Prospective Health Impacts of a Universal Basic Income: Evidence from Community Engagement in South Tyneside, United Kingdom.

Studies have suggested that universal basic income (UBI) has the capacity to have substantial health benefits across the population at national level. Multiple impact pathways have recently been theorized and there are calls for trials to explore these pathways empirically. However, very limited research has taken place at local levels to explore potential context-specific effects, or how these effects could play out in economic, social, and behavioral changes. In order to examine these effects and to think through potential issues and unintended consequences, we brought together citizen engagement groups in Jarrow, South Tyneside, in the northeast of England to explore local people's expectations and positions on the development of UBI policies and pilots prior to their implementation. We found that people's expectations regarding the potential beneficial health impacts of UBI on their communities mapped strongly onto academically theorized impact pathways. They also extended understanding of these pathways in meaningful ways. Our findings add to the literature about UBI and health and provide important insights for the future development of empirical, health focused, UBI research.

Levelling Up for health in towns? Development of a new deprivation index: the 'Stronger Towns Index' and its association with self-rated health and migration in England, between 2001 and 2011.

Aim: To develop the 'Stronger Towns Index': a deprivation index that took into account characteristics of areas encompassing towns that may be eligible for redevelopment funding and explore how this index was associated with self-rated health and migration within England between 2001 and 2011. Subject and methods: All members of the ONS Longitudinal Study in England aged 16 and over in 2001 whose records included a self-rated health response and a valid local authority code.Local authorities in England were ranked using a composite index developed using the five metrics set out in the Stronger Towns Funding: productivity, income, skills, deprivation measures, and the proportion of people living in towns.The index was split into deciles, and logistic regression carried out on the association between decile and self-rated health in 2001 in the main sample (n = 407,878) and decile change and self-rated health in 2011 in a subsample also present in 2011, with migration information (n = 299,008). Results: There were areas in the lowest deciles of Town Strength who did not receive funding. After multiple adjustment, LS members living in areas with higher deciles were significantly more likely (7% to 38%) to report good health than those in the lowest decile in 2001. Remaining in the same decile between 2001 and 2011 was associated with 7% lower odds of good self-rated health in 2011. Conclusion: It is important to consider health in towns when allocating funding. Areas in the Midlands may have missed out on funding which might help mitigate poor health.

Placemaking and infrastructure through the lens of levelling up for health equity: A scoping review.

The planning and delivery of infrastructure influences how places create health equity. The scholarship on place and health has recently been developed into 'levelling up' principles for equity focussed policy and planning. We conducted a scoping review of the literature on infrastructure through urban regeneration and placemaking interventions. We interrogated the 15 final selected articles for their use of one or more of the five 'levelling' up principles. No article encompassed all five principles. It was most common to find two or three principles in action. Reviewing the articles against the principles allows a deeper explanation of how infrastructure planning practice can positively impact on health equity. We conclude that applying all the principles in standard infrastructure planning practice has great potential for creating places that are positive for health equity.

What needs to happen to 'level up' public health?

The aim of this article is to examine what needs to happen in central, sub-regional and local government to 'level up' public health in the United Kingdom (UK). The Government's recent Levelling Up White Paper outlined ambitious targets for reducing regional disparities, including a 'mission' to tackle inequalities in healthy life expectancy and reduce inequalities in the social determinants of health outcomes. However, the approach has been criticised for failing to integrate population health policy objectives, programmes and interventions into the implementation of the levelling up agenda and its associated 'missions'. Drawing on a case study of promoting healthy urban development in the UK, we examine how the wider determinants of health might be incorporated into the Government's levelling up strategy. Based on in-depth interviews with 132 urban development actors, our findings reveal that long-term investment in healthy urban development could play a key role in levelling up public health but is not currently part of the Government's plans. We make a timely contribution to the levelling up debate by placing public health centre stage in social science debates. We conclude by offering a series of recommendations for transformative policy change to level up health.

Levelling up health: A practical, evidence-based framework for reducing health inequalities.

There are substantial inequalities in health across society which have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The UK government have committed to a programme of levelling-up to address geographical inequalities. Here we undertake rapid review of the evidence base on interventions to reduce such health inequalities and developed a practical, evidence-based framework to 'level up' health across the country. This paper overviews a rapid review undertaken to develop a framework of guiding principles to guide policy. To that end and based on an initial theory, we searched one electrotonic database (MEDLINE) from 2007 to July 2021 to identify published umbrella reviews and undertook an internet search to identify relevant systematic reviews, primary studies, and grey literature. Titles and abstracts were screened according to the eligibility criteria. Key themes were extracted from the included studies and synthesised into an overarching framework of guiding principles in consultation with an expert panel. Included studies were cross checked with the initial theoretical domains and further searching undertaken to fill any gaps. We identified 16 published umbrella reviews (covering 667 individual studies), 19 grey literature publications, and 15 key systematic reviews or primary studies. Based on these studies, we develop a framework applicable at national, regional and local level which consisted of five principles - 1) healthy-by-default and easy to use initiatives; 2) long-term, multi-sector action; 3) locally designed focus; 4) targeting disadvantaged communities; and 5) matching of resources to need. Decision-makers working on policies to level up health should be guided by these five principles.