks caused by delayed presentation. Our aim was to gain insight into healthcare decisions faced by parents during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic and to understand if use of urgent healthcare, self-care, and information needs differed during lockdown as well as how parents perceived risks of COVID-19. We undertook qualitative telephone interviews with a purposive sample of parents living in the North East of England recruited through online advertising. We used a semi-structured interview schedule to explore past and current healthcare use, perceptions of risk and the impact of the pandemic on healthcare decisions. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using Thematic Analysis. Three major themes were identified which concerned (i) how parents made sense of risks posed to, and by their children, (ii) understanding information regarding health services and (iii) attempting to make the right decision. These themes contribute to the understanding of the initial impact of COVID-19 and associated restrictions on parental decisions about urgent healthcare for children. These findings are important to consider when planning for potential future public health emergencies but also in the wider context of encouraging appropriate use of urgent healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite undeniable hardship, the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic also saw an outpour of community solidarity and mutual aid towards those in need. This study explored why people participated in mutual aid during the pandemic as well as the factors that contributed to continued involvement and/or its decline. We conducted remote interviews with 17 people in South-east England who had been involved in volunteering and local community mutual aid support groups during the first UK lockdown from March to May 2020. Using thematic analysis, we identified two themes: 1) The emergence of social groups and their psychosocial effects, and 2) Enduring connections and barriers to continued participation. Participants often reported an emergent shared identity, preferring the localised nature of these groups and the associated mutual nature of support. They also reported intentions to continue providing such support, should the need arise again, and any barriers to continued involvement in mutual aid were better explained by structural and systemic issues, rather than individual motivational factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Medication errors are an important cause of morbidity and mortality. The pharmacist-led IT-based intervention to reduce clinically important medication errors (PINCER) has demonstrated improvements in primary care medication safety, and whilst now the subject of national roll-out its optimal and sustainable use across health contexts has not been fully explored. As part of a qualitative evaluation we aimed to identify factors influencing successful adoption, embedding and sustainable use of PINCER across primary care settings in England, UK. Methods: Semi-structured face-to-face or telephone interviews, including follow-up interviews and an online survey were conducted with professionals knowledgeable of PINCER. Interview recruitment targeted four early adopter regions; the survey was distributed nationally. Initial data analysis was inductive, followed by analysis using a coding framework. A deductive matrix approach was taken to map the framework to the Normalisation Process Theory (NPT). Themes were then identified. Results: Fifty participants were interviewed, 18 participated in a follow-up interview. Eighty-one general practices and three Clinical Commissioning Groups completed the survey. Four themes were identified and interpreted within the relevant NPT construct: Awareness & Perceptions (Coherence), Receptivity to PINCER (Cognitive Participation), Engagement [Collective Action] and Reflections & Adaptations (Reflexive Monitoring). Variability was identified in how PINCER awareness was raised and how staff worked to operationalise the intervention. Facilitators for use included stakeholder investment, favourable evidence, inclusion in policy, incentives, fit with individual and organisational goals and positive experiences. Barriers included lack of understanding, capacity concerns, operational difficulties and the impact of COVID-19. System changes such as adding alerts on clinical systems were indicative of embedding and continued use. Conclusions: The NPT helped understand motives behind engagement and the barriers and facilitators towards sustainable use. Optimising troubleshooting support and encouraging establishments to adopt an inclusive approach to intervention adoption and utilisation could help accelerate uptake and help establish ongoing sustainable use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The menstrual needs of girls and women are important to health, education, and well-being. Unmet need and harm from poor menstrual health in low-and- middle-income countries have been documented, but with little empirical research undertaken in high income countries. Continuing austerity in the UK suggests menstruators are likely more vulnerable to 'period poverty' than previously, with the COVID-19 pandemic assumed to exacerbate the situation. Aim: To explore the menstrual experiences and perceptions of women in the UK who are living under circumstances of deprivation, alongside views of staff working in organisations supporting these women, to understand whether women's menstrual needs are met. Methods: A qualitative study was conducted in an inner-city in NW England. Three focus group discussions and 14 in-depth interviews were conducted across three study sites supporting impoverished women. Data was analysed thematically. Results: Themes were: reflections on menstruation; affordability of products; access to public facilities; organisational support; potential solutions. Many women perceived menstruation as a burden in three aspects: physical discomfort and pain; psychological anxiety; and shame and stigma. Managing menstruation was difficult due to cost relative to low incomes, with food, heating and lighting prioritised, leaving women improvising with materials or wearing products for longer than desired. Most suggested that products should be free, often remarking if men required similar items this would happen. Most women were unaware supporting organisations provided free products. Staff felt the small range of products offered did not meet client needs and were ill-prepared to have conversations on products and clients' menstrual needs. Conclusion: Impoverished women lack the necessary resources to manage their menses well which negatively impacts their health and brings stress, embarrassment, and shame. Support, including access to free products, is needed at both local and national level to help impoverished women manage their menstrual hygiene. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recent studies indicate that vitamin D supplementation may decrease respiratory tract infections, but the association between vitamin D and COVID-19 is still unclear. Objective: To explore the association between vitamin D status and infections, hospitalisation, and mortality due to COVID-19. Methods: We used UK Biobank, a nationwide cohort of 500,000 individuals aged between 40 and 69 years at recruitment between 2006 and 2010. We included people with at least one serum vitamin D test, living in England with linked primary care and inpatient records. The primary exposure was serum vitamin D status measured at recruitment, defined as deficiency at <25 nmol/L, insufficiency at 25–49 nmol/L and sufficiency at ≥ 50 nmol/L. Secondary exposures were self-reported or prescribed vitamin D supplements. The primary outcome was laboratory-confirmed or clinically diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infections. The secondary outcomes included hospitalisation and mortality due to COVID-19. We used multivariable Cox regression models stratified by summertime months and non-summertime months, adjusting for demographic factors and underlying comorbidities. Results: We included 307,512 participants (54.9% female, 55.9% over 70 years old) in our analysis. During summertime months, weak evidence existed that the vitamin D deficiency group had a lower hazard of being diagnosed with COVID-19 (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.77–0.95). During non-summertime, the vitamin D deficiency group had a higher hazard of COVID-19 compared with the vitamin D sufficient group (HR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.01–1.30). No evidence was found that vitamin D deficiency or insufficiency was associated with either hospitalisation or mortality due to COVID-19 in any time strata. Conclusion: We found no evidence of an association between historical vitamin D status and hospitalisation or mortality due to COVID-19, along with inconsistent results for any association between vitamin D and diagnosis of COVID-19. However, studies using more recent vitamin D measurements and systematic COVID-19 testing are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Inter-organisational collaborations (IOCs) in healthcare have been viewed as an effective approach to performance improvement. However, there remain gaps in our understanding of what helps IOCs function, as well as how and why contextual elements affect their implementation. A realist review of evidence drawing on 86 sources has sought to elicit and refine context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs) to understand and refine these phenomena, yet further understanding can be gained from interviewing those involved in developing IOCs. Methods: We used a realist evaluation methodology, adopting prior realist synthesis findings as a theoretical framework that we sought to refine. We drew on 32 interviews taking place between January 2020 and May 2021 with 29 stakeholders comprising IOC case studies, service users, as well as regulatory perspectives in England. Using a retroductive analysis approach, we aimed to test CMOCs against these data to explore whether previously identified mechanisms, CMOCs, and causal links between them were affirmed, refuted, or revised, and refine our explanations of how and why interorganisational collaborations are successful. Results: Most of our prior CMOCs and their underlying mechanisms were supported in the interview findings with a diverse range of evidence. Leadership behaviours, including showing vulnerability and persuasiveness, acted to shape the core mechanisms of collaborative functioning. These included our prior mechanisms of trust, faith, and confidence, which were largely ratified with minor refinements. Action statements were formulated, translating theoretical findings into practical guidance. Conclusion: As the fifth stage in a larger project, our refined theory provides a comprehensive understanding of the causal chain leading to effective collaborative inter-organisational relationships. These findings and recommendations can support implementation of IOCs in the UK and elsewhere. Future research should translate these findings into further practical guidance for implementers, researchers, and policymakers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People living with a long-term condition, such as chronic kidney disease (CKD), often suffer from multiple symptoms simultaneously, making symptom management challenging. This study aimed to identify symptom clusters in adults with CKD across treatment groups and investigate their association with people's ability to perform their usual activities. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of both cross-sectional and longitudinal data collected as part of a national service improvement programme in 14 kidney centres in England, UK. This data included symptom severity (17 items, POS-S Renal) and the extent to which people had problems performing their usual activities (single item, EQ-5D-5L). We categorised data by treatment group: haemodialysis (n = 1,462), transplantation (n = 866), peritoneal dialysis (n = 127), or CKD without kidney replacement therapy (CKD non-KRT; n = 684). We used principal component analysis to identify symptom clusters per treatment group, and proportional odds models to assess the association between clusters and usual activities. Results: Overall, clusters related to: lack of energy and mobility; gastrointestinal; skin; and mental health. Across groups, the 'lack of energy and mobility' clusters were associated with having problems with usual activities, with odds ratios (OR) ranging between 1.24 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21–1.57) for haemodialysis and 1.56 for peritoneal dialysis (95% CI, 1.28–1.90). This association was confirmed longitudinally in haemodialysis (n = 399) and transplant (n = 249) subgroups. Implications: Our findings suggest that healthcare professionals should consider routinely assessing symptoms in the 'lack of energy & mobility' cluster in all people with CKD, regardless of whether they volunteer this information; not addressing these symptoms is likely to be related to them having problems with performing usual activities. Future studies should explore why symptoms within clusters commonly co-occur and how they interrelate. This will inform the development of cluster-level symptom management interventions with enhanced potential to improve outcomes for people with CKD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The Covid-19 pandemic is hitting societies hard, and people living in disadvantaged circumstances are among the most affected. We investigate the combined effects of the Covid-19 crisis and living in a deprived neighbourhood on two dimensions of subjective well-being: hedonic (i.e. mental health) and evaluative (i.e. life satisfaction) subjective well-being. Methods: We use longitudinal data from the Understanding Society UK panel. We combine data gathered in the main survey between 2015 and 2019 with very recent data from the Covid-19 online survey between April and July 2020. Leveraging a sample of nearly 9,600 English individuals, we first run a set of cross-sectional OLS regressions to analyse changes over time in the relationship between neighbourhood deprivation and subjective well-being. Then, as our main model of interest, we use a fixed effect difference-in-differences model to provide more robust evidence. Results: Since the beginning of the crisis, both levels of hedonic and evaluative well-being have decreased as a result of the pandemic and lockdown. However, for those living in more deprived neighbourhoods the level of hedonic well-being decreased more than for those living in better areas. We found no such difference for evaluative well-being. Conclusion: Our results highlight the importance of reducing neighbourhood inequalities as the spatial clustering of disadvantages has increased by the pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]