"We might not have been in hospital, but we were frontline workers in the community": a qualitative study exploring unmet need and local community-based responses for marginalised groups in Greater Manchester during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The response to the COVID-19 pandemic saw a significant increase in demand for the voluntary, community, faith and social enterprise (VCFSE) sector to provide support to local communities. In Greater Manchester (GM), the VCFSE sector and informal networks provided health and wellbeing support in multiple ways, culminating in its crucial supportive role in the provision of the COVID-19 vaccination rollout across the GM city region. However, the support provided by the VCFSE sector during the pandemic remains under-recognised. The aims of the study were to: understand the views and experiences of marginalised communities in GM during the COVID-19 pandemic; explore how community engagement initiatives played a role during the pandemic and vaccine rollout; assess what can be learnt from the work of key stakeholders (community members, VCFSEs, health-system stakeholders) for future health research and service delivery. METHODS: The co-designed study utilised a participatory approach throughout and was co-produced with a Community Research Advisory Group (CRAG). Focus groups and semi-structured interviews were conducted remotely between September-November 2021, with 35 participants from local marginalised communities, health and care system stakeholders and VCFSE representatives. Thematic framework analysis was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: Local communities in GM were not supported sufficiently by mainstream services during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in increased pressure onto the VCFSE sector to respond to local communities' need. Community-based approaches were deemed crucial to the success of the vaccination drive and in providing support to local communities more generally during the pandemic, whereby such approaches were in a unique position to reach members of diverse communities to boost uptake of the vaccine. Despite this, the support delivered by the VCFSE sector remains under-recognised and under-valued by the health system and decision-makers. CONCLUSIONS: A number of challenges associated with collaborative working were experienced by the VSCE sector and health system in delivering the vaccination programme in partnership with the VCFSE sector. There is a need to create a broader, more inclusive health system which allows and promotes inter-sectoral working. Flexibility and adaptability in ongoing and future service delivery should be championed for greater cross-sector working.

The impact of devolution on local health systems: Evidence from Greater Manchester, England.

Devolution and decentralisation policies involving health and other government sectors have been promoted with a view to improve efficiency and equity in local service provision. Evaluations of these reforms have focused on specific health or care measures, but little is known about their full impact on local health systems. We evaluated the impact of devolution in Greater Manchester (England) on multiple outcomes using a whole system approach. We estimated the impact of devolution until February 2020 on 98 measures of health system performance, using the generalised synthetic control method and adjusting for multiple hypothesis testing. We selected measures from existing monitoring frameworks to populate the WHO Health System Performance Assessment framework. The included measures captured information on health system functions, intermediatory objectives, final goals, and social determinants of health. We identified which indicators were targeted in response to devolution from an analysis of 170 health policy intervention documents. Life expectancy (0.233 years, S.E. 0.012) and healthy life expectancy (0.603 years, S.E. 0.391) increased more in GM than in the estimated synthetic control group following devolution. These increases were driven by improvements in public health, primary care, hospital, and adult social care services as well as factors associated with social determinants of health, including a reduction in alcohol-related admissions (-110.1 admission per 100,000, S.E. 9.07). In contrast, the impact on outpatient, mental health, maternity, and dental services was mixed. Devolution was associated with improved population health, driven by improvements in health services and wider social determinants of health. These changes occurred despite limited devolved powers over health service resources suggesting that other mechanisms played an important role, including the allocation of sustainability and transformation funding and the alignment of decision-making across health, social care, and wider public services in the region.

Marginalisation and distrust in the context of the COVID-19 vaccination programme: experiences of communities in a northern UK city region.

BACKGROUND: There are clear inequalities in COVID - 19 vaccination rates amongst marginalised groups, with lower rates for some minoritised ethnic and religious groups, younger people, those living in more deprived areas, and with lower socio-economic status. Existing research focuses on psychological and socio-economic factors that influence vaccine uptake and does not explore broader social and historical contexts. Understanding inequalities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake requires a critical examination of the drivers of, and barriers to, vaccination. METHODS: We present findings from a co-designed qualitative research study undertaken during the COVID-19 pandemic. Focus groups and interviews were used to examine the context underpinning responses to the COVID-19 vaccination in Greater Manchester, particularly focussing on experiences of marginalisation. Thematic framework analysis was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: We found that the public's responses to the COVID-19 vaccination programme are intertwined with a longstanding history of institutional distrust and disenfranchisement, resulting from experiences of marginalisation and social inequalities. This was exacerbated further by the disproportionate impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on minoritised ethnic groups, younger people, and those with existing health conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Histories of structural inequalities experienced by minoritised groups invoked feelings of suspicion and scepticism at the motivations of the agencies behind the vaccination rollout. This highlights the need for a contextualised analysis of attitudes to vaccines, considering pre-existing inequalities, which may be especially relevant for conceptualising public responses to the vaccination programme. Finally, our study shows the important ways in which public (dis)trust can impact public health policies. We recommend this should be incorporated into responses to future public health crises.

Factors associated with cervical screening coverage: a longitudinal analysis of English general practices from 2013 to 2022.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer remains an important global public health concern. Understanding the factors contributing to a decline in screening uptake in high-income countries is fundamental to improving screening rates. We aimed to identify general practice and patient characteristics related to cervical screening coverage in England between 2013 and 2022. METHODS: We analyzed a panel of 59 271 General Practice (GP)-years from 7881 GP practices. We applied correlated random effects regression to examine the association between cervical screening uptake and a rich set of GP practice workforce, size, quality and patient characteristics. RESULTS: Our results show a decline in overall screening rates from 2013/14 to 2021/22 from 77% to 72%. We find GP workforce and list size characteristics are strongly related to screening rates. An increase in 1 FTE Nurse per 1000 patients is related to a 1.94 percentage point increase in cervical screening rates. GP practices located in more deprived areas have lower screening rates. CONCLUSIONS: GP workforce and patient characteristics need to be considered by decision-makers to increase screening rates. The implementation of self-sampling screening methods could help address some of the current barriers to screening, including lack of healthcare staff and facilities.

Evaluating whole system reforms: A structured approach for selecting multiple outcomes.

Whole-system reforms, including devolution and integration of health and social care services, have the potential to impact multiple dimensions of health system performance. Most evaluations focus on a single or narrow subsets of outcomes amenable to change. This approach may not: (i) capture the overall effect of the reform, (ii) identify the mechanisms through which system-wide changes may have occurred, (iii) prevent post-hoc selection of outcomes based on significant results; and (iv) facilitate comparisons across settings. We propose a structured approach for selecting multiple quantitative outcome measures, which we apply for evaluating health and social care devolution in Greater Manchester, England. The approach consists of five-steps: (i) defining outcome domains based on a framework, in our case the World Health Organisation's Health System Performance Assessment Framework; (ii) reviewing performance metrics from national monitoring frameworks; (iii) excluding similar and condition specific outcomes; (iv) excluding outcomes with insufficient data; and (v) mapping implemented policies to identify a subset of targeted outcomes. We identified 99 outcomes, of which 57 were targeted. The proposed approach is detail and time-intensive, but useful for both researchers and policymakers to promote transparency in evaluations and facilitate the interpretation of findings and cross-settings comparisons.

Evaluating socioeconomic inequalities in influenza vaccine uptake during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cohort study in Greater Manchester, England.

BACKGROUND: There are known socioeconomic inequalities in annual seasonal influenza (flu) vaccine uptake. The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic was associated with multiple factors that may have affected flu vaccine uptake, including widespread disruption to healthcare services, changes to flu vaccination eligibility and delivery, and increased public awareness and debate about vaccination due to high-profile COVID-19 vaccination campaigns. However, to the best of our knowledge, no existing studies have investigated the consequences for inequalities in flu vaccine uptake, so we aimed to investigate whether socioeconomic inequalities in flu vaccine uptake have widened since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used deidentified data from electronic health records for a large city region (Greater Manchester, population 2.8 million), focusing on 3 age groups eligible for National Health Service (NHS) flu vaccination: preschool children (age 2 to 3 years), primary school children (age 4 to 9 years), and older adults (age 65 years plus). The sample population varied between 418,790 (2015/16) and 758,483 (2021/22) across each vaccination season. We estimated age-adjusted neighbourhood-level income deprivation-related inequalities in flu vaccine uptake using Cox proportional hazards models and the slope index of inequality (SII), comparing 7 flu vaccination seasons (2015/16 to 2021/22). Among older adults, the SII (i.e., the gap in uptake between the least and most income-deprived areas) doubled over the 7 seasons from 8.48 (95% CI [7.91,9.04]) percentage points to 16.91 (95% CI [16.46,17.36]) percentage points, with approximately 80% of this increase occurring during the pandemic. Before the pandemic, income-related uptake gaps were wider among children, ranging from 15.59 (95% CI [14.52,16.67]) percentage points to 20.07 (95% CI [18.94,21.20]) percentage points across age groups and vaccination seasons. Among preschool children, the uptake gap increased in 2020/21 to 25.25 (95% CI [24.04,26.45]) percentage points, before decreasing to 20.86 (95% CI [19.65,22.05]) percentage points in 2021/22. Among primary school children, inequalities increased in both pandemic years to reach 30.27 (95% CI [29.58,30.95]) percentage points in 2021/22. Although vaccine uptake increased during the pandemic, disproportionately larger increases in uptake in less deprived areas created wider inequalities in all age groups. The main limitation of our approach is the use of a local dataset, which may limit generalisability to other geographical settings. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic led to increased inequalities in flu vaccine uptake, likely due to changes in demand for vaccination, new delivery models, and disruptions to healthcare and schooling. It will be important to investigate the causes of these increased inequalities and to examine whether these increased inequalities also occurred in the uptake of other routine vaccinations. These new wider inequalities in flu vaccine uptake may exacerbate inequalities in flu-related morbidity and mortality.

"Take a walk in someone else's shoes": the role of participatory arts for health research development and training.

Participatory arts are increasingly recognised as a valuable and accessible mechanism for giving a voice to the experiences of individuals' health and healthcare. In recent years, there has been a move towards embedding participatory arts-based models into public engagement processes. Here, we contribute to the existing literature on the use of participatory arts-based approaches and their role in health research and healthcare practise, focusing on two interlinked approaches, the creation of personas and storytelling. We draw on two recent projects which have utilised these approaches to inform subsequent healthcare research and as a professional training tool to improve patient experience in a healthcare setting. We add to emerging literature to outline the benefits of these approaches in supporting research and training in healthcare settings, with a focus towards the co-produced foundations of these approaches. We demonstrate how such approaches can be utilised to capture different forms of voices, experiences and perspectives to help inform healthcare research and training, rooted in the lived experience of individuals who are directly involved in the creative process of developing personas via storytelling. These approaches challenge the listener to "walk in someone else's shoes", using their own homes and lives as a theatrical set in which to envisage someone else's story, involving the listener in the creative process through (re)imagining the stories and experiences of the characters. Greater use of immersive, co-produced participatory art-based approaches should be used in PPIE to inform research and training in healthcare settings as a means of centring those with lived experience through co-production. Involving those with lived experience, particularly from groups who are traditionally excluded from research, via a process which is based on co-creation and co-production, reorientates the researcher-participant dynamic to fully centre those involved in the research at the heart of the tools used to guide health and healthcare research. In this way, it may also aid in trust and relationship building between institutions and communities in a way which is focused around positive, creative methods to aid health research and healthcare processes. Such approaches may help to break down barriers between academic institutions, healthcare sites and communities.

This article describes how storytelling and the creation of personas, as two forms of participatory arts-based approaches, may be used to inform health research and healthcare practise, including training of healthcare professionals. We draw on two recent projects which have been created with members of diverse local communities, detailing how creative methods can be used in this way. This model of creating art with communities and people with lived experience of health conditions enables ownership of these processes and encourages participants and users to 'take a walk in someone else's shoes'. We suggest that using such approaches helps to further break down barriers between academic institutions, healthcare sites and communities and may boost trust between different stakeholders. Greater use of immersive, co-created participatory arts-based approaches can be used to inform research and training in healthcare settings as a means of centring those with lived experience through co-production. Involving those with lived experience, particularly from groups who are traditionally excluded from research, helps to shift power dynamics, and, in this way, may aid in trust and relationship building between institutions and communities in a way that encourages empathy generated from creative methods to aid health research and healthcare processes.

The effect of devolution on health: a generalised synthetic control analysis of Greater Manchester, England.

BACKGROUND: The devolution of public services from central to local government can increase sensitivity to local population needs but might also reduce the expertise and resources available. Little evidence is available on the impact of devolution on population health. We evaluated the effect of devolution affecting health services and wider determinants of health on life expectancy in Greater Manchester, England. METHODS: We estimated changes in life expectancy in Greater Manchester relative to a control group from the rest of England (excluding London), using a generalised synthetic control method. Using local district-level data collected between Jan 1, 2006 and Dec 31, 2019, we estimated the effect of devolution on the whole population and stratified by sex, district, income deprivation, and baseline life expectancy. FINDINGS: After devolution, from November, 2014, life expectancy in Greater Manchester was 0·196 years (95% CI 0·182-0·210) higher than expected when compared with the synthetic control group with similar pre-devolution trends. Life expectancy was protected from the decline observed in comparable areas in the 2 years after devolution and increased in the longer term. Increases in life expectancy were observed in eight of ten local authorities, were larger among men than women (0·338 years [0·315-0·362] for men; 0·057 years [0·040-0·074] for women), and were larger in areas with high income deprivation (0·390 years [0·369-0·412]) and lower life expectancy before devolution (0·291 years [0·271-0·311]). INTERPRETATION: Greater Manchester had better life expectancy than expected after devolution. The benefits of devolution were apparent in the areas with the highest income deprivation and lowest life expectancy, suggesting a narrowing of inequalities. Improvements were likely to be due to a coordinated devolution across sectors, affecting wider determinants of health and the organisation of care services. FUNDING: The Health Foundation and the National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Socioeconomic inequality in access to timely and appropriate care in emergency departments.

In publicly-funded healthcare systems, waiting times for care should be based on need rather than ability to pay. Studies have shown that individuals with lower socioeconomic status face longer waits for planned inpatient care, but there is little evidence on inequalities in waiting times for emergency care. We study waiting times in emergency departments (EDs) following arrival by ambulance, where health consequences of extended waits may be severe. Using data from all major EDs in England during the 2016/17 financial year, we find patients from more deprived areas face longer waits during some parts of the ED care pathway. Inequalities in waits are small, but more deprived individuals also receive less complex ED care, are less likely to be admitted for inpatient care, and are more likely to re-attend ED or die shortly after attendance. Patient-physician interactions and unconscious bias towards more deprived patients may be important sources of inequalities.

Correction: Ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake and comparison to seasonal influenza vaccine uptake in Greater Manchester, UK: A cohort study.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003932.].

Ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake and comparison to seasonal influenza vaccine uptake in Greater Manchester, UK: A cohort study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccine uptake is lower amongst most minority ethnic groups compared to the White British group in England, despite higher COVID-19 mortality rates. Here, we add to existing evidence by estimating inequalities for 16 minority ethnic groups, examining ethnic inequalities within population subgroups, and comparing the magnitudes of ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake to those for routine seasonal influenza vaccine uptake. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Greater Manchester Care Record, which contains de-identified electronic health record data for the population of Greater Manchester, England. We used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate ethnic inequalities in time to COVID-19 vaccination amongst people eligible for vaccination on health or age (50+ years) criteria between 1 December 2020 and 18 April 2021 (138 days of follow-up). We included vaccination with any approved COVID-19 vaccine, and analysed first-dose vaccination only. We compared inequalities between COVID-19 and influenza vaccine uptake adjusting by age group and clinical risk, and used subgroup analysis to identify populations where inequalities were widest. The majority of individuals (871,231; 79.24%) were White British. The largest minority ethnic groups were Pakistani (50,268; 4.75%), 'other White background' (43,195; 3.93%), 'other ethnic group' (34,568; 3.14%), and Black African (18,802; 1.71%). In total, 83.64% (919,636/1,099,503) of eligible individuals received a COVID-19 vaccine. Uptake was lower compared to the White British group for 15 of 16 minority ethnic groups, with particularly wide inequalities amongst the groups 'other Black background' (hazard ratio [HR] 0.42, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.44), Black African (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.44), Arab (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.48), and Black Caribbean (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.45). In total, 55.71% (419,314/752,715) of eligible individuals took up influenza vaccination. Compared to the White British group, inequalities in influenza vaccine uptake were widest amongst the groups 'White and Black Caribbean' (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.68) and 'White and Black African' (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.72). In contrast, uptake was slightly higher than the White British group amongst the groups 'other ethnic group' (HR 1.11, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.12) and Bangladeshi (HR 1.08, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.11). Overall, ethnic inequalities in vaccine uptake were wider for COVID-19 than influenza vaccination for 15 of 16 minority ethnic groups. COVID-19 vaccine uptake inequalities also existed amongst individuals who previously took up influenza vaccination. Ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake were concentrated amongst older and extremely clinically vulnerable adults, and the most income-deprived. A limitation of this study is the focus on uptake of the first dose of COVID-19 vaccination, rather than full COVID-19 vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake exceeded those for influenza vaccine uptake, existed amongst those recently vaccinated against influenza, and were widest amongst those with greatest COVID-19 risk. This suggests the COVID-19 vaccination programme has created additional and different inequalities beyond pre-existing health inequalities. We suggest that further research and policy action is needed to understand and remove barriers to vaccine uptake, and to build trust and confidence amongst minority ethnic communities.