The Health Inequalities Assessment Toolkit: supporting integration of equity into applied health research.

BACKGROUND: Despite insistent calls for more and better evidence to inform action to reduce health inequities, applied health research sensitive to these inequalities is rare. Recognising this problem, the Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Research and Care in the North West Coast (England) developed the Health Inequalities Assessment Toolkit (HIAT) to support those involved in health research to integrate equity into their work. OBJECTIVE: This paper reports on an evaluation of the extent to which HIAT enhances the equity focus of the work of users. METHODS: The evaluation used semi-structured interviews, focus groups and workshops (n = 131 respondents including Public Advisers, university, NHS and local government partners). Routine data included HIAT feedback forms. FINDINGS: HIAT can help to strengthen the equity focus of applied health research by: increasing understanding of how socioeconomic inequities impact on health; building capacity for integrating equity into all aspects of research, implementation and capacity building; stimulating thinking on action to address local structural drivers of health inequalities; and increasing understanding of the positive contribution public involvement can make to research. CONCLUSION: If we are to advance health equity goals delivering research and training needs to be combined with political commitment to create more equal societies.

From fringe to centre-stage: experiences of mainstreaming health equity in a health research collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Action to address the structural determinants of health inequalities is prioritized in high-level initiatives such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and many national health strategies. Yet, the focus of much local policy and practice is on behaviour change. Research shows that whilst lifestyle approaches can improve population health, at best they fail to reduce health inequalities because they fail to address upstream structural determinants of behaviour and health outcomes. In health research, most efforts have been directed at three streams of work: understanding causal pathways; evaluating the equity impact of national policy; and developing and evaluating lifestyle/behavioural approaches to health improvement. As a result, there is a dearth of research on effective interventions to reduce health inequalities that can be developed and implemented at a local level. OBJECTIVE: To describe an initiative that aimed to mainstream a focus on health equity in a large-scale research collaboration in the United Kingdom and to assess the impact on organizational culture, research processes and individual research practice. METHODS: The study used multiple qualitative methods including semi-structured interviews, focus groups and workshops (n = 131 respondents including Public Advisers, university, National Health Service (NHS), and local and document review. RESULTS: utilizing Extended Normalization Process Theory (ENPT) and gender mainstreaming theory, the evaluation illuminated (i) the processes developed by Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care North West Coast to integrate ways of thinking and acting to tackle the upstream social determinants of health inequities (i.e. to mainstream a health equity focus) and (ii) the factors that promoted or frustrated these efforts. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the role of contextual factors and processes aimed at developing and implementing a robust strategy for mainstreaming health equity as building blocks for transformative change in applied health research.

Power, control, communities and health inequalities I: theories, concepts and analytical frameworks.

This is Part I of a three-part series on community empowerment as a route to greater health equity. We argue that community 'empowerment' approaches in the health field are increasingly restricted to an inward gaze on community psycho-social capacities and proximal neighbourhood conditions, neglecting the outward gaze on political and social transformation for greater equity embedded in foundational statements on health promotion. We suggest there are three imperatives if these approaches are to contribute to increased equity. First, to understand pathways from empowerment to health equity and drivers of the depoliticisation of contemporary empowerment practices. Second, to return to the original concept of empowerment processes that support communities of place/interest to develop capabilities needed to exercise collective control over decisions and actions in the pursuit of social justice. Third, to understand, and engage with, power dynamics in community settings. Based on our longitudinal evaluation of a major English community empowerment initiative and research on neighbourhood resilience, we propose two complementary frameworks to support these shifts. The Emancipatory Power Framework presents collective control capabilities as forms of positive power. The Limiting Power Framework elaborates negative forms of power that restrict the development and exercise of a community's capabilities for collective control. Parts II and III of this series present empirical findings on the operationalization of these frameworks. Part II focuses on qualitative markers of shifts in emancipatory power in BL communities and Part III explores how power dynamics unfolded in these neighbourhoods.

Power, control, communities and health inequalities III: participatory spaces-an English case.

This article-third in a series of three-uses theoretical frameworks described in Part 1, and empirical markers reported in Part 2, to present evidence on how power dynamics shifted during the early years of a major English community empowerment initiative. We demonstrate how the capabilities disadvantaged communities require to exercise collective control over decisions/actions impacting on their lives and health (conceptualized as emancipatory power) and the exercise of power over these communities (conceptualized as limiting power) were shaped by the characteristics of participatory spaces created by and/or associated with this initiative. Two main types of participatory spaces were identified: governance and sense-making. Though all forms of emancipatory power emerged in all spaces, some were more evident in particular spaces. In governance spaces, the development and enactment of 'power to' emerged as residents made formal decisions on action, allocated resources and managed accountability. Capabilities for alliance building-power with-were more likely to emerge in these spaces, as was residents' resistance to the exercise of institutional power over them. In contrast, in sense-making spaces residents met informally and 'made sense' of local issues and their ability to influence these. These processes led to the development of power within capabilities and power to resist stigmatizing forms of productive power. The findings highlight the importance of designing community initiatives that: nurture diverse participatory spaces; attend to connectivity between spaces; and identify and act on existing power dynamics undermining capabilities for collective control in disadvantaged communities.

Power, control, communities and health inequalities. Part II: measuring shifts in power.

In the health field, there is great interest in the role empowerment might play in reducing social inequalities in health. Empowerment is understood here as the processes of developing capabilities that individuals and/or communities need to exercise control over decisions and actions impacting on their lives and health. There is a fundamental problem, however, in identifying and measuring capabilities for collective control that emerge at the level of the collective, with much of the existing literature focusing on individual measures even where community-level processes are concerned. Collective measures need to capture the dynamics of interactions within and between groups, not simply aggregate individual-level measures. This article, Part 2 in a three-part series, takes up the challenge of identifying qualitative markers of capabilities for collective control. We applied the emancipatory power framework (EPF) reported in Part 1 of the series, to qualitative data generated during a longitudinal evaluation of a major English area-based empowerment initiative, the Big Local (BL). We identified empirical 'markers' of shifts towards greater collective control pertaining to each of the 'power' dimensions in the EPF-'power within', 'power with' and 'power to'-and markers of communities exercising 'power over' other institutions/community members. These markers can usefully be applied in the evaluation planning and evaluation of empowerment initiatives. Part 3 in the series uses these markers and a second analytical framework developed during our evaluation of BL to explore how power dynamics unfold in participatory spaces in BL neighbourhoods.

Why do some countries do better or worse in life expectancy relative to income? An analysis of Brazil, Ethiopia, and the United States of America.

BACKGROUND: While in general a country's life expectancy increases with national income, some countries "punch above their weight", while some "punch below their weight" - achieving higher or lower life expectancy than would be predicted by their per capita income. Discovering which conditions or policies contribute to this outcome is critical to improving population health globally. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-method study which included: analysis of life expectancy relative to income for all countries; an expert opinion study; and scoping reviews of literature and data to examine factors that may impact on life expectancy relative to income in three countries: Ethiopia, Brazil, and the United States. Punching above or below weight status was calculated using life expectancy at birth and gross domestic product per capita for 2014-2018. The scoping reviews covered the political context and history, social determinants of health, civil society, and political participation in each country. RESULTS: Possible drivers identified for Ethiopia's extra 3 years life expectancy included community-based health strategies, improving access to safe water, female education and gender empowerment, and the rise of civil society organisations. Brazil punched above its weight by 2 years. Possible drivers identified included socio-political and economic improvements, reduced inequality, female education, health care coverage, civil society, and political participation. The United States' neoliberal economics and limited social security, market-based healthcare, limited public health regulation, weak social safety net, significant increases in income inequality and lower levels of political participation may have contributed to the country punching 2.9 years below weight. CONCLUSIONS: The review highlighted potential structural determinants driving differential performance in population health outcomes cross-nationally. These included greater equity, a more inclusive welfare system, high political participation, strong civil society and access to employment, housing, safe water, a clean environment, and education. We recommend research comparing more countries, and also to examine the processes driving within-country inequities.

The elephant in the room? Why spatial stigma does not receive the public health attention it deserves.

In the context of health inequalities, spatial stigma refers to the ways that areas experiencing socioeconomic inequalities become negatively portrayed and labelled in public, official and policy discourses. With respect to the body of research on social determinants of health and health inequalities, and attention accorded to this issue in policy or practice, spatial stigma remains significantly under-represented compared with other possible causal factors. We suggest three explanations contributing to this neglect. First, the lack of research into spatial stigma originates from a more limited public health focus on the symbolic meanings of places for health, compared to their physical and social dimensions. Second, lay involvement and evidence of lived experiences of health inequalities continues to be under-represented in public health decision-making. Finally, it is the case that public health organizations may also be contributing to negative area portrayals in their communications of health inequalities. There are growing examples of social action being taken by groups of residents to resist this stigma through the promotion of more positive portrayals of areas and communities. Greater public health attention to this issue as well is likely to result in health gains and aid the development of more effective health inequalities strategies.

Mainstreaming public involvement in a complex research collaboration: A theory-informed evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: There is an extensive literature on public involvement (PI) in research, but this has focused primarily on experiences for researchers and public contributors and factors enabling or restricting successful involvement in specific projects. There has been less consideration of a 'whole system' approach to embedding PI across an organization from governance structures through to research projects. OBJECTIVE: To investigate how a combination of two theoretical frameworks, one focused on mainstreaming and the other conceptualizing quality, can illuminate the embedding of positive and influential PI throughout a research organization. METHODS: The study used data from the evaluation of a large UK research collaboration. Primary data were collected from 131 respondents (including Public Advisers, university, NHS and local government staff) via individual and group interviews/workshops. Secondary sources included monitoring data and internal documents. FINDINGS: CLAHRC-NWC made real progress in mainstreaming PI. An organizational vision and infrastructure to embed PI at all levels were created, and the number and range of opportunities increased; PI roles became more clearly defined and increasingly public contributors felt able to influence decisions. However, the aspiration to mainstream PI throughout the collaboration was not fully achieved: a lack of staff 'buy-in' meant that in some areas, it was not experienced as positively or was absent. CONCLUSION: The two theoretical frameworks brought a novel perspective, facilitating the investigation of the quality of PI in structures and processes across the whole organization. We propose that combining these frameworks can assist the evaluation of PI research.

The longitudinal NIHR ARC North West Coast Household Health Survey: exploring health inequalities in disadvantaged communities.

BACKGROUND: The Household Health Survey (HHS) was developed to understand the socioeconomic determinants of mental and physical health, and health inequalities in health and social care. This paper aims to provide a detailed rationale of the development and implementation of the survey and explore socio-economic variations in physical and mental health and health care. METHODS: This comprehensive longitudinal public health survey was designed and piloted in a disadvantaged area of England, comprising questions on housing, physical health, mental health, lifestyle, social issues, environment, work, and finances. After piloting, the HHS was implemented across 28 neighbourhoods - 10 disadvantaged neighbourhoods for learning (NfLs), 10 disadvantaged comparator sites, and eight relatively advantaged areas, in 2015 and 2018. Participants were recruited via random sampling of households in pre-selected neighbourhoods based on their areas of deprivation. RESULTS: 7731 residents participated in Wave 1 (N = 4319) and 2 (n = 3412) of the survey, with 871 residents having participated in both. Mental health, physical health, employment, and housing quality were poorer in disadvantaged neighbourhoods than in relatively advantaged areas. CONCLUSIONS: This survey provides important insights into socio-economic variations in physical and mental health, with findings having implications for improved care provision to enable residents from any geographical or socio-economic background to access suitable care.

Understanding Australian policies on public health using social and political science theories: reflections from an Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia Workshop.

There is strong, and growing, evidence documenting health inequities across the world. However, most governments do not prioritize policies to encourage action on the social determinants of health and health equity. Furthermore, despite evidence concerning the benefits of joined-up, intersectoral policy to promote health and health equity, it is rare for such policy approaches to be applied systematically. To examine the usefulness of political and social science theory in understanding the reasons for this disjuncture between evidence and practice, researchers and public servants gathered in Adelaide for an Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia (ASSA) Workshop. This paper draws together the learnings that emerged from the Workshop, including key messages about the usefulness of various theories as well as insights drawn from policy practice. Discussions during the Workshop highlighted that applying multiple theories is particularly helpful in directing attention to, and understanding, the influence of all stages of the policy process; from the construction and framing of policy problems, to the implementation of policy and evaluation of outcomes, including those outcomes that may be unintended. In addition, the Workshop emphasized the value of collaborations among public health researchers, political and social scientists and public servants to open up critical discussion about the intersections between theory, research evidence and practice. Such critique is vital to render visible the processes through which particular sources of knowledge may be privileged over others and to examine how political and bureaucratic environments shape policy proposals and implementation action.

Capturing complexity in the evaluation of a major area-based initiative in community empowerment: what can a multi-site, multi team, ethnographic approach offer?

In recent years, there has been growing emphasis on the need to develop ways of capturing 'complexity' in the evaluation of health initiatives in order to produce better evidence about 'how' and under what conditions such interventions work. Used alone, conventional methods of evaluation that attempt to reduce intervention processes and outcomes to a small number of discrete and finite variables, are typically not well suited to this task. Among the research community there have been increasing calls to take more seriously qualitative methods as an alternative or complementary approach to intervention evaluation. Ethnography has been identified as being particularly well suited to the purpose of capturing the full messiness that ensues when health interventions are introduced into complex settings (or systems). In this paper we reflect on our experience of taking a long term multi-site, multi team, ethnographic approach to capture complex, dynamic system processes in the first phase of an evaluation of a major area-based community empowerment initiative being rolled out in 150 neighbourhoods in England. We consider the utility of our approach for capturing the complexity inherent to understanding the changes that ensue when the initiative is delivered into multiple diverse contexts/systems as well as the opportunities and challenges that emerge in the research process.

Punching above their weight: a network to understand broader determinants of increasing life expectancy.

BACKGROUND: Life expectancy initially improves rapidly with economic development but then tails off. Yet, at any level of economic development, some countries do better, and some worse, than expected - they either punch above or below their weight. Why this is the case has been previously researched but no full explanation of the complexity of this phenomenon is available. NEW RESEARCH NETWORK: In order to advance understanding, the newly formed Punching Above Their Weight Research Network has developed a model to frame future research. It provides for consideration of the following influences within a country: political and institutional context and history; economic and social policies; scope for democratic participation; extent of health promoting policies affecting socio-economic inequities; gender roles and power dynamics; the extent of civil society activity and disease burdens. CONCLUSION: Further research using this framework has considerable potential to advance effective policies to advance health and equity.

Using the Public Involvement Impact Assessment Framework to assess the impact of public involvement in a mental health research context: A reflective case study.

BACKGROUND: We assess the utility of the Public Involvement Impact Assessment Framework (PiiAF) as a resource to support research teams in assessing the impact of Public Involvement across diverse research and public involvement (PI) contexts. PiiAF was developed in response to a well-documented growth in Public Involvement in health research in the United Kingdom that demands a more sophisticated evidence base to demonstrate its impact. DESIGN: We used a reflective case study approach drawing on contemporaneous meeting notes, PiiAF website resources and retrospective reflections to describe how PiiAF helped us to develop an impact assessment plan of the PI in a university-based mental health research centre. DISCUSSION: We consider key aspects of our experiences of using PiiAF as a tool to help us design an impact assessment of PI, interpret these experiences with reference to relevant theory and research and share insights that may be useful to other teams considering using PiiAF. CONCLUSION: These insights include understanding the commitment of time and effort required to develop effective PI impact assessment plans; the flexibility of PiiAF and its ability to be used in a range of research and PI contexts; and the advantages of involving all stakeholders (including the public) in the development of an PI assessment plan.

Health in All Policies in South Australia: what has supported early implementation?

Health in All Policies (HiAP) is a policy development approach that facilitates intersectoral responses to addressing the social determinants of health and health equity whilst, at the same time, contributing to policy priorities across the various sectors of government. Given that different models of HiAP have been implemented in at least 16 countries, there is increasing interest in how its effectiveness can be optimized. Much of the existing literature on HiAP remains descriptive, however, and lacks critical, empirically informed analyses of the elements that support implementation. Furthermore, literature on HiAP, and intersectoral action more generally, provides little detail on the practical workings of policy collaborations. This paper contributes empirical findings from a multi-method study of HiAP implementation in South Australia (SA) between 2007 and 2013. It considers the views of public servants and presents analysis of elements that have supported, and impeded, implementation of HiAP in SA. We found that HiAP has been implemented in SA using a combination of interrelated elements. The operation of these elements has provided a strong foundation, which suggests the potential for HiAP to extend beyond being an isolated strategy, to form a more integrated and systemic mechanism of policy-making. We conclude with learnings from the SA experience of HiAP implementation to inform the ongoing development and implementation of HiAP in SA and internationally.

Values associated with public involvement in health and social care research: a narrative review.

BACKGROUND: Much has been written about public involvement (PI) in health and social care research, but underpinning values are rarely made explicit despite the potential for these to have significant influence on the practice and assessment of PI. OBJECTIVE: The narrative review reported here is part of a larger MRC-funded study which is producing a framework and related guidance on assessing the impact of PI in health and social care research. The review aimed to identify and characterize the range of values associated with PI that are central elements of the framework. METHODS: We undertook a review and narrative synthesis of diverse literatures of PI in health and social care research, including twenty existing reviews and twenty-four chapters in sixteen textbooks. RESULTS: Three overarching value systems were identified, each containing five value clusters. (i) A system concerned with ethical and/or political issues including value clusters associated with empowerment; change/action; accountability/transparency; rights; and ethics (normative values). (ii). A system concerned with the consequences of public involvement in research including value clusters associated with effectiveness; quality/relevance; validity/reliability; representativeness/objectivity/generalizability; and evidence (substantive values). (iii) A system concerned with the conduct of public involvement in including value clusters associated with Partnership/equality; respect/trust; openness and honesty; independence; and clarity (process values). CONCLUSION: Our review identified three systems associated with PI in health and social care research focused on normative, substantive and process values. The findings suggest that research teams should consider and make explicit the values they attach to PI in research and discuss ways in which potential tensions may be managed in order to maximize the benefits of PI for researchers, lay experts and the research.

Evaluation of Health in All Policies: concept, theory and application.

This article describes some of the crucial theoretical, methodological and practical issues that need to be considered when evaluating Health in All Policies (HiAP) initiatives. The approaches that have been applied to evaluate HiAP in South Australia are drawn upon as case studies, and early findings from this evaluative research are provided. The South Australian evaluation of HiAP is based on a close partnership between researchers and public servants. The article describes the South Australian HiAP research partnership and considers its benefits and drawbacks in terms of the impact on the scope of the research, the types of evidence that can be collected and the implications for knowledge transfer. This partnership evolved from the conduct of process evaluations and is continuing to develop through joint collaboration on an Australian National Health & Medical Research Council grant. The South Australian research is not seeking to establish causality through statistical tests of correlations, but instead by creating a 'burden of evidence' which supports logically coherent chains of relations. These chains emerge through contrasting and comparing findings from many relevant and extant forms of evidence. As such, program logic is being used to attribute policy change to eventual health outcomes. The article presents the preliminary program logic model and describes the early work of applying the program logic approach to HiAP. The article concludes with an assessment of factors that have accounted for HiAP being sustained in South Australia from 2008 to 2013.

Does better than expected life expectancy in areas of disadvantage indicate health resilience? Stakeholder perspectives and possible explanations.

Some places have better than expected health trends despite being disadvantaged in other ways. Thematic analysis of qualitative data from stakeholders (N = 25) in two case studies of disadvantaged local authorities the North West and South East of England assessed explanations for the localities' apparent health resilience. Participants identified ways of working that might contribute to improved life expectancy, such as partnering with third sector, targeting and outcome driven action. Stakeholders were reluctant to assume credit for better-than-expected health outcomes. External factors such as population change, national politics and finances were considered crucial. Local public health stakeholders regard their work as important but unlikely to cause place-centred health resilience.

Caring During COVID-19: A Study of Intersectionality and Inequities in the Care Economy in 16 Countries.

Carers were disproportionately harmed in the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite facing an increased risk of contracting the virus, they continued in frontline roles in care services and acted as "shock absorbers" for their families and communities. In this article, we apply an intersectional lens to examine care work and the structural factors disadvantaging carers during COVID-19 through a comparative case study analysis of 16 low-, middle-, and high-income countries. Data on each country was collected through a qualitative framework during 2021-2022. We found that while carers everywhere were predominantly women with low incomes and precarious employment, other factors were at play in shaping their experiences. Moreover, government responses to mitigate the direct impact of the pandemic have created local and global disparities affecting those working in this sector. Our findings reveal how oppressive social structures such as race, class, caste, and migration status converged in contextually specific ways to shape the gendered nature of care within and between different countries. We call for a better understanding of the multiple axes of inequalities experienced by carers to inform crisis mitigations, coupled with long-term strategies to address social inequities in the care economy and to promote gender equality.

A qualitative study of the interactions among the psychosocial work environment and family, community and services for workers with low mental health.

BACKGROUND: The psychosocial work environment can benefit and harm mental health. Poor psychosocial work environments and high level work-family conflict are both associated with poor mental health, yet little is known about how people with poor mental health manage the interactions among multiple life domains. This study explores the interfaces among paid work, family, community and support services and their combined effects on mental health. METHODS: We conducted 21 in-depth semi-structured interviews with people identified as having poor mental health to examine their experiences of paid employment and mental health and wellbeing in the context of their daily lives. RESULTS: The employment-related psychosocial work environment, particularly workplace relationships, employment security and degree of control over hours, strongly affected participants' mental health. The interfaces among the life domains of family, community and access to support services suggest that effects on mental health differ according to: time spent in each domain, the social, psychological and physical spaces where domain activities take place, life stage and the power available to participants in their multiple domains. This paper is based on a framework analysis of all the interviews, and vignettes of four cases. Cases were selected to represent different types of relationships among the domains and how interactions among them either mitigated and/or exacerbated mental health effects of psychosocial work environments. CONCLUSIONS: Examining domain interactions provides greater explanatory capacity for understanding how people with low mental health manage their lives than restricting the research to the separate impacts of the psychosocial work environment or work-family conflict. The extent to which people can change the conditions under which they engage in paid work and participate in family and social life is significantly affected by the extent to which their employment position affords them latitude. Policies that provide psychosocial protections to workers that enable them to make changes or complaints without detrimental repercussions (such as vilification or job loss) and increase access to welfare benefits and support services could improve mental health among people with paid work. These policies would have particularly important effects for those in lower socioeconomic status positions.

Knowledge exchange in crisis settings: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Public health practice and efforts to improve the social determinants of health operate within a climate characterised by multiple and intersecting crises. This includes the Covid-19 pandemic as well as more protracted crises such as climate change and persistent social inequalities that impact health. We sought to understand and compare how knowledge exchange (KE) processes occur across different crises, and how knowledge on improving social determinants of health can be utilised at times of crisis to reduce health inequalities and strengthen public systems. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to understand how KE on improving social determinants of health can occur across different types of crises (e.g. environmental, pandemics, humanitarian). Relevant studies were identified through electronic searching of Medline, EMBASE, Global Health, Scopus and Web of Science databases. RESULTS: We identified 86 studies for inclusion in the review. Most studies concerned pandemic or environmental crises. Fewer studies explored KE during technical (e.g. nuclear), terror-related or humanitarian crises. This may reflect a limitation of the searches. Few studies assessed KE as part of longer-term responses to social and economic impacts of crises, with studies more likely to focus on immediate response or early recovery stages. Exchange of research evidence or data with policy or practice contextual knowledge was common but there was variation in the extent that lay (public) knowledge was included as part of KE processes. CONCLUSION: As ongoing crises continue with significant public health implications, KE processes should appropriately reflect the complexity inherent in crises and foreground health inequalities. Doing so could include the utilisation of systems or complexity-informed methods to support planning and evaluation of KE, a greater focus on KE to support action to address social determinants of health, and the inclusion of a plurality of knowledge-including lived experience-in planning and responding to crises.