Search

The devolution of public services from central to local government can increase sensitivity to local population needs but might also reduce the expertise and resources available. Little evidence is available on the impact of devolution on population health. We evaluated the effect of devolution affecting health services and wider determinants of health on life expectancy in Greater Manchester, England.We estimated changes in life expectancy in Greater Manchester relative to a control group from the rest of England (excluding London), using a generalised synthetic control method. Using local district-level data collected between Jan 1, 2006 and Dec 31, 2019, we estimated the effect of devolution on the whole population and stratified by sex, district, income deprivation, and baseline life expectancy.After devolution, from November, 2014, life expectancy in Greater Manchester was 0·196 years (95% CI 0·182-0·210) higher than expected when compared with the synthetic control group with similar pre-devolution trends. Life expectancy was protected from the decline observed in comparable areas in the 2 years after devolution and increased in the longer term. Increases in life expectancy were observed in eight of ten local authorities, were larger among men than women (0·338 years [0·315-0·362] for men; 0·057 years [0·040-0·074] for women), and were larger in areas with high income deprivation (0·390 years [0·369-0·412]) and lower life expectancy before devolution (0·291 years [0·271-0·311]).Greater Manchester had better life expectancy than expected after devolution. The benefits of devolution were apparent in the areas with the highest income deprivation and lowest life expectancy, suggesting a narrowing of inequalities. Improvements were likely to be due to a coordinated devolution across sectors, affecting wider determinants of health and the organisation of care services.The Health Foundation and the National Institute for Health and Care Research.

In publicly-funded healthcare systems, waiting times for care should be based on need rather than ability to pay. Studies have shown individuals with lower socioeconomic status face longer waits for planned inpatient care, but there is little evidence on inequalities in waiting times for emergency care. We study waiting times in emergency departments (EDs) following arrival by ambulance, where health consequences of extended waits may be severe. Using data from all major EDs in England during the 2016/17 financial year, we find patients from more deprived areas face longer waits during some parts of the ED care pathway. Inequalities in waits are small, but more deprived individuals also receive less complex ED care, are less likely to be admitted for inpatient care, and are more likely to re-attend ED within, and die shortly after, attendance. Patient-physician interactions and unconscious bias towards more deprived patients may be important sources of inequalities.

Background COVID-19 vaccine uptake is lower amongst most minority ethnic groups compared to the White British group in England, despite higher COVID-19 mortality rates. Here, we add to existing evidence by estimating inequalities for 16 minority ethnic groups, examining ethnic inequalities within population subgroups, and comparing the magnitudes of ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake to those for routine seasonal influenza vaccine uptake. Methods and findings We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Greater Manchester Care Record, which contains de-identified electronic health record data for the population of Greater Manchester, England. We used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate ethnic inequalities in time to COVID-19 vaccination amongst people eligible for vaccination on health or age (50+ years) criteria between 1 December 2020 and 18 April 2021 (138 days of follow-up). We included vaccination with any approved COVID-19 vaccine, and analysed first-dose vaccination only. We compared inequalities between COVID-19 and influenza vaccine uptake adjusting by age group and clinical risk, and used subgroup analysis to identify populations where inequalities were widest. The majority of individuals (871,231; 79.24%) were White British. The largest minority ethnic groups were Pakistani (50,268; 4.75%), ‘other White background’ (43,195; 3.93%), ‘other ethnic group’ (34,568; 3.14%), and Black African (18,802; 1.71%). In total, 83.64% (919,636/1,099,503) of eligible individuals received a COVID-19 vaccine. Uptake was lower compared to the White British group for 15 of 16 minority ethnic groups, with particularly wide inequalities amongst the groups ‘other Black background’ (hazard ratio [HR] 0.42, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.44), Black African (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.44), Arab (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.48), and Black Caribbean (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.45). In total, 55.71% (419,314/752,715) of eligible individuals took up influenza vaccination. Compared to the White British group, inequalities in influenza vaccine uptake were widest amongst the groups ‘White and Black Caribbean’ (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.68) and ‘White and Black African’ (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.72). In contrast, uptake was slightly higher than the White British group amongst the groups ‘other ethnic group’ (HR 1.11, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.12) and Bangladeshi (HR 1.08, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.11). Overall, ethnic inequalities in vaccine uptake were wider for COVID-19 than influenza vaccination for 15 of 16 minority ethnic groups. COVID-19 vaccine uptake inequalities also existed amongst individuals who previously took up influenza vaccination. Ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake were concentrated amongst older and extremely clinically vulnerable adults, and the most income-deprived. A limitation of this study is the focus on uptake of the first dose of COVID-19 vaccination, rather than full COVID-19 vaccination. Conclusions Ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake exceeded those for influenza vaccine uptake, existed amongst those recently vaccinated against influenza, and were widest amongst those with greatest COVID-19 risk. This suggests the COVID-19 vaccination programme has created additional and different inequalities beyond pre-existing health inequalities. We suggest that further research and policy action is needed to understand and remove barriers to vaccine uptake, and to build trust and confidence amongst minority ethnic communities.