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.

Planning policies to restrict fast food and inequalities in child weight in England: a quasi-experimental analysis.

OBJECTIVE: England has one of the highest childhood obesity rates in Europe. To promote a healthier food environment in 2015, Gateshead Council in North East England introduced planning guidelines effectively banning any new fast-food outlets. Our aim was to investigate whether this policy led to any reductions in childhood overweight and obesity prevalence and the inequalities in these outcomes. METHODS: We used data from the National Child Measurement Programme, the Food Standards Agency Food Hygiene Rating Scheme data, and the Office of National Statistics between 2012 and 2020. We estimated a difference-in-differences model employing propensity score matching to identify a control group. RESULTS: We found no significant change in population-level childhood overweight and obesity in Gateshead compared with control areas. In subgroup analysis by area-level deprivation, we found that the quintile of deprivation with the highest proportion of fast-food outlets had a statistically significant reduction of 4.8% in the prevalence of childhood overweight and obesity compared with control areas. CONCLUSIONS: Restricting fast-food outlets in areas with a high concentration of such outlets as part of a package of policies to reduce childhood obesity may help to reduce prevalence and inequalities in childhood overweight and obesity.

No new fast-food outlets allowed! Evaluating the effect of planning policy on the local food environment in the North East of England.

The environment in which we live impacts on our health. The food available to us in our environment is likely to influence what we eat and subsequently our weight. The use of planning policy can be one way for both local and national government to help shape a healthy environment. In England there are three main types of planning policy used to promote a healthy food environment: 1) restricting new fast-food outlets near schools; 2) restricting new fast-food outlets if the density of existing outlets has surpassed a certain threshold of all retail outlets, 3) restricting new fast-food outlets if childhood obesity rates are above a certain threshold. In 2015, Gateshead council, a local authority in the North East of England implemented all three types of guidance. We utilise a longitudinal administrative dataset, the Food Standards Agency Food Hygiene Rating Scheme Data, covering the period 2012-2019 on all premises selling or preparing food in Great Britain. To analyse the impact of employing all three types of planning guidance on the density, proportion, and number of fast-food outlets in Gateshead, we employ a propensity score matching difference-in-difference approach. We match small geographical areas in Gateshead (lower super output areas) to other local authorities in the North East with similar demographic characteristics that did not implement planning guidance. Results show a reduction in density of fast-food outlets by 12.45 per 100,000 of the population and a 13.88% decrease in the proportion of fast-food outlets in Gateshead compared to other similar local authorities in the North East. There was a marginally significant reduction in the number of restaurants which became insignificant after controlling for population density. These results suggest that a multi-pronged planning approach significantly changed the proportion and density of fast-food outlets in the food environment in the short term (4 years).

Evaluation of the mental health impacts of Universal Credit: protocol for a mixed methods study.

INTRODUCTION: The UK social security system is being transformed by the implementation of Universal Credit (UC), which combines six existing benefits and tax credits into a single payment for low-income households. Despite extensive reports of hardship associated with the introduction of UC, no previous studies have comprehensively evaluated its impact on mental health. Because payments are targeted at low-income households, impacts on mental health will have important consequences for health inequalities. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a mixed methods study. Work package (WP) 1 will compare health outcomes for new recipients of UC with outcomes for legacy benefit recipients in two large population surveys, using the phased rollout of UC as a natural experiment. We will also analyse the relationship between the proportion of UC claimants in small areas and a composite measure of mental health. WP2 will use data collected by Citizen's Advice to explore the sociodemographic and health characteristics of people who seek advice when claiming UC and identify features of the claim process that prompt advice-seeking. WP3 will conduct longitudinal in-depth interviews with up to 80 UC claimants in England and Scotland to explore reasons for claiming and experiences of the claim process. Up to 30 staff supporting claimants will also be interviewed. WP4 will use a dynamic microsimulation model to simulate the long-term health impacts of different implementation scenarios. WP5 will undertake cost-consequence analysis of the potential costs and outcomes of introducing UC and cost-benefit analyses of mitigating actions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We obtained ethical approval for the primary data gathering from the University of Glasgow, College of Social Sciences Research Ethics Committee, application number 400200244. We will use our networks to actively disseminate findings to UC claimants, the public, practitioners and policy-makers, using a range of methods and formats. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The study is registered with the Research Registry: researchregistry6697.