Search

Background The Equal North network was developed to take forward the implications of the Due North report of the Independent Inquiry into Health Equity. The aim of this exercise was to identify how to reduce health inequalities in the north of England. Methods Workshops (15 groups) and a Delphi survey (3 rounds, 368 members) were used to consult expert opinion and achieve consensus. Round 1 answered open questions around priorities for action; Round 2 used a 5-point Likert scale to rate items; Round 3 responses were re-rated alongside a median response to each item. In total, 10 workshops were conducted after the Delphi survey to triangulate the data. Results In Round 1, responses from 253 participants generated 39 items used in Round 2 (rated by 144 participants). Results from Round 3 (76 participants) indicate that poverty/implications of austerity (4.87 m, IQR 0) remained the priority issue, with long-term unemployment (4.8 m, IQR 0) and mental health (4.7 m, IQR 1) second and third priorities. Workshop 3 did not diverge from findings in Round 1. Conclusions Practice professionals and academics agreed that reducing health inequalities in the North of England requires prioritizing research that tackles structural determinants concerning poverty, the implications of austerity measures and unemployment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Physical activity (PA) levels are lower among some UK Black and minority ethnic (BME) groups than the majority White British population and a variety of tailored interventions have emerged. This study documents the characteristics and logic of local adaptations, a vital first step in evaluating such innovations. Methods An English PA data set was examined to identify and characterize PA programmes focussed on BME populations. Three case studies were conducted, employing documentary analysis and qualitative interviews. Netto et al.'s principles of adapting health promotion interventions for BME populations guided the analysis. Results Out of 861 PA interventions, 57 focussed on BME populations. These were typically aimed to engage the most inactive groups, improve both health and social outcomes and were largely publically/charitably funded. Tailored approaches matched Netto et al.'s five principles: using community resources for publicity, identifying and addressing barriers, developing sensitive communication strategies, working with values and accommodating cultural identification. Another common principle was identified: building community capacity for sustainability. Conclusions PA interventions tailored to the needs of BME groups reflect their largely disadvantaged position in society and focus on inactivity. The six principles could be used as a framework for developing, designing and evaluating tailored interventions for BME populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reports on an action-oriented research study providing decision support to three local authorities in England on the prioritisation of public health investment and disinvestment decisions. We adopted a political science perspective, using the multiple streams framework to investigate the use of prioritisation tools in public health spending decisions at a time of severe financial constraints. The challenges and implications of their potential use in everyday practice were explored. Twenty-nine interviews were conducted before the targeted decision support occurred and 19 interviews after the decision support had been delivered. Interviews were held with locally elected politicians, officers and public health professionals based within local government, NHS commissioners and the local independent consumer watchdog for health and social care. Targeted workshops with local stakeholders were facilitated in each site by health economist members of the project team. Structured observational notes were recorded during these workshops and integrated with the interview data. Many respondents expressed an interest in prioritisation tools although some scepticism was expressed about their value and impact on decision-making. This paper analyses the enablers and barriers to adopting priority-setting tools in a local government environment that by definition is political. The findings suggest that the adoption of priority-setting tools in decision-making processes in public health poses some significant challenges within local government and that certain enabling factors have to be present. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objectives: To explore the influence of values and context in public health priority-setting in local government in England. Study design: Qualitative interview study. Methods: Decision-makers' views were identified through semi-structured interviews and prioritization tools relevant for public health were reviewed. Interviews (29) were carried out with Health and Wellbeing Board members and other key stakeholders across three local authorities in England, following an introductory workshop. Results: There were four main influences on priorities for public health investment in our case study sites: an organizational context where health was less likely to be associated with health care and where accountability was to a local electorate; a commissioning and priority-setting context (plan, do, study, act) located within broader local authority prioritysetting processes; different views of what counts as evidence and, in particular, the role of local knowledge; and debates over what constitutes a public health intervention, triggered by the transfer of a public health budget from the NHS to local authorities in England. Conclusions: The relocation of public health into local authorities exposes questions over prioritizing public health investment, including the balance across lifestyle interventions and broader action on social determinants of health and the extent to which the public health evidence base influences local democratic decision-making. Action on wider social determinants reinforces not only the art and science but also the values and politics of public health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Community initiatives aiming to reduce health inequalities are increasingly common in health policy. Though diverse many such initiatives aim to support residents of disadvantaged places to exercise greater collective control over decisions/actions that affect their lives - which research suggests is an important determinant of health – and some seek to achieve this by giving residents control over a budget. Informed by theoretical work in which community capabilities for collective control are conceptualised as different forms of power, and applying a relational lens, this paper presents findings on the potential role of money as a mechanism to enhance these capabilities from an on-going evaluation of a major place-based initiative being implemented in 150 neighbourhoods across England:The Big Local (BL). The research involved semi-structured interviews with 116 diverse stakeholders, including residents and participant observation in a diverse sample of 10 BL areas. We took a thematic constant comparative approach to the analysis of data from across the sites. The findings suggest that the money enabled the development of capabilities for collective control in these communities primarily by enhancing connectivity amongst residents and with external stakeholders. However, residents had to engage in significant 'relational work' to achieve these benefits and tensions around the money could hinder communities' 'power to act'. Greater social connectivity has been shown to directly affect individual and population health by increasing social cohesion and reducing loneliness. Additionally, supporting enhanced collective control of residents in these disadvantaged communities has the potential to improve population health and reduce health inequalities. • Supporting communities in gaining collective control has potential to reduce health inequities. • Disadvantaged communities with control over money, can develop 'powers' to improve where they live. • Communities in ' total ' collective control of budgets could benefit in symbolic and monetary ways. • Local initiatives require varied relational work in order to achieve positive community benefits. • Local resident led initiatives need to recognize, the exercise of relational work in their design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While social and spatial determinants of biomarkers have been reported, no previous study has examined both together within an intersectional perspective. We present a novel extension of quantitative intersectional analyses using cross-classified multilevel models to explore how intersectional positions and neighbourhood deprivation are associated with biomarkers, using baseline UK Biobank data (collected from 2006 to 2010). Our results suggest intersectional inequalities in biomarkers of healthy ageing are mostly established by age 40-49, but different intersections show different relationships with deprivation. Our study suggests that certain biosocial pathways are more strongly implicated in how neighbourhoods and intersectional positions affect healthy ageing than others., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

There is a need for greater conceptual clarity in place-based initiatives that seek to give residents of disadvantaged neighbourhoods more control over action to address the social determinants of health inequalities at a local level. In this article, we address this issue as it relates to the concepts of participation and inclusion. We draw on qualitative data generated during the first phase of the Communities in Control Study, a longitudinal multisite independent evaluation of the impact of Big Local on the social determinants of health and health inequalities. Big Local is a resident-led area improvement initiative in England, funded by the UK Big Lottery Fund. Initiatives focused on community empowerment are increasingly prominent in public health policy and practice globally. Approaches emphasise the promotion of greater control over decisions and action among individuals, groups, and communities, particularly those living in disadvantaged circumstances. However, when it comes to participation and inclusion in taking action and making decisions, the field is characterised by conceptual confusion. This risks undermining the impact of these initiatives. While participation and inclusion are necessary conditions for empowerment and collective control, they are not necessarily sufficient. Sufficiency requires attention to the breadth of participation (i.e., to inclusion) and to the depth of participation (i.e., the extent to which it is experienced as empowering and ultimately enables the exercise of collective control over decisions and actions). In observing how different Big Local resident-led partnerships across England are tackling the day-to-day challenges of engaging with their communities, we reveal the potential for policy and practice of reframing, and therefore clarifying (to highlight the different roles they have) the concepts of participation and inclusion in terms of depth and breadth., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Global migration from hepatitis B endemic countries poses a significant public health challenge in receiving low-prevalence countries. In the UK, Chinese migrants are a high risk group for hepatitis B. However, they are an underserved population that infrequently accesses healthcare. This study sought to increase understanding of the determinants of hepatitis B testing and healthcare access among migrants of Chinese ethnicity living in England., Methods: We sought to obtain and integrate insights from different key stakeholders in the system. We conducted six focus group discussions and 20 in-depth interviews with community members and patients identifying themselves as 'Chinese', and interviewed 21 clinicians and nine health service commissioners. Data were thematically analysed and findings were corroborated through two validation workshops., Results: Three thematic categories emerged: knowledge and awareness, visibility of the disease, and health service issues. Low disease knowledge and awareness levels among community members contributed to erroneous personal risk perception and suboptimal engagement with services. Limited clinician knowledge led to missed opportunities to test and inaccurate assessments of infection risks in Chinese patients. There was little social discourse and considerable stigma linked to the disease among some sub-sections of the Chinese population. A lack of visibility of the issue and the population within the health system meant that these health needs were not prioritised by clinicians or commissioners. Service accessibility was also affected by the lack of language support. Greater use of community outreach, consultation aids, 'cultural competency' training, and locally adapted testing protocols may help., Conclusions: Hepatitis B among migrants of Chinese ethnicity in England can be characterised as an invisible disease in an invisible population. Multi-modal solutions are needed to tackle barriers within this population and the health system.

Inequitable healthcare access, experiences and outcomes across ethnic groups are of concern across many countries. Progress on this agenda appears limited in England given the apparently strong legal and policy framework. This disjuncture raises questions about how central government policy is translated into local services. Healthcare commissioning organisations are a potentially powerful influence on services, but have rarely been examined from an equity perspective. We undertook a mixed method exploration of English Primary Care Trust (PCT) commissioning in 2010-12, to identify barriers and enablers to commissioning that addresses ethnic healthcare inequities, employing:- in-depth interviews with 19 national Key Informants; documentation of 10 good practice examples; detailed case studies of three PCTs (70+ interviews; extensive observational work and documentary analysis); three national stakeholder workshops. We found limited and patchy attention to ethnic diversity and inequity within English healthcare commissioning. Marginalization of this agenda, along with ambivalence, a lack of clarity and limited confidence, perpetuated a reinforcing inter-play between individual managers, their organisational setting and the wider policy context. Despite the apparent contrary indications, ethnic equity was a peripheral concern within national healthcare policy; poorly aligned with other more dominant agendas. Locally, consideration of ethnicity was often treated as a matter of legal compliance rather than integral to understanding and meeting healthcare needs. Many managers and teams did not consider tackling ethnic healthcare inequities to be part-and-parcel of their job, lacked confidence and skills to do so, and questioned the legitimacy of such work. Our findings indicate the need to enhance the skills, confidence and competence of individual managers and commissioning teams and to improve organizational structures and processes that support attention to ethnic inequity. Greater political will and clearer national direction is also required to produce the system change needed to embed action on ethnic inequity within healthcare commissioning., (Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

In many welfare states, 'austerity' policies have ignited debates about the fairness and cost-effectiveness of universal welfare benefits, with benefits received by older citizens a particular topic of concern. Empirical studies suggest that conditionality generates problems of access and uptake but, to date, there has been little research on how different conditions of entitlement are understood by older citizens. This study drew on interviews with 29 older citizens from three areas of England to explore how eligibility for and uptake of different kinds of welfare benefits were understood. In interviews, current entitlement was understood in relation to a generational habitus, in which 'our generation' was framed as sharing cohort experiences, and moral orientations to self-reliance, hard work and struggle. Entitlement to some welfare benefits was taken for granted as a reward owed by the state to its citizens for hard-earned lives. State transfers such as pensions, free travel and fuel subsidies were congruent with a nationalised generational habitus, and fostered recognition, self-worth and the sense of a generation as a collective. In contrast, transfers contingent on economic or need-based conditionality were more explicitly framed as 'benefits', and negatively associated with vulnerability and moral contestation. Uptake was therefore often incompatible with their generational habitus. Calls for introducing further conditionality to benefits for older adults are often based on claims that this will increase fairness and equality. Our analysis suggests, however, that introducing conditionality has the potential to promote inequality and foster differentiation and division, within the older population and between generations., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To determine whether an intervention designed to enhance research capacity among commissioners in the area of ethnicity and health was feasible and impactful, and to identify programme elements that might usefully be replicated elsewhere., Background: How healthcare commissioners should be equipped to understand and address multiethnic needs has received little attention to-date. Being able to mobilise and apply evidence is a central element of the commissioning process that requires development. Researching ethnicity and health is widely recognised as challenging and several prior interventions have aimed to enhance competence in this area. These have, however, predominantly taken place in North America and have not been evaluated in detail., Methods: An innovative research capacity development programme was delivered to public health staff within a large healthcare commissioning organisation in England. Evaluation methodology drew on 'pluralistic' evaluation principles and included formative and summative elements. Participant evaluation forms gave immediate feedback during the programme. Participants also provided feedback at two weeks and 12 months after the programme ended. In addition, one participant and one facilitator provided reflective accounts of the programme's strengths and weaknesses, and programme impact was traced through ongoing partnership work., Findings: The programme was well received and had a tangible impact on knowledge, confidence and practice for most participants. Factors important to success included: embedding learning within the participants' work context; ensuring a balance between theory and practical tips to enhance confidence; and having sustained interaction between trainers and participants. Despite positive signs, the challenging nature of the topic was highlighted, as were wider structural and cultural factors that impede progress in this area. Although it is unrealistic to expect such programmes to have a major impact on commissioning practices, they may well make an important contribution to raising the confidence and competence of staff to undertake work in this area.

Background: Addressing health inequalities remains a prominent policy objective of the current UK government, but current NHS reforms involve a significant shift in roles and responsibilities. Clinicians are now placed at the heart of healthcare commissioning through which significant inequalities in access, uptake and impact of healthcare services must be addressed. Questions arise as to whether these new arrangements will help or hinder progress on health inequalities. This paper explores the perspectives of experienced healthcare professionals working within the commissioning arena; many of whom are likely to remain key actors in this unfolding scenario., Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 42 professionals involved with health and social care commissioning at national and local levels. These included representatives from the Department of Health, Primary Care Trusts, Strategic Health Authorities, Local Authorities, and third sector organisations., Results: In general, respondents lamented the lack of progress on health inequalities during the PCT commissioning era, where strong policy had not resulted in measurable improvements. However, there was concern that GP-led commissioning will fare little better, particularly in a time of reduced spending. Specific concerns centred on: reduced commitment to a health inequalities agenda; inadequate skills and loss of expertise; and weakened partnership working and engagement. There were more mixed opinions as to whether GP commissioners would be better able than their predecessors to challenge large provider trusts and shift spend towards prevention and early intervention, and whether GPs' clinical experience would support commissioning action on inequalities. Though largely pessimistic, respondents highlighted some opportunities, including the potential for greater accountability of healthcare commissioners to the public and more influential needs assessments via emergent Health & Wellbeing Boards., Conclusions: There is doubt about the ability of GP commissioners to take clearer action on health inequalities than PCTs have historically achieved. Key actors expect the contribution from commissioning to address health inequalities to become even more piecemeal in the new arrangements, as it will be dependent upon the interest and agency of particular individuals within the new commissioning groups to engage and influence a wider range of stakeholders.