Addressing health inequalities in times of austerity: implementation of a place-based approach in multitiered local government.

AIMS: This article focuses on how local authorities in England are tackling wider determinants of health and inequalities in their population's outcomes while budgets for public services are diminishing. METHODS: It reports the experience from one case study engaged in rolling out a devolved, place- and asset-based strategy over multiple tiers of local government. Relating these findings to relevant social theory, we draw out aspects of context and mechanisms of change. We offer plausible hypotheses for the experiences observed, which supports transferability and implementation of place-based strategies in other local authority areas struggling with similar challenges. RESULTS: Findings highlight the importance of high-level and political buy-in, as well as the role of the COVID-19 pandemic as a potential catalyst to rollout. Creating the foundations for a new, place-based working was important for achieving coherence among partners around what local government was trying to achieve. These included investment in infrastructure, both relational and tangible inputs such as organisational and human resources, to establish the conditions for systemic change towards early intervention and prevention. CONCLUSION: This study identified clear foundations for place-based action, plus enablers and barriers to significant transformation of practice towards asset-based approaches between local authorities, partners and the public.

Examining the effectiveness of place-based interventions to improve public health and reduce health inequalities: an umbrella review.

BACKGROUND: Locally delivered, place-based public health interventions are receiving increasing attention as a way of improving health and reducing inequalities. However, there is limited evidence on their effectiveness. This umbrella review synthesises systematic review evidence of the health and health inequalities impacts of locally delivered place-based interventions across three elements of place and health: the physical, social, and economic environments. METHODS: Systematic review methodology was used to identify recent published systematic reviews of the effectiveness of place-based interventions on health and health inequalities (PROGRESS+) in high-income countries. Nine databases were searched from 1st January 2008 to 1st March 2020. The quality of the included articles was determined using the Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool (R-AMSTAR). RESULTS: Thirteen systematic reviews were identified - reporting 51 unique primary studies. Fifty of these studies reported on interventions that changed the physical environment and one reported on changes to the economic environment. Only one primary study reported cost-effectiveness data. No reviews were identified that assessed the impact of social interventions. Given heterogeneity and quality issues, we found tentative evidence that the provision of housing/home modifications, improving the public realm, parks and playgrounds, supermarkets, transport, cycle lanes, walking routes, and outdoor gyms - can all have positive impacts on health outcomes - particularly physical activity. However, as no studies reported an assessment of variation in PROGRESS+ factors, the effect of these interventions on health inequalities remains unclear. CONCLUSIONS: Place-based interventions can be effective at improving physical health, health behaviours and social determinants of health outcomes. High agentic interventions indicate greater improvements for those living in greater proximity to the intervention, which may suggest that in order for interventions to reduce inequalities, they should be implemented at a scale commensurate with the level of disadvantage. Future research needs to ensure equity data is collected, as this is severely lacking and impeding progress on identifying interventions that are effective in reducing health inequalities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019158309.

PAPNET-assisted rescreening of cervical smears: cost and accuracy compared with a 100% manual rescreening strategy.

CONTEXT: The Food and Drug Administration has recently approved several devices that use computerized image analysis to rescreen Papanicolaou (Pap) smears that have already been examined by cytotechnologists. Physicians and laboratories must decide whether the utility of these devices justifies the cost. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness and cost of PAPNET-assisted rescreening in identifying cervical abnormalities not identified by manual rescreening. DESIGN: PAPNET-assisted rescreening of 5478 Pap smears obtained in 1994 and 1995 previously identified as "within normal limits" or "benign changes" on both initial and random screening. PATIENTS: Female service members and dependents aged 12 to 88 years. SETTING: Air Force clinics in the United States and Japan. INTERVENTION: Rescreening of Pap smears by PAPNET, followed by reevaluation of abnormal smears by the consensus panel, consisting of 3 cytotechnologists and 3 pathologists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of Pap smears initially screened as normal identified as abnormal by both PAPNET and consensus panel; costs of rescreening. RESULTS: PAPNET screening identified 1614 (29%) slides requiring additional microscopic review. On further review, 448 (8% of total) had possibly abnormal cells. Ultimately, 11 of these cases were reviewed by the consensus panel for potentially atypical cells. Of these 11 cases, 5 were reclassified as atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) and 1 as atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance (AGUS). No additional squamous intraepithelial neoplasia (SIL) was identified in these smears; the patient with a diagnosis of AGUS on rescreening was diagnosed as having a low-grade SIL (LSIL) on follow-up. Costs were $5825 to $33781 for each additional ASCUS or AGUS diagnosis. A cost of $17475 to $101343 is expected for each case of LSIL identified by PAPNET-assisted rescreening and not by traditional manual rescreening. CONCLUSIONS: PAPNET-assisted rescreening identified a few more cases of ASCUS than did manual rescreening, but at a relatively high cost. The costs of rescreening should be carefully compared with the expected efficacy in reducing cervical cancer mortality.