The impact of the English national health inequalities strategy on inequalities in mortality at age 65: a time-trend analysis.

BACKGROUND: During the 1997-2010 Labour government, several policies were implemented to narrow health inequalities as part of a national health inequalities strategy. Many of these policies are likely to have had a disproportionately large impact on people aged 65 and over. We aimed to understand the association between the health inequalities strategy period and inequalities in mortality at age 65-69. METHODS: We use population at risk and mortality data covering 1991-2019 to calculate mortality rate at age 65-69 at the Local Authority level. We use the 2019 Index of Multiple Deprivation to examine geographical inequalities. We employ segmented linear regression models with marginal spline terms for the strategy period and interact these with an indicator of deprivation to understand how inequalities changed before, during and after the strategy. The reporting of this study adheres to STROBE guidelines. RESULTS: Mortality rates in each deprivation quintile improved continuously throughout the period of study. Prior to the programme (1991-9) there was no significant change in absolute inequalities. However, during the strategy (2000-10) there was a significant decrease in absolute inequalities of -9.66 (-17.48 to -1.84). The period following the strategy (2011-19) was associated with a significant increase in absolute inequalities of 12.84 (6.60 to 19.08). Our results were robust to a range of sensitivity tests. CONCLUSION: The English health inequalities strategy was associated with a significant reduction in absolute inequality in mortality age 65-69. Future strategies to address inequalities in ageing populations may benefit from adopting a similar approach.

The U-Shaped Curve of Health Inequalities Over the 20th and 21st Centuries.

This article examines historical trends in health inequalities over the 20th and 21st centuries. Drawing on studies from the United States, United Kingdom, Sweden, and Western Europe, it concludes that there is evidence of a u-shaped curve in (relative) health inequalities. These trends in health inequalities broadly parallel those identified by economists with regards to the u-shaped curve of income and wealth inequalities across the 20th and 21st centuries. The article argues that-as with income inequalities-health inequalities generally decreased across the twentieth century through to the early 1980s. They then started to increase and accelerated further from 2010, particularly in the United Kingdom and the United States. The article sets out four distinct policy periods that shaped the evolution of trends in health inequalities: the Interbellum Era, 1920-1950; the Trente Glorieuse, 1950-1980; Neoliberalism, 1980-2010; and the Crisis Age, 2010-present. The u-shaped curve of health inequalities over this period suggests that social policies, health care access, and political incorporation have driven changes over time. Taking this long view of changes in health inequalities emphasizes the importance of politics and policy for future health improvement.

Reducing health inequalities through general practice: a realist review and action framework.

Background: Socio-economic inequalities in health have been in the public agenda for decades. General practice has an influential role to play in mitigating the impact of inequalities especially regarding chronic conditions. At the moment, general practice is dealing with serious challenges in relation to workforce shortages, increasing workload and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is important to identify effective ways so that general practice can play its role in reducing health inequalities. Objectives: We explored what types of interventions and aspects of routine care in general practice decrease or increase inequalities in health and care-related outcomes. We focused on cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We explored for whom these interventions and aspects of care work best, why, and in what circumstances. Our main objective was to synthesise this evidence into specific guidance for healthcare professionals and decision-makers about how best to achieve equitable general practice. Design: Realist review. Main outcome measures: Clinical or care-related outcomes by socio-economic group, or other PROGRESS-Plus criteria. Review methods: Realist review based on Pawson's five steps: (1) locating existing theories, (2) searching for evidence, (3) selecting articles, (4) extracting and organising data and (5) synthesising the evidence. Results: Three hundred and twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria and 159 of them were selected for the evidence synthesis. Evidence about the impact of general practice interventions on health inequalities is limited. To reduce health inequalities, general practice needs to be: • connected so that interventions are linked and coordinated across the sector; • intersectional to account for the fact that people's experience is affected by many of their characteristics; • flexible to meet patients' different needs and preferences; • inclusive so that it does not exclude people because of who they are; • community-centred so that people who receive care engage with its design and delivery. These qualities should inform action across four domains: structures like funding and workforce distribution, organisational culture, everyday regulated procedures involved in care delivery, interpersonal and community relationships. Limitations: The reviewed evidence offers limited detail about the ways and the extent to which specific interventions increase or decrease inequalities in general practice. Therefore, we focused on the underpinning principles that were common across interventions to produce higher-level, transferrable conclusions about ways to achieve equitable care. Conclusions: Inequalities in general practice result from complex processes across four different domains that include structures, ideas, regulated everyday procedures, and relationships among individuals and communities. To achieve equity, general practice needs to be connected, intersectional, flexible, inclusive and community-centred. Future work: Future work should focus on how these five essential qualities can be better used to shape the organisational development of future general practice. Study registration: This trial is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020217871. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR130694) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 7. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Health inequalities are unfair differences in health across different groups of the population. In the United Kingdom, the health inequality gap in life expectancy between the richest and poorest is increasing and is caused mostly by differences in long-term conditions like cancer and cardiovascular disease and respiratory conditions, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Partly National Health Service inequalities arise in delays in seeing a doctor and care provided through doctors' surgery, such as delays in getting tests. This study explored how general practice services can increase or decrease inequalities in cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, under what circumstances and for whom. It also produced guidance for general practice, both local general practices and the wider general practice system, to reduce inequalities. We reviewed existing studies using a realist methodology. This methodology helps us understand the different contexts in which interventions work or not. We found that inequalities in general practice result from complex processes across different areas. These include funding and workforce, perceptions about health and disease among patients and healthcare staff, everyday procedures involved in care delivery, and relationships among individuals and communities. To reduce inequalities in general practice, action should be taken in all these areas and services need to be connected (i.e. linked and coordinated across the sector), intersectional (i.e. accounting for the fact that people's experience is affected by many of their characteristics like their gender and socio-economic position), flexible (i.e. meeting patients' different needs and preferences), inclusive (i.e. not excluding people because of who they are) and community-centred (i.e. working with the people who will receive care when designing and providing it). There is no one single intervention that will make general practice more equitable, rather it requires long-term organisational change based on these principles.

Factors influencing implementation and sustainability of interventions to improve oral health and related health behaviours in adults experiencing severe and multiple disadvantage: a mixed-methods systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Among people experiencing severe and multiple disadvantage (SMD), poor oral health is common and linked to smoking, substance use and high sugar intake. Studies have explored interventions addressing oral health and related behaviours; however, factors related to the implementation of these interventions remain unclear. This mixed-methods systematic review aimed to synthesise evidence on the implementation and sustainability of interventions to improve oral health and related health behaviours among adults experiencing SMD. METHODS: Bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EBSCO, Scopus) and grey literature were searched from inception to February 2023. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were screened and extracted independently by two researchers. Quality appraisal was undertaken, and results were synthesised using narrative and thematic analyses. RESULTS: Seventeen papers were included (published between 1995 and 2022). Studies were mostly of moderate quality and included views from SMD groups and service providers. From the qualitative synthesis, most findings were related to aspects such as trust, resources and motivation levels of SMD groups and service providers. None of the studies reported on diet and none included repeated offending (one of the aspects of SMD). From the quantitative synthesis, no difference was observed in programme attendance between the interventions and usual care, although there was some indication of sustained improvements in participation in the intervention group. CONCLUSION: This review provides some evidence that trust, adequate resources and motivation levels are potentially important in implementing interventions to improve oral health and substance use among SMD groups. Further research is needed from high quality studies and focusing on diet in this population. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020202416.

Socioeconomic inequalities in vaccine uptake: A global umbrella review.

This global umbrella review aimed to synthesise evidence of socioeconomic inequalities in the uptake of routine vaccinations and identify the mechanisms that may contribute to the association. To our knowledge, no attempt has been made to synthesise the global body of systematic reviews across a variety of vaccines, geographical locations, and measures of SES. The inclusion criteria were as follows: studies assessing vaccination uptake according to education, income, occupation/employment, and/or area-level deprivation; any country or universally recommended routine vaccination (according to the WHO); qualitative or quantitative reviews, published 2011-present. The searches were performed in eight databases. The screening process followed PRISMA-E guidelines, each stage was performed by one reviewer, and a 10% sample checked by a second for consistency. Included reviews underwent data extraction, quality appraisal (AMSTAR-2), and narrative synthesis according to country-context. After deduplication, 9,163 reports underwent title and abstract screening, leaving 119 full texts to be assessed for eligibility. Overall, 26 studies were included in the umbrella review. Evidence for lower uptake amongst disadvantaged SES individuals was found in all 26 reviews. However, 17 reviews showed mixed results, as inverse associations were also identified (lower uptake for advantaged SES, and/or higher uptake for disadvantaged SES). Those that explored high-income countries had a greater prevalence of mixed findings than those focusing on low/middle-income countries. The two most frequently cited mechanisms were vaccination knowledge, and confidence in vaccination or vaccination providers. These mechanisms were often understood by review authors as varying by level of education. We find socioeconomic differences in routine vaccination uptake, but the association did not always follow a gradient. Whilst education may be associated with uptake globally, our study indicates that its role varies by country-context. A limitation is the overlap of some primary studies across the included systematic reviews.

Interventions to improve oral health and related health behaviours of substance use, smoking, and diet in people with severe and multiple disadvantage: a systematic review of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Homelessness overlapping with substance use and offending is described as severe and multiple disadvantage (SMD). People experiencing SMD have poor oral health along with high levels of related behaviours such as substance use, smoking, and poor diet. Existing evidence largely describes the prevalence of oral health problems, substance use, and smoking in SMD groups. Little is known about interventions that can address these conditions in SMD groups. We aimed to review the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions on oral health and related health behaviours in adults experiencing SMD. METHODS: For this systematic review, we searched bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EBSCO, Scopus) and grey literature for papers published from inception to February 2023. Two researchers independently reviewed the searches. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), comparative studies and economic evaluations were included. Risk of bias was assessed. Population included adults experiencing SMD (including homelessness and substance use or repeat offending). Outcomes included oral health, and related behaviours (substance use, smoking, poor diet). Results were narratively synthesised. This review was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020202416. FINDINGS: The review included 38 studies (published between 1991 and 2023), with 34 reporting effectiveness. These studies comprised of 23 RCTs and 11 quasi-experimental studies conducted in the USA (25 studies), Canada (seven studies), France (one study), and Spain (one study). The interventions involving multiple components, such as housing services with substance use and mental health support, effectively reduced substance use in SMD groups; these were mostly individual-level interventions. However, these studies had short follow-up periods and high attrition rates. Only one study addressed oral health outcomes, none focused on diet, and three RCTs covered smoking, with one intervention showing smoking abstinence at 4 weeks. Some limited evidence suggested cost-effectiveness of substance use interventions. INTERPRETATION: This review found that integrating services such as housing with other health-care services together could be effective in improving health behaviours, especially substance use among SMD groups. More evidence is needed specifically on oral health, smoking, and diet-related interventions. The generalisability of findings of this review is limited to high-income countries and shorter-term outcomes. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Policy Research Programme.

Investigating health and social outcomes of the Big Local community empowerment initiative in England: a mixed method evaluation.

Background: Most research on community empowerment provides evidence on engaging communities for health promotion purposes rather than attempts to create empowering conditions. This study addresses this gap. Intervention: Big Local started in 2010 with £271M from the National Lottery. Ending in 2026, it gives 150 relatively disadvantaged communities in England control over £1M to improve their neighbourhoods. Objective: To investigate health and social outcomes, at the population level and among engaged residents, of the community engagement approach adopted in a place-based empowerment initiative. Study design, data sources and outcome variables: This study reports on the third wave of a longitudinal mixed-methods evaluation. Work package 1 used a difference-in-differences design to investigate the impact of Big Local on population outcomes in all 150 Big Local areas compared to matched comparator areas using secondary data. The primary outcome was anxiety; secondary outcomes included a population mental health measure and crime in the neighbourhood. Work package 2 assessed active engagement in Big Local using cross-sectional data and nested cohort data from a biannual survey of Big Local partnership members. The primary outcome was mental well-being and the secondary outcome was self-rated health. Work package 3 conducted qualitative research in 14 Big Local neighbourhoods and nationally to understand pathways to impact. Work package 4 undertook a cost-benefit analysis using the life satisfaction approach to value the benefits of Big Local, which used the work package 1 estimate of Big Local impact on life satisfaction. Results: At a population level, the impacts on 'reporting high anxiety' (-0.8 percentage points, 95% confidence interval -2.4 to 0.7) and secondary outcomes were not statistically significant, except burglary (-0.054 change in z-score, 95% confidence interval -0.100 to -0.009). There was some effect on reduced anxiety after 2017. Areas progressing fastest had a statistically significant reduction in population mental health measure (-0.053 change in z-score, 95% confidence interval -0.103 to -0.002). Mixed results were found among engaged residents, including a significant increase in mental well-being in Big Local residents in the nested cohort in 2018, but not by 2020; this is likely to be COVID-19. More highly educated residents, and males, were more likely to report a significant improvement in mental well-being. Qualitative accounts of positive impacts on mental well-being are often related to improved social connectivity and physical/material environments. Qualitative data revealed increasing capabilities for residents' collective control. Some negative impacts were reported, with local factors sometimes undermining residents' ability to exercise collective control. Finally, on the most conservative estimate, the cost-benefit calculations generate a net benefit estimate of £64M. Main limitations: COVID-19 impacted fieldwork and interpretation of survey data. There was a short 4-year follow-up (2016/20), no comparators in work package 2 and a lack of power to look at variations across areas. Conclusions: Our findings suggest the need for investment to support community organisations to emerge from and work with communities. Residents should lead the prioritisation of issues and design of solutions but not necessarily lead action; rather, agencies should work as equal partners with communities to deliver change. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research Programme (16/09/13) and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 11, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The Communities in Control study is looking at the health impacts of the Big Local community empowerment programme, funded by the National Lottery Community Fund and managed by Local Trust (a national charitable organisation). Residents of 150 English areas have at least £1M and other support to improve the neighbourhoods. There have been three phases of the research. This report shares findings from their third phase, which began in 2018. First, we used data from a national survey and data from national health and welfare services to compare changes in mental health between people living in Big Local areas and those in similar areas that did not have a Big Local partnership. Furthermore, we also used publicly available data on crime in the neighbourhoods. We found weak evidence that Big Local was linked with improved mental health and a reduction in burglaries. Second, we used data from a survey conducted by Local Trust to look at health and social impacts on the most active residents. We found an increase in mental well-being in 2018 but this was not maintained in 2020, probably due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Third, we did interviews and observations in 14 Big Local areas to understand what helps and what does not help residents to improve their neighbourhoods. We found that partnerships need to have legitimacy, the right balance of support, and learning opportunities. Residents suggested that creating social connections and welcoming social spaces, improving how people view the area and tackling poverty contributed to health improvements. Direct involvement in Big Local was both stressful and rewarding. Finally, we did a cost­benefit analysis by putting a monetary value on residents' increase in life satisfaction due to Big Local and comparing it with the costs of Big Local. We found that the benefits exceed the costs by at least £60M, suggesting that Big Local provides good value for money.

Children's nutritional health and wellbeing in food insecure households in Europe: A qualitative meta-ethnography.

Since the 2008 global financial crisis, there has been a rise in the number of people experiencing food insecurity. Particularly vulnerable are households with children. This systematic review and meta-ethnography of qualitative studies focuses on families' perceptions of food insecurity and how it affects children's nutritional health and wellbeing. Six electronic databases (Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL and ASSIA), were searched for studies from European high-income countries between January 2008-July 2021, and supplemented by searches of grey literature databases, relevant websites, examination of reference lists and citation searches. We adhered to PRISMA and eMERGe guidelines to improve the completeness and clarity of meta-ethnographic reporting. Methodological quality of the studies were assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme qualitative checklist. We identified 11,596 records; we included 19 publications involving 813 participants in total. Data were synthesised according to Noblit & Hare's seven phases of meta-ethnography. We identified four key themes-food and eating practices, awareness, fragility, and networks of care-comprising five sub-themes. Our meta-ethnography provides a progressive 'storyline' of the children's experiences of food insecurity from both caregivers and children's perspectives. We found that children are aware of their family's limited resources and are often active in trying to help their families cope, and that food insecurity adversely impacts children's physical, psychological, and social experiences. Our analysis highlights gaps in knowledge about how food insecurity impacts children's nutritional health and wellbeing. It suggests that future research should prioritise minoritised ethnic communities, children living in temporary accommodation and caregivers of very young children.

Understanding the Relationship Between Decreases in Social Security Benefits and Intergenerational Inequalities in Mental Health.

It is well-established that mental health follows similar patterns across generations. However, little is known how structural factors, such as those related to social security reforms, may impact this relationship. Our aim was to quantify the strength of association in mental health between parents and their adolescent children, and to explore how much of this correlation is explained by decreases in benefits. We used data from U.K. Household Longitudinal Study (2009-2019) from which we matched youth data to their parents, and split the sample into single- and dual-parent households. To estimate the intergenerational correlations, we estimated a series of unit- and rank-based regression models of standardized and time-averaged mental health measures for adolescents and their parents. Our findings suggest that there are statistically significant intergenerational associations in mental health between parents and children for both single- and dual-parent households, with the relationship being stronger for single-mother households. Benefit losses explain a small proportion of this association, for both single-mother and dual-parent households. Nevertheless, they are negatively associated with the mental health of adolescents in dual-parent households-independently of both adolescent and parental characteristics. Such negative effects should be considered when designing and evaluating future social security benefit policies.

Have COVID-19 Stimulus Packages Mitigated the Negative Health Impacts of Pandemic-Related Job Losses? A Systematic Review of Global Evidence from the First Year of the Pandemic.

Social protection can buffer the negative impacts of unemployment on health. Have stimulus packages introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic mitigated potential harms to health from unemployment? We performed a systematic review of the health effects of job loss during the first year of the pandemic. We searched three electronic databases and identified 49 studies for inclusion. Three United States-based studies found that stimulus programs mitigated the impact of job loss on food security and mental health. Furloughs additionally appeared to reduce negative impacts when they were paid. However, despite the implementation of large-scale stimulus packages to reduce economic harms, we observed a clear pattern that job losses were nevertheless significantly associated with negative impacts, particularly on mental health, quality of life, and food security. We also observe suggestive evidence that COVID-related job loss was associated with child maltreatment, worsening dental health, and poor chronic disease outcomes. Overall, although we did find evidence that income-support policies appeared to help protect people from the negative health consequences of pandemic-related job loss, they were not sufficient to fully offset the threats to health. Future research should ascertain how to ensure adequate access to and generosity of social protection programs during epidemics and economic downturns.

Reducing health inequalities through general practice.

Although general practice can contribute to reducing health inequalities, existing evidence provides little guidance on how this reduction can be achieved. We reviewed interventions influencing health and care inequalities in general practice and developed an action framework for health professionals and decision makers. We conducted a realist review by searching MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for systematic reviews of interventions into health inequality in general practice. We then screened the studies in the included systematic reviews for those that reported their outcomes by socioeconomic status or other PROGRESS-Plus (Cochrane Equity Methods Group) categories. 159 studies were included in the evidence synthesis. Robust evidence on the effect of general practice on health inequalities is scarce. Focusing on common qualities of interventions, we found that to reduce health inequalities, general practice needs to be informed by five key principles: involving coordinated services across the system (ie, connected), accounting for differences within patient groups (ie, intersectional), making allowances for different patient needs and preferences (ie, flexible), integrating patient worldviews and cultural references (ie, inclusive), and engaging communities with service design and delivery (ie, community-centred). Future work should explore how these principles can inform the organisational development of general practice.

Exploring the health and sociodemographic characteristics of people seeking advice with claiming universal credit: a cross-sectional analysis of UK citizens advice data, 2017-2021.

BACKGROUND: The UK Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) administers Universal Credit (UC) - the main UK benefit for people in- and out-of-work. UC is being rolled out nationally from 2013 to 2024. Citizens Advice (CA) is an independent charity that provides advice and support to people making a claim for UC. The aim of this study is to understand who is seeking advice from CA when making a UC claim and how the types of people seeking advice are changing as the rollout of UC continues. METHODS: Co-developed with Citizens Advice Newcastle and Citizens Advice Northumberland we performed longitudinal analysis of national data from Citizens Advice for England and Wales on the health (mental health and limiting long term conditions) and socio-demographic of 1,003,411 observations for people seeking advice with claiming UC over four financial years (2017/18 to 2020/21). We summarised population characteristics and estimated the differences between the four financial years using population-weighted t-tests. Findings were discussed with three people with lived experience of seeking advice to claim UC to help frame our interpretation and policy recommendations. RESULTS: When comparing 2017/18 to 2018/19, there was a significantly higher proportion of people with limiting long term conditions seeking advice with claiming UC than those without (+ 2.40%, 95%CI: 1.31-3.50%). However, as the rollout continued between 2018/29 and 2019/20 (-6.75%, 95%CI: -9.62%--3.88%) and between 2019/20 and 2020/21 (-2.09%, 95%CI: -2.54%--1.64%), there were significantly higher proportions of those without a limiting long term condition seeking advice than with. When comparing 2018/19 to 2019/20 and 2019/20 to 2020/21, there was a significant increase in the proportion of self-employed compared to unemployed people seeking advice with claiming UC (5.64%, 95%CI: 3.79-7.49%) and (2.26%, 95%CI: 1.29-3.23%) respectively. CONCLUSION: As the rollout for UC continues, it is important to understand how changes in eligibility for UC may impact on those who need help with applying for UC. Ensuring that the advice process and application process is responsive to a range of people with different needs can help to reduce the likelihood that the process of claiming UC will exacerbate health inequalities.

Policy actors' perceptions of public participation to tackle health inequalities in Scotland: a paradox?

BACKGROUND: Health inequalities are persistent and widening with transformative policy change needed. Radically shifting policy to tackle upstream causes of inequalities is likely to require public participation to provide a mandate, evidence and to address questions of co-design, implementation and acceptability. The aim of this paper is to explore perceptions among policy actors on why and how the public should be involved in policymaking for health inequalities. METHODS: In 2019-2020, we conducted exploratory, in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 21 Scottish policy actors from a range of public sector bodies and agencies and third sector organisations that work in, or across, health and non-health sectors. Data were analysed thematically and used to examine implications for the development of participatory policymaking. RESULTS: Policy actors viewed public participation in policymaking as intrinsically valuable for democratic reasons, but the main, and more challenging, concern was with how it could affect positive policy change. Participation was seen as instrumental in two overlapping ways: as evidence to improve policies to tackle health inequalities and to achieve public acceptance for implementing more transformative policies. However, our analysis suggests a paradox: whilst policy actors place importance on the instrumental value of public participation, they simultaneously believe the public hold views about health inequalities that would prevent transformative change. Finally, despite broad agreement on the need to improve public participation in policy development, policy actors were uncertain about how to make the necessary changes due to conceptual, methodological and practical challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Policy actors believe in the importance of public participation in policy to address health inequalities for intrinsic and instrumental reasons. Yet, there is an evident tension between seeing public participation as a route to upstream policies and a belief that public views might be misinformed, individualistic, short-term or self-interested and doubts about how to make public participation meaningful. We lack good insight into what the public think about policy solutions to health inequalities. We propose that research needs to shift from describing the problem to focusing more on potential solutions and outline a potential way forward to undertake effective public participation to tackle health inequalities.

Changes in work-related stressors before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: differences by gender and parental status.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic changed people's working conditions worldwide and research suggests increases in work stressors. However, it is not known to what extent these changes differ by gender or parental status. In the present study, we investigate trends in work stressors and whether these differ by gender and parental status. METHODS: We used cross-sectional time series data of the European Working Conditions Survey of 2015 and Living, Working and COVID-19 survey of spring 2020 to examine trends in work stressors by gender and parental status. Work stressors were working in leisure time, lack of psychological detachment and work-life conflict. We applied three-way multilevel regressions reporting prevalence ratios and reported predicted probabilities and average marginal effects to show trends and differences in changes in work stressors. RESULTS: Our multilevel regression results showed elevated prevalence ratios during the pandemic for working leisure time (PR: 1.43, 95% CI 1.34-1.53), psychological detachment (PR: 1.70, 95% CI 1.45-1.99) and work-life conflict (PR: 1.29, 95% CI 1.17-1.43) compared to before the pandemic. Except for working in leisure time, the increase was more significant among women and mothers. The proportion of work-life conflict in 2020 was 20.7% (95% CI 18.7-22.9) for men and 25.8% (95% CI 24.0-27.6) for women, equalling a difference of 5.1% (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that work stressors increased disproportionately for women and mothers. This needs to be monitored and addressed to prevent widening gender inequalities in the quality of work.

Association between neighborhood health behaviors and body mass index in Northern Norway: evidence from the Tromsø Study.

AIM: The prevalence of overweight and obesity has risen rapidly worldwide, and the ongoing obesity pandemic is one of the most severe public health concerns in modern society. The average body mass index (BMI) of people living in Northern Norway has also steadily increased since the late 1970s. This study aimed to understand how individuals' health behavior is associated with the general health behavior of the people in their neighborhood. METHODS: Using the population-based Tromsø Study, we examined the life course association between average leisure time physical activity at the neighborhood level and the BMI of individuals living in the same neighborhood. We used a longitudinal dataset following 25,604 individuals living in 33 neighborhoods and performed a linear mixed-effects analysis. RESULTS: The results showed that participants living in neighborhoods whose residents were more physically active during their leisure time, were likely to have a significantly lower BMI (-0.9 kg/m², 95% CI -1.5 to -0.4). Also, individuals living in neighborhoods whose residents were doing mainly manual work, had significantly higher BMIs (0.7 kg/m², 95% CI 0.4-1.0). CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed a strong association between the average leisure time physical activity level of neighborhood residents and the higher BMI levels of residents of the same neighborhood.

COVID-19 and deprivation amplification: An ecological study of geographical inequalities in mortality in England.

'Deprivation amplification' is used to understand the relationship between deprivation, scale and COVID-19 mortality rates. We found that more deprived Middle Super Output Areas (MSOAs) in the more deprived northern regions suffered greater COVID-19 mortality rates. Across England, the most deprived 20% of MSOAs had higher mortality than the least deprived (44.1% more COVID-19 deaths/10,000). However, the most deprived MSOAs in the north fared worse than equally deprived areas in the rest of England (14.5% more deaths/10,000, beta = 0.136, p < 0.01). There was also strong evidence of spatial clustering and spill-overs. We discuss these findings in relation to 'deprivation amplification', the 'syndemic pandemic', and the health and place literature.

COVID-19 mortality and deprivation: pandemic, syndemic, and endemic health inequalities.

COVID-19 has exacerbated endemic health inequalities resulting in a syndemic pandemic of higher mortality and morbidity rates among the most socially disadvantaged. We did a scoping review to identify and synthesise published evidence on geographical inequalities in COVID-19 mortality rates globally. We included peer-reviewed studies, from any country, written in English that showed any area-level (eg, neighbourhood, town, city, municipality, or region) inequalities in mortality by socioeconomic deprivation (ie, measured via indices of multiple deprivation: the percentage of people living in poverty or proxy factors including the Gini coefficient, employment rates, or housing tenure). 95 papers from five WHO global regions were included in the final synthesis. A large majority of the studies (n=86) found that COVID-19 mortality rates were higher in areas of socioeconomic disadvantage than in affluent areas. The subsequent discussion reflects on how the unequal nature of the pandemic has resulted from a syndemic of COVID-19 and endemic inequalities in chronic disease burden.