Explaining differential socioeconomic effects in population health interventions: development and application of a new tool to classify intervention agentic demand.

BACKGROUND: The agentic demand of population health interventions (PHIs) might influence how interventions work. Highly agentic interventions (eg, information campaigns) rely on recipients noticing and responding to the intervention. Resources required for individuals to benefit from highly agentic interventions have a socioeconomical pattern, thus agentic demand might affect intervention effectiveness and equity. Systematic evidence exploring these associations is missing due to the absence of adequate tools to classify agentic demands. We aimed to develop such a tool and test its application. METHODS: Our iterative development process involved: (1) systematic identification of diet and physical activity PHIs; (2) coding of intervention actors and actions; (3) data synthesis; (4) expert qualitative feedback; and (5) reliability assessment. We searched nine databases for articles published between Jan 1, 2010, and Aug 17, 2020. For all included articles, we coded the actors (people required to act within an intervention) and their actions (what they were required to do for the intervention to have its intended effects). We combined these codes for similar intervention types to develop overarching schematic flow chart diagrams used to identify concepts, and we organised these into a draft tool. After expert feedback, and we assessed inter-rater reliability of the final version. We applied the final tool in a proof-of-concept review, extracting studies from three existing equity-focused systematic reviews on tool category, overall intervention effect, and differential socioeconomic effects and visualised findings. FINDINGS: We identified three concepts affecting agentic demands of intervention components: exposure, two levels (how recipients encounter the intervention); mechanism of action, five levels; and engagement, two levels (how recipients respond to the intervention). We then combined these concepts to form 20 categories that grouped together interventions with similar agentic demands. In the review, we applied the tool to 26 PHIs that included 163 components. Intervention components were concentrated in a small number of categories, and their categorisation was related to intervention equity but not to effectiveness. INTERPRETATION: We present a novel tool to classify the agentic demand of PHIs and demonstrate its feasibility within a systematic review. Linking intervention types to their effect on inequalities enables these factors to be considered when designing or selecting interventions. Users of the tool can avoid implementing intervention types that are likely to widen inequalities or implement them alongside counter-strategies to minimise any adverse equity effects. Applying this tool within future research, policy, and practice to design, select, evaluate, and synthesise evidence from PHIs has the potential to advance our understanding of how interventions work and their effect on socioeconomic inequalities. FUNDING: Public Health Policy Research Unit (PH-PRU), National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Policy Research Programme.

Defining and conceptualising the commercial determinants of health.

Although commercial entities can contribute positively to health and society there is growing evidence that the products and practices of some commercial actors-notably the largest transnational corporations-are responsible for escalating rates of avoidable ill health, planetary damage, and social and health inequity; these problems are increasingly referred to as the commercial determinants of health. The climate emergency, the non-communicable disease epidemic, and that just four industry sectors (ie, tobacco, ultra-processed food, fossil fuel, and alcohol) already account for at least a third of global deaths illustrate the scale and huge economic cost of the problem. This paper, the first in a Series on the commercial determinants of health, explains how the shift towards market fundamentalism and increasingly powerful transnational corporations has created a pathological system in which commercial actors are increasingly enabled to cause harm and externalise the costs of doing so. Consequently, as harms to human and planetary health increase, commercial sector wealth and power increase, whereas the countervailing forces having to meet these costs (notably individuals, governments, and civil society organisations) become correspondingly impoverished and disempowered or captured by commercial interests. This power imbalance leads to policy inertia; although many policy solutions are available, they are not being implemented. Health harms are escalating, leaving health-care systems increasingly unable to cope. Governments can and must act to improve, rather than continue to threaten, the wellbeing of future generations, development, and economic growth.

Lobbying against tobacco tax increases in France: arguments and strategies of the tobacco industry and tobacconists analysed through their trade press.

INTRODUCTION: Raising taxes is one of the most cost-effective measures to reduce tobacco use. France has a unique profile: it has high tobacco use prevalence and a state monopoly on tobacco sales for tobacconists who are both agents of the customs administration and a recognised tobacco industry (TI) front group. In this paper, we investigate the lobbying tactics and arguments against tobacco taxation mobilised by the TI and tobacconists in France. METHODS: We conducted a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the two leading French tobacco trade media outlets (La Revue des Tabacs and Le Losange) between 2000 and 2020. We performed a manual thematic content analysis based on existing conceptual models of TI political activity, including the policy dystopia model. RESULTS: Tobacconists actively lobbied against tobacco taxation, using traditional arguments highlighted in conceptual models (ie, the claim that 'taxation increases illicit trade and is ineffective'), but also France-centric arguments (ie, tobacconists denounced the impact of cross-border shopping and highlighted their role as pivotal to community life in rural areas). We also found lobbying strategies mirroring those identified previously (ie, coalition, information management and direct influence in public policy). CONCLUSIONS: Tobacconists in France hold a specific status that gives them privileged access to government bodies that can be exploited to successfully lobby against tobacco taxation. NGOs need to expose these lobbying activities and alert the public authorities to Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control that requires countries to protect policies from TI interests.

Agnogenic practices and corporate political strategy: the legitimation of UK gambling industry-funded youth education programmes.

Agnogenic practices-designed to create ignorance or doubt-are well-established strategies employed by health-harming industries (HHI). However, little is known about their use by industry-funded organizations delivering youth education programmes. We applied a previously published framework of corporate agnogenic practices to analyse how these organizations used them in three UK gambling industry-funded youth education programmes. Evidential strategies adopted previously by other HHI are prominent in the programmes' practitioner-facing materials, evaluation design and reporting and in public statements about the programmes. We show how agnogenic practices are employed to portray these youth education programmes as 'evidence-based' and 'evaluation-led'. These practices distort the already limited evidence on these educational initiatives while legitimizing industry-favourable policies, which prioritize commercial interests over public health. Given the similarities in political strategies adopted by different industries, these findings are relevant to research and policy on other HHI.

A qualitative framing analysis of how firearm manufacturers and related bodies communicate to the public on gun-related harms and solutions.

There is a growing understanding that the producers and sellers of harmful products directly and indirectly affect population health and policy, including through seeking to influence public understanding about the nature of harms and their solutions. However, the firearm industry and related organisations have not to date been the subject of this type of enquiry. This study sought to address this evidential gap through examining the ways in which the firearm industry and industry-associated organisations frame firearms, firearm-related harms and possible solutions to gun violence. This was a thematic qualitative documentary analysis of materials from 7 of the largest firearm manufacturers and associated organisations. Two authors independently extracted textual material from web articles, press releases, annual reports and shareholder communications between 1st April 2019 to 1st April 2020 (302 documents). A hybrid approach combining both deductive and inductive coding was adopted, guided by the literature on the commercial determinants of health and using NVivo version 12. The firearm industry and firearm industry-funded organisations use framings about the safety and role of guns, evidence on associated harms and solutions that align with the industry's business interests, consistent with evidence on other harmful product manufacturers. This study identified framing strategies employed by the firearm industry and related organisations. These included attempts to undermine evidence, linking regulation to a dystopian future, minimising some of the most common harms, placing the responsibility for harms on individuals, and attempting to foster a heightened sense of risk to personal safety.

TRIPLE C reporting principles for case study evaluations of the role of context in complex interventions.

BACKGROUND: Guidance and reporting principles such as CONSORT (for randomised trials) and PRISMA (for systematic reviews) have greatly improved the reporting, discoverability, transparency and consistency of published research. We sought to develop similar guidance for case study evaluations undertaken to explore the influence of context on the processes and outcomes of complex interventions. METHODS: A range of experts were recruited to an online Delphi panel, sampling for maximum diversity in disciplines (e.g. public health, health services research, organisational studies), settings (e.g. country), and sectors (e.g. academic, policy, third sector). To inform panel deliberations, we prepared background materials based on: [a] a systematic meta-narrative review of empirical and methodological literatures on case study, context and complex interventions; [b] the collective experience of a network of health systems and public health researchers; and [c] the established RAMESES II standards (which cover one kind of case study). We developed a list of topics and issues based on these sources and encouraged panel members to provide free text comments. Their feedback informed development of a set of items in the form of questions for potential inclusion in the reporting principles. We circulated these by email, asking panel members to rank each potential item twice (for relevance and validity) on a 7-point Likert scale. This sequence was repeated twice. RESULTS: We recruited 51 panel members from 50 organisations across 12 countries, who brought experience of a range of case study research methods and applications. 26 completed all three Delphi rounds, reaching over 80% consensus on 16 items covering title, abstract, definitions of terms, philosophical assumptions, research question(s), rationale, how context and complexity relates to the intervention, ethical approval, empirical methods, findings, use of theory, generalisability and transferability, researcher perspective and influence, conclusions and recommendations, and funding and conflicts of interest. CONCLUSION: The 'Triple C' (Case study, Context, Complex interventions) reporting principles recognise that case studies are undertaken in different ways for different purposes and based on different philosophical assumptions. They are designed to be enabling rather than prescriptive, and to make case study evaluation reporting on context and complex health interventions more comprehensive, accessible and useable.

Improving social justice in observational studies: protocol for the development of a global and Indigenous STROBE-equity reporting guideline.

BACKGROUND: Addressing persistent and pervasive health inequities is a global moral imperative, which has been highlighted and magnified by the societal and health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Observational studies can aid our understanding of the impact of health and structural oppression based on the intersection of gender, race, ethnicity, age and other factors, as they frequently collect this data. However, the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline, does not provide guidance related to reporting of health equity. The goal of this project is to develop a STROBE-Equity reporting guideline extension. METHODS: We assembled a diverse team across multiple domains, including gender, age, ethnicity, Indigenous background, disciplines, geographies, lived experience of health inequity and decision-making organizations. Using an inclusive, integrated knowledge translation approach, we will implement a five-phase plan which will include: (1) assessing the reporting of health equity in published observational studies, (2) seeking wide international feedback on items to improve reporting of health equity, (3) establishing consensus amongst knowledge users and researchers, (4) evaluating in partnership with Indigenous contributors the relevance to Indigenous peoples who have globally experienced the oppressive legacy of colonization, and (5) widely disseminating and seeking endorsement from relevant knowledge users. We will seek input from external collaborators using social media, mailing lists and other communication channels. DISCUSSION: Achieving global imperatives such as the Sustainable Development Goals (e.g., SDG 10 Reduced inequalities, SDG 3 Good health and wellbeing) requires advancing health equity in research. The implementation of the STROBE-Equity guidelines will enable a better awareness and understanding of health inequities through better reporting. We will broadly disseminate the reporting guideline with tools to enable adoption and use by journal editors, authors, and funding agencies, using diverse strategies tailored to specific audiences.

Drinking on an empty stomach: a scoping review of the evidence on how consuming food with alcohol affects short-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol is a leading risk factor for death worldwide. Governments issue official guidelines on reducing the short-term risks associated with alcohol as do alcohol industry-funded organizations. Both sources frequently recommend consuming food with alcohol, however, it is unclear what evidence these recommendations are based on. The aim of this scoping review was to map and summarize evidence on the short-term effects of consuming food and alcohol. METHODS: A scoping review, following PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews, searched CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, PsychINFO and NICE Evidence Search (published inception to June 2021). Studies in English, investigating co-consumption of food and alcohol and reporting short-term health outcomes or acute effects, were included. RESULTS: Of the 15 246 studies identified, 10 met the inclusion criteria. There was little evidence on the effects of food co-consumption on most short-term alcohol-related outcomes. Included studies were low in quality and inconsistent in their reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a weak and inconsistent evidence base, food co-consumption is often recommended by both official guidance and alcohol industry-funded sources. Food co-consumption as a harm reduction measure, while plausible, requires a stronger evidence base and more nuanced messaging due to the risk of encouraging heavier, sustained drinking.

Characterizing restrictions on commercial advertising and sponsorship of harmful commodities in local government policies: a nationwide study in England.

BACKGROUND: Commercial advertising and sponsorship drive the consumption of harmful commodities. Local authorities (LAs) have considerable powers to reduce such exposures. This study aimed to characterize local commercial policies across all English LAs. METHODS: We conducted a census of all English LAs (n = 333) to identify local commercial policies concerning advertising and sponsorship of tobacco, alcohol, less healthy foods and gambling, through online searches and Freedom of Information requests. We explored policy presence, commodity frequency and type, and associations with LA characteristics (region, urban/rural and deprivation). RESULTS: Only a third (106) of LAs in England had a relevant policy (32%). These included restrictions on tobacco (91%), gambling (79%), alcohol (74%) and/or less healthy foods (24%). Policy prevalence was lowest in the East of England (22%), North East (25%) and North West (27%), higher in urban areas (36%) than rural areas (28%) and lower in the least (27%) compared with the most (38%) deprived areas. Definitions in policies varied, particularly for alcohol and less healthy foods. CONCLUSIONS: English LAs currently underutilize their levers to reduce the negative impacts of harmful commodity industry marketing, particularly concerning less healthy foods. Standardized guidance, including clarity on definitions and application, could inform local policy development.

Under the influence: system-level effects of alcohol industry-funded health information organizations.

There is now an established body of evidence that the alcohol industry seeks to obstruct public health policies that could affect the availability, affordability or marketing of alcohol. In parallel, the alcohol industry is active in funding corporate social responsibility initiatives, with a particular focus on 'responsible drinking' campaigns, often facilitated by national-level charities established and/or funded by the alcohol industry and associated organizations. While evidence continues to grow regarding biases in the content produced by such health information organizations, they remain active in partnerships with government health departments on national health promotion campaigns and provide a range of health-related information to the public, community organizations and schools. To understand the implications of such access for policymakers, researchers and the public, there is a need to consider the wider, system-level influences of such organizations and their place in wider alcohol industry strategies. In this article, we describe evolving evidence of the direct and indirect strategic effects of such organizations and demonstrate how they serve key roles in the alcohol industry through their existence, content, partnerships and public profiles. We end by considering the implications for how we conceptualize charities established or funded (entirely or partly) by harmful commodity industries, and to what extent current conflicts of interest guidelines are sufficiently effective.

Changes in household food and drink purchases following restrictions on the advertisement of high fat, salt, and sugar products across the Transport for London network: A controlled interrupted time series analysis.

BACKGROUND: Restricting the advertisement of products with high fat, salt, and sugar (HFSS) content has been recommended as a policy tool to improve diet and tackle obesity, but the impact on HFSS purchasing is unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of HFSS advertising restrictions, implemented across the London (UK) transport network in February 2019, on HFSS purchases. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Over 5 million take-home food and drink purchases were recorded by 1,970 households (London [intervention], n = 977; North of England [control], n = 993) randomly selected from the Kantar Fast Moving Consumer Goods panel. The intervention and control samples were similar in household characteristics but had small differences in main food shopper sex, socioeconomic position, and body mass index. Using a controlled interrupted time series design, we estimated average weekly household purchases of energy and nutrients from HFSS products in the post-intervention period (44 weeks) compared to a counterfactual constructed from the control and pre-intervention (36 weeks) series. Energy purchased from HFSS products was 6.7% (1,001.0 kcal, 95% CI 456.0 to 1,546.0) lower among intervention households compared to the counterfactual. Relative reductions in purchases of fat (57.9 g, 95% CI 22.1 to 93.7), saturated fat (26.4 g, 95% CI 12.4 to 40.4), and sugar (80.7 g, 95% CI 41.4 to 120.1) from HFSS products were also observed. Energy from chocolate and confectionery purchases was 19.4% (317.9 kcal, 95% CI 200.0 to 435.8) lower among intervention households than for the counterfactual, with corresponding relative reductions in fat (13.1 g, 95% CI 7.5 to 18.8), saturated fat (8.7 g, 95% CI 5.7 to 11.7), sugar (41.4 g, 95% CI 27.4 to 55.4), and salt (0.2 g, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.2) purchased from chocolate and confectionery. Relative reductions are in the context of secular increases in HFSS purchases in both the intervention and control areas, so the policy was associated with attenuated growth of HFSS purchases rather than absolute reduction in HFSS purchases. Study limitations include the lack of out-of-home purchases in our analyses and not being able to assess the sustainability of observed changes beyond 44 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: This study finds an association between the implementation of restrictions on outdoor HFSS advertising and relative reductions in energy, sugar, and fat purchased from HFSS products. These findings provide support for policies that restrict HFSS advertising as a tool to reduce purchases of HFSS products.

Case study research and causal inference.

Case study methodology is widely used in health research, but has had a marginal role in evaluative studies, given it is often assumed that case studies offer little for making causal inferences. We undertook a narrative review of examples of case study research from public health and health services evaluations, with a focus on interventions addressing health inequalities. We identified five types of contribution these case studies made to evidence for causal relationships. These contributions relate to: (1) evidence about system actors' own theories of causality; (2) demonstrative examples of causal relationships; (3) evidence about causal mechanisms; (4) evidence about the conditions under which causal mechanisms operate; and (5) inference about causality in complex systems. Case studies can and do contribute to understanding causal relationships. More transparency in the reporting of case studies would enhance their discoverability, and aid the development of a robust and pluralistic evidence base for public health and health services interventions. To strengthen the contribution that case studies make to that evidence base, researchers could: draw on wider methods from the political and social sciences, in particular on methods for robust analysis; carefully consider what population their case is a case 'of'; and explicate the rationale used for making causal inferences.

How effects on health equity are assessed in systematic reviews of interventions.

BACKGROUND: Enhancing health equity is endorsed in the Sustainable Development Goals. The failure of systematic reviews to consider potential differences in effects across equity factors is cited by decision-makers as a limitation to their ability to inform policy and program decisions.  OBJECTIVES: To explore what methods systematic reviewers use to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to 26 February 2021: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Methodology Register, CINAHL, Education Resources Information Center, Education Abstracts, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Hein Index to Foreign Legal Periodicals, PAIS International, Social Services Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Digital Dissertations and the Health Technology Assessment Database. We searched SCOPUS to identify articles that cited any of the included studies on 10 June 10 2021. We contacted authors and searched the reference lists of included studies to identify additional potentially relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included empirical studies of cohorts of systematic reviews that assessed methods for measuring effects on health inequalities. We define health inequalities as unfair and avoidable differences across socially stratifying factors that limit opportunities for health. We operationalised this by assessing studies which evaluated differences in health across any component of the PROGRESS-Plus acronym, which stands for Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender or sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social capital. "Plus" stands for other factors associated with discrimination, exclusion, marginalisation or vulnerability such as personal characteristics (e.g. age, disability), relationships that limit opportunities for health (e.g. children in a household with parents who smoke) or environmental situations which provide limited control of opportunities for health (e.g. school food environment). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data using a pre-tested form. Risk of bias was appraised for included studies according to the potential for bias in selection and detection of systematic reviews.  MAIN RESULTS: In total, 48,814 studies were identified and the titles and abstracts were screened in duplicate. In this updated review, we identified an additional 124 methodological studies published in the 10 years since the first version of this review, which included 34 studies. Thus, 158 methodological studies met our criteria for inclusion. The methods used by these studies focused on evidence relevant to populations experiencing health inequity (108 out of 158 studies), assess subgroup analysis across PROGRESS-Plus (26 out of 158 studies), assess analysis of a gradient in effect across PROGRESS-Plus (2 out of 158 studies) or use a combination of subgroup analysis and focused approaches (20 out of 158 studies). The most common PROGRESS-Plus factors assessed were age (43 studies), socioeconomic status in 35 studies, low- and middle-income countries in 24 studies, gender or sex in 22 studies, race or ethnicity in 17 studies, and four studies assessed multiple factors across which health inequity may exist. Only 16 studies provided a definition of health inequity. Five methodological approaches to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness were identified: 1) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in systematic reviews (140 of 158 studies used a type of descriptive method); 2) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in original trials (50 studies); 3) analytic approaches which assessed differential effects across one or more PROGRESS-Plus factors (16 studies); 4) applicability assessment (25 studies) and 5) stakeholder engagement (28 studies), which is a new finding in this update and examines the appraisal of whether relevant stakeholders with lived experience of health inequity were included in the design of systematic reviews or design and delivery of interventions. Reporting for both approaches (analytic and applicability) lacked transparency and was insufficiently detailed to enable the assessment of credibility. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for improvement in conceptual clarity about the definition of health equity, describing sufficient detail about analytic approaches (including subgroup analyses) and transparent reporting of judgments required for applicability assessments in order to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness.

Back to our roots or sowing new seeds: thinking anew on the paradigms of health, harm and disease.

Health, harms and disease are intimately linked, and their promotion and distribution are determined by the social, political and physical worlds in which people live. Yet, the popular narrative on health is still dominated by a biological model that focuses on a disease-causing 'pathogen' or 'agent' that leads to pathology which is diagnosable and amenable to intervention at the individual level via measures delivered through the health care and public health systems. This model generally rests on understanding populations as a collection of individuals, with the pattern of disease seen as the sum of a series of risk factors acting on each of them. Too little attention is paid to the ways in which health, harm, disease, causation and risk are conceptualized and used as guiding concepts in research, policy debates and other fora. We often overlook the distribution of health and the regulatory regimes, norms, values and rights that promote or undermine health. By challenging our ways of thinking about health, harms and disease, we can start to appreciate with greater depth the ways in which health can be threatened and what should be seen as harmful, and conversely, opportunities for moving our systems towards promoting and protecting health.

Food as harm reduction during a drinking session: reducing the harm or normalising harmful use of alcohol? A qualitative comparative analysis of alcohol industry and non-alcohol industry-funded guidance.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to critically analyse information concerning the relationship between alcohol and food consumption provided via alcohol industry (AI) funded and non-AI-funded health-oriented websites, to determine the role it plays within the alcohol information space, and how this serves the interests of the disseminating organisations. METHODS: Information on food as a harm reduction measure while drinking alcohol was extracted from 15 AI websites and websites of AI-funded corporate social responsibility (CSR) organisations. As a comparison group, non-AI-funded health websites were also searched (n = 16 websites with food and alcohol-related content). Information was included from webpage content and associated downloadable documents. Critical discourse analysis (CDA) was adopted to allow the texts analysed to be situated within the broader political and social context. Analysis was carried out iteratively, involving continuous comparison within and between websites. Discursive themes were identified by three researchers. Identified discursive elements were discussed to reach a consensus, and a final coding framework was then developed. "Tone" analysis was used to assess whether the overall tone within individual websites was considered to be pro-alcohol consumption, neutral or discouraging of alcohol consumption. RESULTS: There were some commonalities across AI and non-AI-funded websites, whereby both appeared to normalise alcohol consumption and to encourage use of food as a measure to enable sustained drinking, to avoid drinking in a way that results in short-term harms, and to prevent or "cure" a hangover. The fact that both AI-funded and non-AI-funded organisations shared many of these narratives is particularly concerning. However, a discourse of food and alcohol that served to promote "moderate" drinking as beneficial to health was used exclusively by AI-funded organisations, focusing on special occasions and individual-blaming. CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol consumption, including heavy and harmful consumption, is frequently normalised within the online information space. Emphasising food consumption with alcohol may have the effect of supporting consumers to drink for longer periods of time. Health professionals and independent health organisations should review the information they provide in light of our findings and challenge why AI-funded organisations, with a major conflict of interest, and a history of health misinformation, are often given the responsibility for disseminating health information to the public.

The Commercial Determinants of Three Contemporary National Crises: How Corporate Practices Intersect With the COVID-19 Pandemic, Economic Downturn, and Racial Inequity.

Policy Points  The United States finds itself in the middle of an unprecedented combination of crises: a global pandemic, economic crisis, and unprecedented civic responses to structural racism.  While public sector responses to these crises have faced much justified criticism, the commercial determinants of these crises have not been sufficiently examined.  In this commentary we examine the nature of the contributions of such actors to the conditions that underpin these crises in the United States through their market and nonmarket activities.  On the basis of this analysis, we make recommendations on the role of governance and civil society in relation to such commercial actors in a post-COVID-19 world.

Our Postpandemic World: What Will It Take to Build a Better Future for People and Planet?

Policy Points Despite the pandemic's ongoing devastating impacts, it also offers the opportunity and lessons for building a better, fairer, and sustainable world. Transformational change will require new ways of working, challenging powerful individuals and industries who worsened the crisis, will act to exploit it for personal gain, and will work to ensure that the future aligns with their interests. A flourishing world needs strong and equitable structures and systems, including strengthened democratic, research, and educational institutions, supported by ideas and discourses that are free of opaque and conflicted influence and that challenge the status quo and inequitable distribution of power.

Evaluating complex interventions in context: systematic, meta-narrative review of case study approaches.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing need for methods that acknowledge and successfully capture the dynamic interaction between context and implementation of complex interventions. Case study research has the potential to provide such understanding, enabling in-depth investigation of the particularities of phenomena. However, there is limited guidance on how and when to best use different case study research approaches when evaluating complex interventions. This study aimed to review and synthesise the literature on case study research across relevant disciplines, and determine relevance to the study of contextual influences on complex interventions in health systems and public health research. METHODS: Systematic meta-narrative review of the literature comprising (i) a scoping review of seminal texts (n = 60) on case study methodology and on context, complexity and interventions, (ii) detailed review of empirical literature on case study, context and complex interventions (n = 71), and (iii) identifying and reviewing 'hybrid papers' (n = 8) focused on the merits and challenges of case study in the evaluation of complex interventions. RESULTS: We identified four broad (and to some extent overlapping) research traditions, all using case study in a slightly different way and with different goals: 1) developing and testing complex interventions in healthcare; 2) analysing change in organisations; 3) undertaking realist evaluations; 4) studying complex change naturalistically. Each tradition conceptualised context differently-respectively as the backdrop to, or factors impacting on, the intervention; sets of interacting conditions and relationships; circumstances triggering intervention mechanisms; and socially structured practices. Overall, these traditions drew on a small number of case study methodologists and disciplines. Few studies problematised the nature and boundaries of 'the case' and 'context' or considered the implications of such conceptualisations for methods and knowledge production. CONCLUSIONS: Case study research on complex interventions in healthcare draws on a number of different research traditions, each with different epistemological and methodological preferences. The approach used and consequences for knowledge produced often remains implicit. This has implications for how researchers, practitioners and decision makers understand, implement and evaluate complex interventions in different settings. Deeper engagement with case study research as a methodology is strongly recommended.

Effectiveness of arts interventions to reduce mental-health-related stigma among youth: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Educational interventions engage youth using visual, literary and performing arts to combat stigma associated with mental health problems. However, it remains unknown whether arts interventions are effective in reducing mental-health-related stigma among youth and if so, then which specific art forms, duration and stigma-related components in content are successful. METHODS: We searched 13 databases, including PubMed, Medline, Global Health, EMBASE, ADOLEC, Social Policy and Practice, Database of Promoting Health Effectiveness Reviews (DoPHER), Trials Register of Promoting Health Interventions (TRoPHI), EPPI-Centre database of health promotion research (Bibliomap), Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane and Scopus for studies involving arts interventions aimed at reducing any or all components of mental-health-related stigma among youth (10-24-year-olds). Risk of bias was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. Data were extracted into tables and analysed using RevMan 5.3.5. RESULTS: Fifty-seven studies met our inclusion criteria (n = 41,621). Interventions using multiple art forms are effective in improving behaviour towards people with mental health problems to a small effect (effect size = 0.28, 95%CI 0.08-0.48; p = 0.007) No studies reported negative outcomes or unintended harms. Among studies using specific art forms, we observed high heterogeneity among intervention studies using theatre, multiple art forms, film and role play. Data in this review are inconclusive about the use of single versus multiple sessions and whether including all stigma components of knowledge, attitude and behaviour as intervention content are more effective relative to studies focused on these stigma components, individually. Common challenges faced by school-based arts interventions included lack of buy-in from school administrators and low engagement. No studies were reported from low- and middle-income countries. CONCLUSION: Arts interventions are effective in reducing mental-health-related stigma to a small effect. Interventions that employ multiple art forms together compared to studies employing film, theatre or role play are likely more effective in reducing mental-health-related stigma.

The use of Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) to address causality in complex systems: a systematic review of research on public health interventions.

BACKGROUND: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) is a method for identifying the configurations of conditions that lead to specific outcomes. Given its potential for providing evidence of causality in complex systems, QCA is increasingly used in evaluative research to examine the uptake or impacts of public health interventions. We map this emerging field, assessing the strengths and weaknesses of QCA approaches identified in published studies, and identify implications for future research and reporting. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science were systematically searched for peer-reviewed studies published in English up to December 2019 that had used QCA methods to identify the conditions associated with the uptake and/or effectiveness of interventions for public health. Data relating to the interventions studied (settings/level of intervention/populations), methods (type of QCA, case level, source of data, other methods used) and reported strengths and weaknesses of QCA were extracted and synthesised narratively. RESULTS: The search identified 1384 papers, of which 27 (describing 26 studies) met the inclusion criteria. Interventions evaluated ranged across: nutrition/obesity (n = 8); physical activity (n = 4); health inequalities (n = 3); mental health (n = 2); community engagement (n = 3); chronic condition management (n = 3); vaccine adoption or implementation (n = 2); programme implementation (n = 3); breastfeeding (n = 2), and general population health (n = 1). The majority of studies (n = 24) were of interventions solely or predominantly in high income countries. Key strengths reported were that QCA provides a method for addressing causal complexity; and that it provides a systematic approach for understanding the mechanisms at work in implementation across contexts. Weaknesses reported related to data availability limitations, especially on ineffective interventions. The majority of papers demonstrated good knowledge of cases, and justification of case selection, but other criteria of methodological quality were less comprehensively met. CONCLUSION: QCA is a promising approach for addressing the role of context in complex interventions, and for identifying causal configurations of conditions that predict implementation and/or outcomes when there is sufficiently detailed understanding of a series of comparable cases. As the use of QCA in evaluative health research increases, there may be a need to develop advice for public health researchers and journals on minimum criteria for quality and reporting.