Understanding health inequalities in Wales using the Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition method.

Background: Throughout Wales and the world, health inequality remains a problem that is interconnected with a wider and complex social, economic and environmental dynamic. Subsequently, action to tackle inequality in health needs to take place at a structural level, acknowledging the constraints affecting an individual's (or community's) capability and opportunity to enable change. While the 'social determinants of health' is an established concept, fully understanding the composition of the health gap is dependent on capturing the relative contributions of a myriad of social, economic and environmental factors within a quantitative analysis. Method: The decomposition analysis sought to explain the differences in the prevalence of these outcomes in groups stratified by their ability to save at least £10 a month, whether they were in material deprivation, and the presence of a limiting long-standing illness, disability of infirmity. Responses to over 4,200 questions within the National Survey for Wales (n = 46,189; 2016-17 to 2019-20) were considered for analysis. Variables were included based on (1) their alignment to a World Health Organization (WHO) health equity framework ("Health Equity Status Report initiative") and (2) their ability to allow for stratification of the survey sample into distinct groups where considerable gaps in health outcomes existed. A pooled Blinder-Oaxaca model was used to analyse inequalities in self-reported health (fair/poor health, low mental well-being and low life satisfaction) and were stratified by the variables relating to financial security, material deprivation and disability status. Results: The prevalence of fair/poor health was 75% higher in those who were financially insecure and 95% higher in those who are materially deprived. Decomposition of the outcome revealed that just under half of the health gap was "explained" i.e., 45.5% when stratifying by the respondent's ability to save and 46% when stratifying by material deprivation status. Further analysis of the explained component showed that "Social/Human Capital" and "Income Security/Social Protection" determinants accounted the most for disparities observed; it also showed that "Health Services" determinants accounted the least. These findings were consistent across the majority of scenarios modeled. Conclusion: The analysis not only quantified the significant health gaps that existed in the years leading up to the COVID-19 pandemic but it has also shown what determinants of health were most influential. Understanding the factors most closely associated with disparities in health is key in identifying policy levers to reduce health inequalities and improve the health and well-being across populations.

Toward an economy of wellbeing: The economic impact of the Welsh healthcare sector.

Population health and wellbeing is both a result, as well as a driver, of economic development and prosperity on global, European, national and sub-national (local) levels. Wales, one of the four United Kingdom (UK) nations, has shown a long-term commitment to sustainable development and achieving prosperity for all, providing a good example of both national and sub-national level, which can be useful for other European countries and regions. In this paper, the economic importance of the healthcare sector to the Welsh economy is explored. We use a large number of data sources for the UK and Welsh economy to derive an economic model for 2017. We estimate output, income, employment, value-added, and import multipliers of the healthcare sector. Results suggest that the healthcare sector has an above average contribution in four explored economic aspects of the Welsh economy (output, income, employment, value-added), according to its impact on the surrounding economic ecosystem. Also, it is below average regarding leaking through imports. The multipliers' values offer empirical evidence when deciding on alternative policy actions. Such actions can be used as a stimulus for encouraging regional development and post-COVID economic recovery. Our study refers to the Welsh healthcare sector's economic impact as a whole. Therefore, we suggest investigating the economic impact of individual healthcare providers in the future.

Exploring the social value of Public Health Institutes: An international scoping survey and expert interviews.

Introduction: Making the case for investing in preventative public health by illustrating not only the health impact but the social, economic and environmental value of Public Health Institutes is imperative. This is captured by the concept of Social Value, which when measured, demonstrates the combined intersectoral value of public health. There is currently insufficient research and evidence to show the social value of Public Health Institutes and their work across the life course, population groups and settings, in order to make the case for more investment. Methods: During July 2021, a quantitative online self-administered questionnaire was conducted across international networks. Semi-structured interviews were also carried out with nine representatives to gain a deeper understanding. A thematic analysis was undertaken on the data collected. Results: In total, 82.3% (n = 14) were aware of the terminology of social value and 58.8% (n = 10) were aware of the economic method of Social Return on Investment. However, only two Institutes reported capturing social and community impacts within their economic analysis and only 41.2% (n = 7) currently capture or measure the social value of their actions. Interviews and survey responses indicate a lack of resources, skills and buy-in from political powers. Finally, 76.5% (n = 12) wanted to do more to understand and measure wider outcomes and impact of their actions. It was noted this can be achieved through enhancing political will, developing a community of best practice and tools. Conclusion: This research can inform future work to understand how to measure the holistic social value of Public Health Institutes, in order to strengthen institutional capacity and impact, as well as to achieve a more equitable society, and a more sustainable health system and economy, making the case for investing in public health, as we recover from COVID-19.

Placing health equity at the heart of the COVID-19 recovery: data analysis from the first Welsh Health Equity Status Report initiative

Background The Welsh Health Equity Status Report initiative (WHESRi) applies an innovative WHO framework to map the wider impacts of COVID-19 on health equity. The framework is a mechanism to promote policy action and commitment for health equity and identifies five essential conditions needed to live a healthy life;namely, health services, income security, living conditions, social and human capital, and working conditions. We used the framework to assess the immediate health equity impacts of COVID-19 in Wales. Methods Ten relevant variables from Public Health Wales' public engagement survey on health and wellbeing during COVID-19 (captured April 3–July 25, 2020) were mapped to each of the five essential conditions, as defined by the European Health Equity Status Report initiative. Variables were chosen based on alignment to the essential conditions, research objectives and data quality. Estimated marginal means were disaggregated by sociodemographic factors on a nationally representative study sample ranging from 862 to 4747 participants (dependent on duration for which question was asked). Ethical approval was not required as per guidance from the National Health Service Health Research Association ethics decision tool. Findings The WHESRi framework allowed the assessment and quantification of the immediate impacts of COVID-19 on the wider determinants of health through the lens of the five essential conditions. For example, in relation to income security, a significantly higher proportion (181 [50·6%] of 358;p<0·05) of survey respondents aged 18–24 years reported being worried about losing their job, or not being able to find one, than any other age group. Of those respondents aged 18–24 years, 54·4% (p<0·05) of men (equivalent to 78 000) reported being worried, compared with 44·3% (p<0·05) of women (equivalent to 72 000), a difference of 10·1%. Interpretation Application of the WHESRi framework allowed us to draw a holistic picture of health and its determinants at the population level. This application has highlighted quantifiable differences in impacts between population groups, and encouraged the dialogue around policy action. A priority moving forward is to apply the framework to vulnerable population groups and population health priorities to assess the health equity impacts according to factors such as rurality, disability, and ethnicity. Our findings resulting from the application of this WHO framework can be used to enable an equitable and sustainable recovery from the pandemic;they form part of a European initiative for health equity and provide learning to other countries from Wales' role as an innovation site. Funding None.

Using health impact assessment (HIA) to understand the wider health and well-being implications of policy decisions: the COVID-19 'staying at home and social distancing policy' in Wales.

BACKGROUND: Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is promoted as a decision-informing tool by public health and governmental agencies. HIA is beneficial when carried out as part of policy development but is also valuable as a methodology when a policy is being implemented to identify and understand the wider health and well-being impacts of policy decisions, particularly when a decision needs to be taken rapidly to protect the population. This paper focusses on a HIA of the 'Staying at Home and Social Distancing Policy' or 'lockdown' in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Wales conducted by the Welsh national public health institute. It describes the process and findings, captures the learning and discusses how the process has been used to better understand the wider health and well-being impacts of policy decisions beyond direct health harm. It also examines the role of public health institutes in promoting and using HIA. METHODS: A HIA was conducted following a standard HIA five step process. A literature review was undertaken alongside 15 qualitative semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders, and relevant health and demographic data were collated. The results were triangulated and analysed to form a holistic assessment of the policy decision and its impacts. RESULTS: A wide range of major health and well-being impacts of the lockdown in Wales were identified across the determinants of health, which included positive and negative social, economic, environmental and mental well-being impacts beyond the impact on direct health. Populations affected included children and young people, those on low incomes and women as well as those whose health has been directly impacted by COVID-19 such as older people. The work highlighted the benefit that HIA can bring in emphasizing impacts which can inform policy and shared learning with others. CONCLUSION: HIA is a largely underused tool to understand the impact of policy and political decisions, particularly when a decision has been taken at speed. This case study highlights how HIA provide evidence and information for advocacy and further work by public health institutes, health agencies and policy makers.