The short-term health and psychosocial impacts of domestic energy efficiency investments in low-income areas: a controlled before and after study.

BACKGROUND: Research suggests that living in fuel poverty and cold homes contributes to poor physical and mental health, and that interventions targeted at those living in poor quality housing may lead to health improvements. However, little is known about the socio-economic intermediaries and processes that contribute to better health. This study examined the relationship between energy efficiency investments to homes in low-income areas and mental and physical health of residents, as well as a number of psychosocial outcomes likely to be part of the complex relationship between energy efficiency measures and health outcomes. METHODS: A quasi-experimental field study with a controlled pretest-posttest design was conducted (intervention n = 364; control n = 418) to investigate the short-term health and psychosocial impacts of a domestic energy efficiency programme that took place across Wales between 2013 and 2015. Survey data were collected in the winters before and after installation of energy efficiency measures, including external wall insulation. The study used a multilevel modelling repeated measures approach to analyse the data. RESULTS: The energy efficiency programme was not associated with improvements in physical and mental health (using the SF-12v2 physical and mental health composite scales) or reductions in self-reported respiratory and asthma symptoms. However, the programme was associated with improved subjective wellbeing (B = 0.38, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.65), as well as improvements in a number of psychosocial outcomes, including increased thermal satisfaction (OR = 3.83, 95% CI 2.40 to 5.90), reduced reports of putting up with feeling cold to save heating costs (OR = 0.49, CI = 0.25 to 0.94), fewer financial difficulties (B = -0.15, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.05), and reduced social isolation (OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.77). CONCLUSION: The study showed that investing in energy efficiency in low-income communities does not lead to self-reported health improvements in the short term. However, investments increased subjective wellbeing and were linked to a number of psychosocial intermediaries that are conducive to better health. It is likely that better living conditions contribute to improvements in health outcomes in the longer term. Better understanding of the impacts on recipients of energy efficiency schemes, could improve targeting of future fuel poverty policies.

Cold homes, fuel poverty and energy efficiency improvements: A longitudinal focus group approach.

Cold homes and fuel poverty have been identified as factors in health and social inequalities that could be alleviated through energy efficiency interventions. Research on fuel poverty and the health impacts of affordable warmth initiatives have to date primarily been conducted using quantitative and statistical methods, limiting the way how fuel poverty is understood. This study took a longitudinal focus group approach that allowed exploration of lived experiences of fuel poverty before and after an energy efficiency intervention. Focus group discussions were held with residents from three low-income communities before (n = 28) and after (n = 22) they received energy efficiency measures funded through a government-led scheme. The results show that improving the energy efficiency of homes at risk of fuel poverty has a profound impact on wellbeing and quality of life, financial stress, thermal comfort, social interactions and indoor space use. However, the process of receiving the intervention was experienced by some as stressful. There is a need for better community engagement and communication to improve the benefits delivered by fuel poverty programmes, as well as further qualitative exploration to better understand the wider impacts of fuel poverty and policy-led intervention schemes.

Facilitating collaborative animal research: The development and implementation of a Master Reciprocal Institutional Agreement for Animal Care and Use.

Ensuring appropriate review, approval, and oversight of research involving animals becomes increasingly complex when researchers collaborate across multiple sites. In these situations, it is important that the division of responsibilities is clear and that all involved parties share a common understanding. The National Institutes of Health Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare and the United States Department of Agriculture Animal Plant Health Inspection Service require an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) to review the care and use of animals in research, and both agree that it is acceptable for one IACUC to review the work taking place at multiple institutions. With this in mind, several Harvard-affiliated hospitals and academic centers developed the Master Reciprocal Institutional Agreement for Animal Care and Use (Master IACUC Agreement) to support collaboration, decrease administrative burden, increase efficiencies, reduce duplicative efforts, and ensure appropriate protections for animals used in research. Locally, the Master IACUC Agreement has fostered greater collaboration and exchange while ensuring appropriate review and oversight of research involving animals. As multisite animal protocols become more prevalent, this Agreement could provide a model for a distributed, national network of IACUC reliance.