Intersectionality and public understandings of health inequity in England: learning from the views and experiences of young adults.

OBJECTIVES: Attempts to reduce health inequities in England frequently prioritise some equity dimensions over others. Intersectionality highlights how different dimensions of inequity interconnect and are underpinned by historic and institutionalised power imbalances. We aimed to explore whether intersectionality could help us shed light on young adults' understanding of health inequities. STUDY DESIGN: The study incorporatedqualitative thematic analysis of primary data. METHODS: Online focus groups with young adults (n = 25) aged 18-30 living in three English regions (Greater London; South Yorkshire/Midlands; North-East England) between July 2020 and March 2021. Online semistructured interviews (n = 2) and text-based communication was conducted for participants unable to attend online groups. RESULTS: Young adults described experiencing discrimination, privilege, and power imbalances driving health inequity and suggested ways to address this. Forms of inequity included cumulative, within group, interacting, and the experience of privilege alongside marginalisation. Young adults described discrimination occurring in settings relevant to social determinants of health and said it adversely affected health and well-being. CONCLUSION: Intersectionality, with its focus on discrimination and identity, can help public health stakeholders engage with young adults on health equity. An upstream approach to improving health equity should consider multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination along with their cultural and institutional drivers.

Examining the effectiveness of place-based interventions to improve public health and reduce health inequalities: an umbrella review.

BACKGROUND: Locally delivered, place-based public health interventions are receiving increasing attention as a way of improving health and reducing inequalities. However, there is limited evidence on their effectiveness. This umbrella review synthesises systematic review evidence of the health and health inequalities impacts of locally delivered place-based interventions across three elements of place and health: the physical, social, and economic environments. METHODS: Systematic review methodology was used to identify recent published systematic reviews of the effectiveness of place-based interventions on health and health inequalities (PROGRESS+) in high-income countries. Nine databases were searched from 1st January 2008 to 1st March 2020. The quality of the included articles was determined using the Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool (R-AMSTAR). RESULTS: Thirteen systematic reviews were identified - reporting 51 unique primary studies. Fifty of these studies reported on interventions that changed the physical environment and one reported on changes to the economic environment. Only one primary study reported cost-effectiveness data. No reviews were identified that assessed the impact of social interventions. Given heterogeneity and quality issues, we found tentative evidence that the provision of housing/home modifications, improving the public realm, parks and playgrounds, supermarkets, transport, cycle lanes, walking routes, and outdoor gyms - can all have positive impacts on health outcomes - particularly physical activity. However, as no studies reported an assessment of variation in PROGRESS+ factors, the effect of these interventions on health inequalities remains unclear. CONCLUSIONS: Place-based interventions can be effective at improving physical health, health behaviours and social determinants of health outcomes. High agentic interventions indicate greater improvements for those living in greater proximity to the intervention, which may suggest that in order for interventions to reduce inequalities, they should be implemented at a scale commensurate with the level of disadvantage. Future research needs to ensure equity data is collected, as this is severely lacking and impeding progress on identifying interventions that are effective in reducing health inequalities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019158309.

What is the impact on health and wellbeing of interventions that foster respect and social inclusion in community-residing older adults? A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies.

BACKGROUND: Many interventions have been developed to promote respect and social inclusion among older people, but the evidence on their impacts on health has not been synthesised. This systematic review aims to appraise the state of the evidence across the quantitative and qualitative literature. METHODS: Eligible studies published between 1990 and 2015 were identified by scanning seven bibliographic databases using a pre-piloted strategy, searching grey literature and contacting experts. Studies were included if they assessed the impact (quantitatively) and/or perceived impact (qualitatively) of an intervention promoting respect and social inclusion on the physical or mental health of community-residing people aged 60 years and older. Titles and abstracts were screened for eligibility by one reviewer. A second reviewer independently screened a 10% random sample. Full texts were screened for eligibility by one reviewer, with verification by another reviewer. Risk of bias was assessed using standardised tools. Findings were summarised using narrative synthesis, harvest plots and logic models to depict the potential pathways to health outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 27,354 records retrieved, 40 studies (23 quantitative, 6 qualitative, 11 mixed methods) were included. All studies were conducted in high and upper middle-income countries. Interventions involved mentoring, intergenerational and multi-activity programmes, dancing, music and singing, art and culture and information-communication technology. Most studies (n = 24) were at high or moderate risk of bias. Music and singing, intergenerational interventions, art and culture and multi-activity interventions were associated with an overall positive impact on health outcomes. This included depression (n = 3), wellbeing (n = 3), subjective health (n = 2), quality of life (n = 2), perceived stress and mental health (n = 2) and physical health (n = 2). Qualitative studies offered explanations for mediating factors (e.g. improved self-esteem) that may lead to improved health outcomes and contributed to the assessment of causation. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst this review suggests that some interventions may positively impact on the health outcomes of older people, and identified mediating factors to health outcomes, the evidence is based on studies with heterogeneous methodologies. Many of the interventions were delivered as projects to selected groups, raising important questions about the feasibility of wider implementation and the potential for population-wide benefits. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42014010107.