What is the potential for plural ownership to support a more inclusive economy? A systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: The world is facing an unprecedented systemic shock to population health, the economy and society due to the devastating impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. As with most economic shocks, this is expected to disproportionately impact vulnerable groups in society such as those in poverty and those in precarious employment as well as marginalised groups such as women, the elderly, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups and those with health conditions. The current literature is rich in normative recommendations on plural ownership as a key building block of an inclusive economy rooted in communities and their needs. There is, however, a need for a rigorous synthesis of the available evidence on what impact (if any) plural ownership may potentially have on the inclusivity of the economy. This review seeks to synthesise and compare the available evidence across the three economic sectors (private, public and third). METHODS: We will search eight bibliographic databases (Sociological abstracts, EBSCO Econlit, OVID Embase, OVID Medline, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA), ProQuest Public Health, Web of Science, Research Papers in Economics (Repec) - EconPapers) from the earliest data available in each database until January 2021. Grey literature will be identified from Google (advanced), Google Scholar and 37 organisational websites identified as relevant to the research question. We will include comparative studies of plural ownership from high-income countries that report outcomes on access to opportunities, distribution of benefits, poverty, and discrimination. A bespoke search strategy will be used for each website to account for the heterogeneity in content and search capabilities and will be fully documented. A standardised data extraction template based on the Population-Intervention-Context-Outcome (PICO) template will be developed. We will assess the strength of evidence for different forms of economic ownership identified in relation to the impact of each on the four economic outcomes of interest, paying particular attention to the role of wider contextual factors as they emerge through the evidence. DISCUSSION: The findings of this review are intended to inform policymaking at local, national and international level that prioritises and supports the development of different economic and business models. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework registration DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/BYH5A.

Is austerity responsible for the recent change in mortality trends across high-income nations? A protocol for an observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Mortality rates in many high-income countries have changed from their long-term trends since around 2011. This paper sets out a protocol for testing the extent to which economic austerity can explain the variance in recent mortality trends across high-income countries. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an ecological natural experiment study, which will use regression adjustment to account for differences in exposure, outcomes and confounding. All high-income countries with available data will be included in the sample. The timing of any changes in the trends for four measures of austerity (the Alesina-Ardagna Fiscal Index, real per capita government expenditure, public social spending and the cyclically adjusted primary balance) will be identified and the cumulative difference in exposure to these measures thereafter will be calculated. These will be regressed against the difference in the mean annual change in life expectancy, mortality rates and lifespan variation compared with the previous trends, with an initial lag of 2 years after the identified change point in the exposure measure. The role of underemployment and individual incomes as outcomes in their own right and as mediating any relationship between austerity and mortality will also be considered. Sensitivity analyses varying the lag period to 0 and 5 years, and adjusting for recession, will be undertaken. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All of the data used for this study are publicly available, aggregated datasets with no individuals identifiable. There is, therefore, no requirement for ethical committee approval for the study. The study will be lodged within the National Health Service research governance system. All results of the study will be published following sharing with partner agencies. No new datasets will be created as part of this work for deposition or curation.

Impact of Political Economy on Population Health: A Systematic Review of Reviews.

Background. Although there is a large literature examining the relationship between a wide range of political economy exposures and health outcomes, the extent to which the different aspects of political economy influence health, and through which mechanisms and in what contexts, is only partially understood. The areas in which there are few high-quality studies are also unclear. Objectives. To systematically review the literature describing the impact of political economy on population health. Search Methods. We undertook a systematic review of reviews, searching MEDLINE, Embase, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, ProQuest Public Health, Sociological Abstracts, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, EconLit, SocINDEX, Web of Science, and the gray literature via Google Scholar. Selection Criteria. We included studies that were a review of the literature. Relevant exposures were differences or changes in policy, law, or rules; economic conditions; institutions or social structures; or politics, power, or conflict. Relevant outcomes were any overall measure of population health such as self-assessed health, mortality, life expectancy, survival, morbidity, well-being, illness, ill health, and life span. Two authors independently reviewed all citations for relevance. Data Collection and Analysis. We undertook critical appraisal of all included reviews by using modified Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) criteria and then synthesized narratively giving greater weight to the higher-quality reviews. Main Results. From 4912 citations, we included 58 reviews. Both the quality of the reviews and the underlying studies within the reviews were variable. Social democratic welfare states, higher public spending, fair trade policies, extensions to compulsory education provision, microfinance initiatives in low-income countries, health and safety policy, improved access to health care, and high-quality affordable housing have positive impacts on population health. Neoliberal restructuring seems to be associated with increased health inequalities and higher income inequality with lower self-rated health and higher mortality. Authors' Conclusions. Politics, economics, and public policy are important determinants of population health. Countries with social democratic regimes, higher public spending, and lower income inequalities have populations with better health. There are substantial gaps in the synthesized evidence on the relationship between political economy and health, and there is a need for higher-quality reviews and empirical studies in this area. However, there is sufficient evidence in this review, if applied through policy and practice, to have marked beneficial health impacts. Public Health Implications. Policymakers should be aware that social democratic welfare state types, countries that spend more on public services, and countries with lower income inequalities have better self-rated health and lower mortality. Research funders and researchers should be aware that there remain substantial gaps in the available evidence base. One such area concerns the interrelationship between governance, polities, power, macroeconomic policy, public policy, and population health, including how these aspects of political economy generate social class processes and forms of discrimination that have a differential impact across social groups. This includes the influence of patterns of ownership (of land and capital) and tax policies. For some areas, there are many lower-quality reviews, which leave uncertainties in the relationship between political economy and population health, and a high-quality review is needed. There are also areas in which the available reviews have identified primary research gaps such as the impact of changes to housing policy, availability, and tenure.