Planning for health equity in the crossfire between science and policy.

The persistence of health inequalities means that many public health professionals face an ongoing task to develop and update policies to tackle them. However, although the inequalities might be unchanged, the political priorities in the many policy areas involved are changing and the ambition to reduce the health divide is constantly facing strong forces pushing in the opposite direction. Recent proposals to re-think health inequalities need to be treated with caution because they are disconnected from what is needed for policy-making in this area. From our experience of 35 years in developing strategies to tackle health inequalities, we still see many entry points with space for local and national improvements, but it is crucial to ask the right questions. The aim of this Commentary is to present a new framework of eight questions that might provide a helpful structure for the necessary dialogue between researchers and policy-makers. Even if answers are not yet available for all of them, we believe that discussing them for a specific population in a specific political context will be fruitful to inform policy on the ground.

An exploration of the statutory Healthy Start vitamin supplementation scheme in North West England.

BACKGROUND: Government nutritional welfare support from the English 'Healthy Start' scheme is targeted at low-income pregnant women and preschool children, but take-up of its free food vouchers is much better than its free vitamin vouchers. While universal implementation probably requires a more extensive scheme to be cost-effective, the everyday experience of different ways of receiving or facilitating Healthy Start, especially via children's centres, also requires further evidence. This study therefore aimed to explore (in the context of low take-up levels) perceptions of mothers, health professionals, and commissioners about Healthy Start vitamin and food voucher take-up and compare experiences in a targeted and a universal implementation-area for those vitamins. METHODS: Informed by quantitative analysis of take-up data, qualitative analysis focused on 42 semi-structured interviews with potentially eligible mothers and healthcare staff (and commissioners), purposively sampled via children's centres in a similarly deprived universal and a targeted implementation-area of North West England. RESULTS: While good food voucher take-up appeared to relate to clear presentation, messaging, practicality, and monetary (albeit low) value, poor vitamin take-up appeared to relate to overcomplicated procedures and overreliance on underfunded centres, organizational goodwill, and families' resilience. CONCLUSION: Higher 'universal' vitamin take-up may well have reflected fewer barriers when it became everyone's business to be vitamin-aware. Substantive Healthy Start reform in England (not just cosmetic tinkering) is long overdue. Our study highlights that 'policy, politics, and problem' should be aligned to reach considerable unmet need.

Linking pathogens, people and places: Using geo-ethnography to understand place-based, socio-economic inequalities in gastrointestinal infections in the UK.

This ethnographic study in two socio-economically contrasting areas employed geo-ethnography, underpinned by a relational approach, to understand inequalities in gastrointestinal infections in families with young children. In our 'relatively disadvantaged' area, gastrointestinal infections spread to multiple households within a small radius, whereas in our 'relatively advantaged' area, illness was confined to one household or dispersed long distances. These differences were shaped by historical, social and economic contrasts in: housing; social networks and childcare arrangements; employment and household income. Our findings show how linking places, pathogens and people helps us understand inequalities in gastrointestinal infections and may be pertinent to other infectious diseases such as COVID-19.

Reducing lifestyle risk behaviours in disadvantaged groups in high-income countries: A scoping review of systematic reviews.

High prevalence of risk behaviours may exacerbate existing poor health in disadvantaged groups. We aimed to identify and bring together systematic reviews with a focus on reducing risk behaviours in disadvantaged groups and highlight where evidence is lacking. We searched MEDLINE and Embase up to October 2020, with supplementary searching in Epistemonikos and Health Systems Evidence. We included systematic reviews that reported behavioural outcomes and targeted smoking, excessive alcohol use, unhealthy diet, or physical inactivity in groups with the following characteristics: low income or low socio-economic status (SES), unemployed people, homeless people, care leavers, prisoners, refugees or asylum seeker, Gypsies, Travellers, or Roma, people with learning disabilities and people living in disadvantaged areas. Reviews that included primary studies from any high-income country were eligible. Reviews were mapped based on the disadvantaged group(s) and behaviour(s) targeted. Ninety-two reviews were included, with the majority (n = 63) focusing on people with low income or low SES. We identified gaps in the evidence for care leavers; Gypsies, Travellers, and Roma and limited evidence for refugees and unemployed people. Few reviews targeted alcohol use. There was limited evidence on barriers and facilitators to behaviour change. This suggests there is insufficient evidence to inform policy and practice and new reviews or primary studies may be required.

The Dahlgren-Whitehead model of health determinants: 30 years on and still chasing rainbows.

This year marks the 30th anniversary of the Dahlgren and Whitehead model of the main determinants of health, sometimes known as 'The Rainbow Model'. In this article, we reflect on developments over those thirty years before going on to look to the future. We start by telling the story of our model's idiosyncratic journey from initial rejection to worldwide acclaim. We reflect on the many ways in which the model has been used over the years and why it has proved illuminating for people in so many different positions. It is equally important to understand what it does not do and what it was never intended to do, as sometimes the conceptual debate gets side-tracked by mistaken assumptions. We take some space to outline how we ourselves use the model with the complementary Diderichsen Framework to explain the pathways and mechanisms by which the known determinants of health bring about the social gradients in health that are observed within countries. We conclude by looking to the future and what further needs to be done to capture insights for action on the determinants and drivers of health and of growing inequalities in the post-pandemic world.

How are inequalities generated in the management and consequences of gastrointestinal infections in the UK? An ethnographic study.

Gastrointestinal infections are an important global public health issue. In the UK, one in four people experience a gastrointestinal infection each year and epidemiological research highlights inequalities in the burden of disease. Specifically, poorer children are at greater risk of infection and the consequences of illness, such as symptom severity and time off work/school, are greater for less privileged groups of all ages. Gastrointestinal infections are, however, largely 'hidden' within the home and little is known about the lived experience and practices surrounding these illnesses, how they vary across contrasting socioeconomic contexts, or how inequalities in the disease burden across socioeconomic groups might come about. This paper presents data from an ethnographic study which illuminate how socioeconomic inequalities in the physical and material management and consequences of gastrointestinal infections are generated in families with young children. The study shows how the 'work' needed to manage gastrointestinal infections is more laborious for people living in more 'disadvantaged' conditions, exacerbated by: more overcrowded homes with fewer washing and toilet facilities; inflexible employment; low household incomes; and higher likelihood of co-morbidities which can be made worse by having a gastrointestinal infection. Our findings call into question the current approach to prevention of gastrointestinal infections which tend to focus almost exclusively on individual behaviours, which are not adapted to reflect differences in socioeconomic context. Public health agencies should also consider how wider social, economic and policy contexts shape inequalities in the management and consequences of illness. Our findings are also pertinent to the COVID-19 pandemic response in the UK. They highlight how research and policy approaches to acute infectious diseases need to take into consideration the differing lived experiences of contrasting households if they wish to address (and avoid exacerbating) inequalities in the future.

Evaluation of public health interventions from a complex systems perspective: A research methods review.

INTRODUCTION: Applying a complex systems perspective to public health evaluation may increase the relevance and strength of evidence to improve health and reduce health inequalities. In this review of methods, we aimed to: (i) classify and describe different complex systems methods in evaluation applied to public health; and (ii) examine the kinds of evaluative evidence generated by these different methods. METHODS: We adapted critical review methods to identify evaluations of public health interventions that used systems methods. We conducted expert consultation, searched electronic databases (Scopus, MEDLINE, Web of Science), and followed citations of relevant systematic reviews. Evaluations were included if they self-identified as using systems- or complexity-informed methods and if they evaluated existing or hypothetical public health interventions. Case studies were selected to illustrate different types of complex systems evaluation. FINDINGS: Seventy-four unique studies met our inclusion criteria. A framework was developed to map the included studies onto different stages of the evaluation process, which parallels the planning, delivery, assessment, and further delivery phases of the interventions they seek to inform; these stages include: 1) theorising; 2) prediction (simulation); 3) process evaluation; 4) impact evaluation; and 5) further prediction (simulation). Within this framework, we broadly categorised methodological approaches as mapping, modelling, network analysis and 'system framing' (the application of a complex systems perspective to a range of study designs). Studies frequently applied more than one type of systems method. CONCLUSIONS: A range of complex systems methods can be utilised, adapted, or combined to produce different types of evaluative evidence. Further methodological innovation in systems evaluation may generate stronger evidence to improve health and reduce health inequalities in our complex world.

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.

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 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.

What is the effect of changing eligibility criteria for disability benefits on employment? A systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence from OECD countries.

BACKGROUND: Restrictions in the eligibility requirements for disability benefits have been introduced in many countries, on the assumption that this will increase work incentives for people with chronic illness and disabilities. Evidence to support this assumption is unclear, but there is a danger that removal of social protection without increased employment would increase the risk of poverty among disabled people. This paper presents a systematic review of the evidence on the employment effects of changes to eligibility criteria across OECD countries. METHODS: Systematic review of all empirical studies from OECD countries from 1990 to June 2018 investigating the effect of changes in eligibility requirements and income replacement level of disability benefits on the employment of disabled people. Studies were narratively synthesised, and meta-analysis was performed using meta-regression on all separate results. The systematic review protocol was registered with the Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (Registration code: PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018103930). RESULTS: Seventeen studies met inclusion criteria from seven countries. Eight investigated an expansion of eligibility criteria and nine a restriction. There were 36 separate results included from the 17 studies. Fourteen examined an expansion of eligibility; six found significantly reduced employment, eight no significant effect and one increased employment. Twenty-two results examined a restriction in eligibility for benefits; three found significantly increased employment, 18 no significant effect and one reduced employment. Meta-regression of all studies produced a relative risk of employment of 1.06 (95% CI 0.999 to 1.014; I2 77%). CONCLUSIONS: There was no firm evidence that changes in eligibility affected employment of disabled people. Restricting eligibility therefore has the potential to lead to a growing number of people out of employment with health problems who are not eligible for adequate social protection, increasing their risk of poverty. Policymakers and researchers need to address the lack of robust evidence for assessing the employment impact of these types of welfare reforms as well as the potential wider poverty impacts.

Inequalities in extending working lives beyond age 60 in Canada, Denmark, Sweden and England-By gender, level of education and health.

BACKGROUND: Keeping older workers in employment is critical for societies facing the challenge of an ageing population. This study examined the association between types of health conditions and differentials in the probability of employment by level of education among men and women between 60-69 years of age in Canada, Denmark, Sweden and England. METHODS: Data were drawn from the Canadian Community Health Survey, Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe and English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. We combined country data, applied logistic regression, adjusted for educational level, and stratified the analysis by sex to calculate the odds ratio (OR) of employment (>15 hours work per week) for persons with physical health conditions, mental health conditions (depression) and physical-mental health comorbidity. RESULTS: The odds of employment among men and women with physical-mental health comorbidity were lower compared to those with no/other conditions (men: OR 0.32, 95% CI: 0.25-0.42, women: OR 0.38 95% CI: 0.30-0.48). Women with low education had lower odds of employment compared to their counterparts with high education (OR 0.66, 95% CI: 0.57-0.76). The odds of employment at older ages was lower in Canada, Denmark and England compared with Sweden (e.g. English men: OR 0.48 95% CI 0.40-0.58; English women OR 0.33 95% CI 0.27-0.41). CONCLUSIONS: The odds of employment beyond age 60 is lower for groups with low education, particularly women, and those with physical-mental health co-morbidities. As such, policies to extend working lives should not be 'one size fits all' but instead consider subgroups, in particular, these groups that we have shown to be most vulnerable on the labour market.

How do early-life adverse childhood experiences mediate the relationship between childhood socioeconomic conditions and adolescent health outcomes in the UK?

BACKGROUND: Both adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and adverse childhood socioeconomic conditions (SECs) in early life are associated with poor outcomes across the life course. However, the complex interrelationships between childhood SECs and ACEs are unclear, as are the consequences for health outcomes beyond childhood. We therefore assessed the extent to which early-life ACEs mediate the relationship between SECs and socioemotional behavioural problems, cognitive disability and overweight/obesity in adolescence. METHODS: We used longitudinal data from the UK Millennium Cohort Study (MSC). Outcomes assessed at age 14 were socioemotional behavioural problems, cognitive disability and overweight/obesity. SECs at birth were measured by maternal education. Potentially mediating ACEs measured up to 5 years were verbal and physical maltreatment, parental drug use, domestic violence, parental divorce, maternal mental illness and high frequency of parental alcohol use. We used counterfactual mediation analysis to assess the extent to which ACEs mediate the association between SECs at birth and behavioural, cognitive and physical outcomes at age 14, estimating total (TE), natural direct and indirect effects, and mediated proportions. RESULTS: Children with disadvantaged SECs were more likely to have socioemotional behavioural problems (relative risk (RR) 3.85, 95% CI 2.48 to 5.97), cognitive disability (RR 3.87, 95% CI 2.33 to 6.43) and overweight/obesity (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.95), compared to those with more advantaged SECs. Overall, 18% of the TE of SECs on socioemotional behavioural problems was mediated through all ACEs investigated. For cognitive disability and overweight/obese, the proportions mediated were 13% and 19%, respectively. CONCLUSION: ACEs measured up to age 5 years in the MCS explained about one-sixth of inequalities in adolescents behavioural, cognitive and physical outcomes.

Reporting of health equity considerations in cluster and individually randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: The randomized controlled trial (RCT) is considered the gold standard study design to inform decisions about the effectiveness of interventions. However, a common limitation is inadequate reporting of the applicability of the intervention and trial results for people who are "socially disadvantaged" and this can affect policy-makers' decisions. We previously developed a framework for identifying health-equity-relevant trials, along with a reporting guideline for transparent reporting. In this study, we provide a descriptive assessment of health-equity considerations in 200 randomly sampled equity-relevant trials. METHODS: We developed a search strategy to identify health-equity-relevant trials published between 2013 and 2015. We randomly sorted the 4316 records identified by the search and screened studies until 100 individually randomized (RCTs) and 100 cluster randomized controlled trials (CRTs) were identified. We developed and pilot-tested a data extraction form based on our initial work, to inform the development of our reporting guideline for equity-relevant randomized trials. RESULTS: In total, 39 trials (20%) were conducted in a low- and middle-income country and 157 trials (79%) in a high-income country focused on socially disadvantaged populations (78% CRTs, 79% RCTs). Seventy-four trials (37%) reported a subgroup analysis across a population characteristic associated with disadvantage (25% CRT, 49% RCTs), with 19% of included studies reporting subgroup analyses across sex, 9% across race/ethnicity/culture, and 4% across socioeconomic status. No subgroup analyses were reported for place of residence, occupation, religion, education, or social capital. One hundred and forty-one trials (71%) discussed the applicability of their results to one or more socially disadvantaged populations (68% of CRT, 73% of RCT). DISCUSSION: In this set of trials, selected for their relevance to health equity, data that were disaggregated for socially disadvantaged populations were rarely reported. We found that even when the data are available, opportunities to analyze health-equity considerations are frequently missed. The recently published equity extension of the Consolidated Reporting Standards for Randomized Trials (CONSORT-Equity) may help improve delineation of hypotheses related to socially disadvantaged populations, and transparency and completeness of reporting of health-equity considerations in RCTs. This study can serve as a baseline assessment of the reporting of equity considerations.

Effects on mental health of a UK welfare reform, Universal Credit: a longitudinal controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Universal Credit, a welfare benefit reform in the UK, began to replace six existing benefit schemes in April, 2013, starting with the income-based Job Seekers Allowance. We aimed to determine the effects on mental health of the introduction of Universal Credit. METHODS: In this longitudinal controlled study, we linked 197 111 observations from 52 187 individuals of working age (16-64 years) in England, Wales, and Scotland who participated in the Understanding Society UK Longitudinal Household Panel Study between 2009 and 2018 with administrative data on the month when Universal Credit was introduced into the area in which each respondent lived. We included participants who had data on employment status, local authority area of residence, psychological distress, and confounding variables. We excluded individuals from Northern Ireland and people out of work with a disability. We used difference-in-differences analysis of this nationally representative, longitudinal, household survey and separated respondents into two groups: unemployed people who were eligible for Universal Credit (intervention group) and people who were not unemployed and therefore would not have generally been eligible for Universal Credit (comparison group). Using the phased roll-out of Universal Credit, we compared the change in psychological distress (self-reported via General Health Questionnaire-12) between the intervention group and the comparison group over time as the reform was introduced in the area in which each respondent lived. We defined clinically significant psychological distress as a score of greater than 3 on the General Health Questionnaire-12. We tested whether there were differential effects across subgroups (age, sex, and education). FINDINGS: The prevalence of psychological distress increased in the intervention group by 6·57 percentage points (95% CI 1·69-11·42) after the introduction of Universal Credit relative to the comparison group, after accounting for potential confounders. We estimate that between April 29, 2013, and Dec 31, 2018, an additional 63 674 (95% CI 10 042-117 307) unemployed people will have experienced levels of psychological distress that are clinically significant due to the introduction of Universal Credit; 21 760 of these individuals might reach the diagnostic threshold for depression. INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that the introduction of Universal Credit led to an increase in psychological distress, a measure of mental health difficulties, among those affected by the policy. Future changes to government welfare systems should be evaluated not only on a fiscal basis but on their potential to affect health and wellbeing. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust, UK National Institute for Health Research, and Medical Research Council.

Reducing inequities in health across the life-course: early years, childhood and adolescence

Socioeconomic inequities in child health are seen across the WHO European Region for almost all aspects of physical and mental health. They emerge from birth and persist across childhood, adolescence and into adulthood. This report lays out the key arguments for promoting equity in the early years, childhood and adolescence. It then goes on to outline evidence and policy options to address inequities in child health, along with limitations of this evidence and suggestions for future directions. Member State commitments, giving policy-makers the mandate to take action, and the key stakeholders and partners needed to reduce health inequities are presented. The report ends with a list of indicators to monitor progress in the factors most likely to bring about change.