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.

Extreme events and gender-based violence: a mixed-methods systematic review.

The intensity and frequency of extreme weather and climate events are expected to increase due to anthropogenic climate change. This systematic review explores extreme events and their effect on gender-based violence (GBV) experienced by women, girls, and sexual and gender minorities. We searched ten databases until February, 2022. Grey literature was searched using the websites of key organisations working on GBV and Google. Quantitative studies were described narratively, whereas qualitative studies underwent thematic analysis. We identified 26 381 manuscripts. 41 studies were included exploring several types of extreme events (ie, storms, floods, droughts, heatwaves, and wildfires) and GBV (eg, sexual violence and harassment, physical violence, witch killing, early or forced marriage, and emotional violence). Studies were predominantly cross-sectional. Although most qualitative studies were of reasonable quality, most quantitative studies were of poor quality. Only one study included sexual and gender minorities. Most studies showed an increase in one or several GBV forms during or after extreme events, often related to economic instability, food insecurity, mental stress, disrupted infrastructure, increased exposure to men, tradition, and exacerbated gender inequality. These findings could have important implications for sexual-transformative and gender-transformative interventions, policies, and implementation. High-quality evidence from large, ethnographically diverse cohorts is essential to explore the effects and driving factors of GBV during and after extreme events.

Health equity audits: a systematic review of the effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this systematic review is to explore whether health equity audits (HEAs) are effective in improving the equity of service provision and reducing health inequalities. DESIGN: Three databases (Ovid Medline, Embase, Web of Science) and grey literature (Opengrey, Google Scholar) were systematically searched for articles published after 2000, reporting on the effectiveness of HEA. Title and abstracts were screened according to an eligibility criteria to identify studies which included a full audit cycle (eg, initial equity analysis, service changes and review). Data were extracted from studies meeting the eligibility criteria after full text review and risk of bias assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 596 articles. Fifteen records were reviewed in full text and three records were included in final review. An additional HEA report was identified through contact with an author. Three different HEAs were included from one peer-reviewed journal article, two published reports and one unpublished report (n=4 records on n=3 HEAs). This included 102 851 participants and over 148 practices/pharmacies (information was not recorded for all records). One study reviewed health equity impacts of HEA implementation in key indicators for coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Two HEAs explored Stop Smoking Services on programme access and equity. All reported some degree of reduction in health inequalities compared with prior HEA implementation. However, impact of HEA implementation compared with other concurrent programmes and initiatives was unclear. All included studies were judged to have moderate to serious risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: There is an urgent need to identify effective interventions to address health inequalities. While HEAs are recommended, we only identified limited weak evidence to support their use. More evidence is needed to explore whether HEA implementation can reduce inequalities and which factors are influencing effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The study was registered prior to its conduction in PROSPERO (CRD 42020218642).

The provision of nutritional advice and care for cancer patients: a UK national survey of healthcare professionals.

PURPOSE: People living with and beyond cancer often experience nutrition-related issues and should receive appropriate advice on nutrition that is consistent and evidence based. The aim of this study was to investigate current practice for the provision of nutritional care by healthcare professionals (HCPs) from a UK national survey produced by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Cancer and Nutrition Collaboration. METHODS: An online survey sent to professional groups and networks included questions on discussing nutrition, providing information, awareness of guidelines, confidence in providing nutritional advice, training and strategies for improving nutritional management. RESULTS: There were 610 HCPs who responded including nurses (31%), dietitians (25%), doctors (31%) and speech and language therapists (9%). The majority of HCPs discusses nutrition (94%) and provides information on nutrition (77%). However, only 39% of HCPs reported being aware of nutritional guidelines, and just 20% were completely confident in providing nutritional advice. Awareness of guidelines varied between the different professional groups with most but not all dietitians reporting the greatest awareness of guidelines and GPs the least (p = 0.001). Those HCPs with a greater awareness of guidelines had received training (p = 0.001) and were more likely to report complete confidence in providing nutritional advice (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Whilst HCPs discuss nutrition with cancer patients and may provide information, many lack an awareness of guidelines and confidence in providing nutritional advice. To ensure consistency of practice and improvements in patient care, there is scope for enhancing the provision of appropriate nutrition education and training.