RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Housing is an important wider determinant of health. Private Rented Sector (PRS) housing is generally the worst quality of housing stock across tenures. Although a wide range of interventions are available to local governments to manage and improve the quality of PRS housing and therefore the health of tenants, there is limited evidence about the extent to which these are used. This study aims to explore what drives the use of different interventions in different local governments, to better understand and inform local strategies. METHODS: As the first realist evaluation on this topic, the range of available interventions was informed by a Local Government Association toolkit. Consistent with realist approaches, retroductive analysis of intervention-context-mechanism-outcome configurations helped to develop and refine Initial Programme Theories (IPTs). Data sources included local government housing documents, a survey and eleven semi-structured interviews with housing officers. RESULTS: Using data for 22 out of the 30 local governments in the South West region of the United Kingdom, eight IPTs were developed which act on different levels from individual PRS team leaders to system wide. The IPTs include a belief in market forces, risk adverse to legal challenge, attitude to enforcement, relational approaches to partnership working, job security and renumeration, financial incentives drive action, and system-level understanding of the drivers of poor health, inequalities and opportunities for cost-savings. The findings suggest that limited objective health outcomes are being used to understand impact, which hinders interpretation of the effectiveness of all mechanisms. CONCLUSION: Interventions that bring about positive outcomes in managing PRS housing are unlikely to be universal; they depend on the context which differs across place and over time. The proposed IPTs highlight the need for strategies to be tailored considering the local context and should be evaluated in subsequent phases of study.
Asunto(s)
Vivienda , Gobierno Local , Humanos , Reino Unido , Vivienda/normas , Sector Privado , Evaluación de Programas y Proyectos de SaludRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In the UK, unique and unforeseen factors, including COVID-19, Brexit, and Ukraine-Russia war, have resulted in an unprecedented cost of living crisis, creating a second health emergency. We present, one of the first rapid reviews with the aim of examining the impact of this current crisis, at a population level. We reviewed published literature, as well as grey literature, examining a broad range of physical and mental impacts on health in the short, mid, and long term, identifying those most at risk, impacts on system partners, including emergency services and the third sector, as well as mitigation strategies. METHODS: We conducted a rapid review by searching PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and HMIC (2020 to 2023). We searched for grey literature on Google and hand-searched the reports of relevant public health organisations. We included interventional and observational studies that reported outcomes of interventions aimed at mitigating against the impacts of cost of living at a population level. RESULTS: We found that the strongest evidence was for the impact of cold and mouldy homes on respiratory-related infections and respiratory conditions. Those at an increased risk were young children (0-4 years), the elderly (aged 75 and over), as well as those already vulnerable, including those with long-term multimorbidity. Further short-term impacts include an increased risk of physical pain including musculoskeletal and chest pain, and increased risk of enteric infections and malnutrition. In the mid-term, we could see increases in hypertension, transient ischaemic attacks, and myocardial infarctions, and respiratory illnesses. In the long term we could see an increase in mortality and morbidity rates from respiratory and cardiovascular disease, as well as increase rates of suicide and self-harm and infectious disease outcomes. Changes in behaviour are likely particularly around changes in food buying patterns and the ability to heat a home. System partners are also impacted, with voluntary sectors seeing fewer volunteers, an increase in petty crime and theft, alternative heating appliances causing fires, and an increase in burns and burn-related admissions. To mitigate against these impacts, support should be provided, to the most vulnerable, to help increase disposable income, reduce energy bills, and encourage home improvements linked with energy efficiency. Stronger links to bridge voluntary, community, charity and faith groups are needed to help provide additional aid and support. CONCLUSION: Although the CoL crisis affects the entire population, the impacts are exacerbated in those that are most vulnerable, particularly young children, single parents, multigenerational families. More can be done at a community and societal level to support the most vulnerable, and those living with long-term multimorbidity. This review consolidates the current evidence on the impacts of the cost of living crisis and may enable decision makers to target limited resources more effectively.