The social return on investment of physical activity and nutrition interventions-a scoping review.

Introduction: Scarcity of resources and mounting pressures on health systems make it critical to evaluate new and existing public health interventions related to physical activity and nutrition. The Social Return on Investment (SROI) framework has gained prominence for capturing traditional variables such as economic costs and returns, as well as wider beneficial social and environmental outcomes. A scoping review was conducted to present the existing evidence on the SROI of physical activity and nutrition interventions, demonstrating the wider benefits of these interventions. Methodology: Existing peer-reviewed evidence and grey literature was collated to identify physical activity and nutrition interventions that were evaluated using the SROI framework between January 1996 up until February 2022. Only literature published in the English language, interventions that were conducted in high-income countries were considered for inclusion. Study information and economic data was entered into a pre-prepared data extraction sheet and eligible studies were quality assessed using a 12-point quality assessment framework for SROI studies. Results: This review identified a total of 21 SROI studies, with only four deriving from peer-reviewed literature sources. In total, 18 studies evaluated physical activity interventions, one study was purely focused on nutrition, whereas the two remaining studies presented a mix of physical activity and nutrition. The majority of studies derived from the United Kingdom (n = 16) with very few of the studies published prior to 2010 (n = 1). In total, four studies were classified as low quality based on the 12-point quality assessment framework used for this review. Outcomes of the relevant studies show that the benefits of these interventions have added value to families, communities and the wider environments of the target groups. Conclusion: This scoping review is adding to research conducted to understand the wider value of public health interventions such as physical activity and nutrition interventions using the SROI framework. This is important so that the development and implementation of public health interventions have the greatest value to people and society, which also benefits decision-makers to effectively and sustainably allocate scarce resources.

Social Return on Investment (SROI) of mental health related interventions-A scoping review.

Background: There is a growing recognition of the need to effectively assess the social value of public health interventions through a wider, comprehensive approach, capturing their social, economic and environmental benefits, outcomes and impacts. Social Return on Investment (SROI) is a methodological approach which incorporates all three aspects for evaluating interventions. Mental health problems are one of the leading causes of ill health and disability worldwide. This study aims to map existing evidence on the social value of mental health interventions that uses the SROI methodology. Methods: A scoping evidence search was conducted on Medline, PubMed, Google Scholar and relevant gray literature, published in English between January 2000 and March 2021 to identify studies which capture the SROI of mental health interventions in high- and middle-income countries. Studies that reported mental health outcomes and an SROI ratio were included in this review. The quality of included studies was assessed using Krlev's 12-item quality assessment framework. Results: The search identified a total of 435 records; and 42 of them with varying quality met the study inclusion criteria. Most of the included studies (93%) were non-peer reviewed publicly available reports, predominantly conducted in the United Kingdom (88%); and majority (60%) of those studies were funded by charity/non-for-profit organizations. Out of 42 included studies, 22 were targeted toward individuals experiencing mental health problems and the remainder 20 were targeted to vulnerable groups or the general population to prevent, or reduce the risk of poor mental health. Eighty-one percent of included studies were graded as high quality studies based on Krlev's 12-item quality assessment framework. The reported SROI ratios of the included studies ranged from £0.79 to £28.00 for every pound invested. Conclusion: This scoping review is a first of its kind to focus on SROI of mental health interventions, finding a good number of SROI studies that show a positive return on investment of the identified interventions. This review illustrates that SROI could be a useful tool and source of evidence to help inform policy and funding decisions for investment in mental health and wellbeing, as it accounts for the wider social, economic and environmental benefits of public health interventions. More SROI research in the area of public health is needed to expand the evidence base and develop further the methodology.

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.

Cost of health inequality to the NHS in Wales.

Background: Forty years from the seminal work of Welsh GP Julian Tudor Hart on the Inverse Care Law, inequalities in health and healthcare remain deeply embedded in Wales. There is a wider gap (over 17 years) in healthy life expectancy between people living in the most and least deprived neighborhoods in Wales. This health inequality is reflected in additional healthcare use. In this study we estimate the cost of inequality associated with this additional healthcare use to the publicly funded National Health Service (NHS) in Wales. Methods: We retrieved administrative data on all NHS inpatient admissions, outpatient and accident and emergency attendances in Wales between April 2018 and March 2019 from Digital Health and Care Wales (DHCW). Hospital service use data were translated to costs using Healthcare Resource Group (HRG) and health service specific unit cost data and linked with area level mid-year population and deprivation indices in order to calculate the healthcare costs associated with socioeconomics deprivation. Results: Inequality in healthcare use between people from more and less deprived neighborhoods was associated with an additional cost of £322 million per year to the NHS in Wales, accounting for 8.7% of total NHS hospital expenditure in the country. Emergency inpatient admissions made up by far the largest component of this additional cost contributing £247.4 million, 77% of the total. There are also substantial costs of inequality for A&E attendances and outpatient visits, though not maternity services. Elective admissions overall have a negative cost of inequality, since among men aged 50-75 and women aged 60-70, elective utilization is actually negatively associated with deprivation. Conclusion: There are wide inequalities in health and healthcare use between people living in more deprived neighborhoods and those living in less deprived neighborhoods in Wales. Tackling health inequality through a combination of health promotion and early intervention policies targeted toward deprived communities could yield substantial improvement in health and wellbeing, as well as savings for the Welsh NHS through reduced use of emergency hospital care.

Facilitators, Barriers and Views on the Role of Public Health Institutes in Promoting and Using Health Impact Assessment-An International Virtual Scoping Survey and Expert Interviews.

Public health institutes have an important role in promoting and protecting the health and well-being of populations. A key focus of such institutes are the wider determinants of health, embracing the need to advocate for 'Health in All Policies' (HiAP). A valuable tool to support this is the health impact assessment. This study aims to support public health institutes to advocate more successfully for the use of health impact assessments and HiAP in order to promote and protect health, well-being and equity. During July 2021, a quantitative online survey was undertaken across international networks with 17 valid responses received. Semi-structured interviews were also administered with nine expert representatives and analysed thematically. In total, 64.7% (n = 11) of survey respondents were aware of health impact assessments and 47.1% (n = 8) currently conducted health impact assessments. It was noted that there are differing approaches to HIAs, with a need for a clear set of standards. Barriers to use included lack of knowledge, training and resources. Overall, 64.7% (n = 11) of survey respondents would like to do more to develop knowledge and capacity around health impact assessments. The results from this study can serve as a platform to help build knowledge, networks and expertise, to help support a 'Health in All Policies' approach and address inequalities which exist in all societies.

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.

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.

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.

The social value of investing in public health across the life course: a systematic scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Making the case for investing in public health by illustrating the social, economic and environmental value of public health interventions is imperative. Economic methodologies to help capture the social value of public health interventions such as Social Return on Investment (SROI) and Social Cost-Benefit Analysis (SCBA) have been developed over past decades. The life course approach in public health reinforces the importance of investment to ensure a good start in life to safeguarding a safe, healthy and active older age. This novel review maps an overview of the application of SROI and SCBA in the existing literature to identify the social value of public health interventions at individual stages of the life course. METHODS: A systematic scoping review was conducted on peer-reviewed and grey literature to identify SROI and SCBA studies of public health interventions published between January 1996 and June 2019. All primary research articles published in the English language from high-income countries that presented SROI and SCBA outputs were included. Studies were mapped into stages of the life course, and data on the characteristics of the studies were extracted to help understand the application of social value methodology to assess the value of public health interventions. RESULTS: Overall 40 SROI studies were included in the final data extraction, of which 37 were published in the grey literature. No SCBA studies were identified in the search. Evidence was detected at each stage of the life course which included; the birth, neonatal period, postnatal period and infancy (n = 2); childhood and adolescence (n = 17); adulthood (main employment and reproductive years) (n = 8); and older adulthood (n = 6). In addition, 7 studies were identified as cross-cutting across the life course in their aims. CONCLUSION: This review contributes to the growing evidence base that demonstrates the use of social value methodologies within the field of public health. By mapping evidence across stages of the life course, this study can be used as a starting point by public health professionals and institutions to take forward current thinking about moving away from traditional economic measures, to capturing social value when investing in interventions across the life course.

Health Impact and Social Value of Interventions, Services, and Policies: A Methodological Discussion of Health Impact Assessment and Social Return on Investment Methodologies.

Introduction: Assessing the positive and negative impact of policies, services and interventions on health and well-being is of great importance to public health. Health Impact Assessment (HIA) and Social Return on Investment (SROI) are established methodologies which assess potential effects on health and well-being, including social, economic and environmental factors, indicating synergies, and cross-over in their approach. Within this paper, we explore how HIA and SROI could complement each other to capture and account for the impact and social value of an assessed intervention or policy. Methods: A scoping review of academic and gray literature was undertaken to identify case studies published between January 1996 and April 2019 where HIA and SROI methodologies have been used to complement each other previously. Semi-structured interviews were carried out with nine international experts from a range of regulatory and legislative contexts to gain a deeper understanding of past experiences and expertise of both HIA and SROI. A thematic analysis was undertaken on the data collected. Results: The scoping review identified two published reports on scenarios where HIA and SROI have both been used to assess the same intervention. Results from the interviews suggest that both methods have strengths as standalone methodologies. HIAs were noted to be well-structured in their approach, assessing health and well-being in its broadest context. SROI was noted to add value by monetizing social value, as well as capturing the social and environmental impact. Similarities of the two methods was suggested as their strong emphasis on stakeholder engagement and common shared principles. When questioned how the two methods could complement each other in practice, our results indicate the benefits of using HIA as an initial exploration of impact, potentially using SROI subsequently to monetarize social value. Conclusion: HIA and SROI have many synergies in their approaches. This research suggests potential benefits when used in tandem, or combining the methods to assess impact and account for social value. Further research is needed to understand the implications of this in practice, and to understand how the results of the two methods could be used by decision-makers.

Investment for health and well-being: a review of the social return on investment from public health policies to support implementing the Sustainable Development Goals by building on Health 2020

Governments across the WHO European Region need to take urgent action to address the growing public health, inequality, economic and environmental challenges in order to achieve sustainable development (meeting current needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs) and to ensure health and well-being for present and future generations. Based on a scoping review, this report concludes that current investment policies and practices (doing business as usual) are unsustainable, with high costs to individuals, families, communities, societies, the economy and the planet. Investment in public health policies that are based on values and evidence provides effective and efficient, inclusive and innovative solutions that can drive social, economic and environmental sustainability. Investing for health and well-being is a driver and an enabler of sustainable development, and vice versa, and it empowers people to achieve the highest attainable standard of health for all.

Social return on investment: accounting for value in the context of implementing Health 2020 and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Investment for Health and Development Discussion Paper)

Social return on investment (SROI) is a concept to account for social value when evaluating investments. It goes beyond traditional economic evaluation tools, by considering value produced for multiple stakeholders in all three dimensions of development: economic, social and environmental. This discussion paper reviews the main features of SROI (stakeholder engagement, the theory of change and accounting for social value) and finds that they are coherent with the key features of the Health 2020 policy framework and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. It concludes that SROI represents an interesting opportunity to evaluate cross-sectoral investments which aim to promote health and development, in the WHO European Region and beyond. This publication was tabled as a background document during the Sixty-seventh session of the Regional Committee for Europe, Budapest, 11–14 September 2017.

Investment for health and well-being: a review of the social return on investment from public health policies to support implementing the Sustainable Development Goals by building on Health 2020

Governments across the WHO European Region need to take urgent action to address the growing public health, inequality, economic and environmental challenges in order to achieve sustainable development (meeting current needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs) and to ensure health and well-being for present and future generations. Based on a scoping review, this report concludes that current investment policies and practices (doing business as usual) are unsustainable, with high costs to individuals, families, communities, societies, the economy and the planet. Investment in public health policies that are based on values and evidence provides effective and efficient, inclusive and innovative solutions that can drive social, economic and environmental sustainability. Investing for health and well-being is a driver and an enabler of sustainable development, and vice versa, and it empowers people to achieve the highest attainable standard of health for all. This publication was tabled as a background document during the Sixty-seventh session of the Regional Committee for Europe, Budapest, 11–14 September 2017.

Инвестиции в интересах здоровья и благополучия: анализ общественной эффективности инвенций в стратегии общественного здравоохранения для поддержки выполнения Целей в области устойчивого развития на основе политики Здоровье-2020

Правительствам стран Европейского региона ВОЗ необходимо принять срочные меры для преодоления растущих проблем в области общественного здравоохранения, неравенств, а также экономических и экологических вызовов для того, чтобы добиться устойчивого развития (т.е. удовлетворить нынешние потребности без ущерба для способности будущих поколений удовлетворять свои собственные потребности) и гарантировать здоровье и благополучие нынешнему и будущим поколениям. На основе оценки масштабов осуществляемой деятельности авторы доклада делают вывод о том, что нынешняя инвестиционная политика и практика (“работа в привычном режиме”) является неустойчивой и влечет за собой высокие издержки для отдельных граждан, их семей, сообществ, обществ, национальной экономики и всей планеты. Инвестиции в реализацию мер общественного здравоохранения, которые опираются на ценностные ориентиры и фактические данные, обеспечивают эффективные и рациональные, инклюзивные и инновационные решения, которые могут служить стимулом для обеспечения социальной, экономической и экологической устойчивости. Инвестиции в интересах здоровья и благополучия стимулируют и делают возможным устойчивое развитие (и наоборот), что позволяет обеспечить наивысший достижимый уровень здоровья для всех людей. Эта публикация была представлена для обсуждения в качестве справочного документа на Шестьдесят седьмой сессии Европейского регионального комитета, Будапешт, 11–14 сентября 2017 г.

Systematic versus opportunistic risk assessment for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Screening programmes can potentially identify people at high cardiovascular risk and reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality. However, there is currently not enough evidence showing clear clinical or economic benefits of systematic screening-like programmes over the widely practised opportunistic risk assessment of CVD in primary care settings. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness, costs and adverse effects of systematic risk assessment compared to opportunistic risk assessment for the primary prevention of CVD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE on 30 January 2015, and Web of Science Core Collection and additional databases on the Cochrane Library on 4 December 2014. We also searched two clinical trial registers and checked reference lists of relevant articles. We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the effects of systematic risk assessment, defined as a screening-like programme involving a predetermined selection process of people, compared with opportunistic risk assessment which ranged from no risk assessment at all to incentivised case finding of CVD and related risk factors. Participants included healthy adults from the general population, including those who are at risk of CVD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies. One review author extracted data and assessed them for risk of bias and a second checked them. We assessed evidence quality using the GRADE approach and present this in a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: Nine completed RCTs met the inclusion criteria, of which four were cluster-randomised. We also identified five ongoing trials. The included studies had a high or unclear risk of bias, and the GRADE ratings of overall quality were low or very low. The length of follow-up varied from one year in four studies, three years in one study, five or six years in two studies, and ten years in two studies. Eight studies recruited participants from the general population, although there were differences in the age ranges targeted. One study recruited family members of cardiac patients (high risk assessment). There were considerable differences between the studies in the interventions received by the intervention and control groups. There was insufficient evidence to stratify by the types of risk assessment approaches.Limited data were available on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.02; 3 studies,103,571 participants, I² = 0%; low-quality evidence) and cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.11; 2 studies, 43,955 participants, I² = 0%), and suggest that screening has no effect on these outcomes. Data were also limited for combined non-fatal endpoints; overall, evidence indicates no difference in total coronary heart disease (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.07; 4 studies, 5 comparisons, 110,168 participants, I² = 0%; low-quality evidence), non-fatal coronary heart disease (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 2 studies, 43,955 participants, I² = 39%), total stroke (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.10; 2 studies, 79,631 participants, I² = 0%, low-quality evidence), and non-fatal stroke (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.47; 1 study, 20,015 participants).Overall, systematic risk assessment appears to result in lower total cholesterol levels (mean difference (MD) -0.11 mmol/l, 95% CI -0.17 to -0.04, 6 studies, 7 comparisons, 12,591 participants, I² = 57%; very low-quality evidence), lower systolic blood pressure (MD -3.05 mmHg, 95% CI -4.84 to -1.25, 6 studies, 7 comparisons, 12,591 participants, I² = 82%; very low-quality evidence) and lower diastolic blood pressure (MD -1.34 mmHg, 95% CI -1.76 to -0.93, 6 studies, 7 comparisons, 12,591 participants, I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). One study assessed adverse effects and found no difference in psychological distress at five years (1126 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results are limited by the heterogeneity between trials in terms of participants recruited, interventions and duration of follow-up. Limited data suggest that systematic risk assessment for CVD has no statistically significant effects on clinical endpoints. There is limited evidence to suggest that CVD systematic risk assessment may have some favourable effects on cardiovascular risk factors. The completion of the five ongoing trials will add to the evidence base.

Many diseases, one model of care?

Patients with multiple chronic conditions (multimorbidity) have complex and extensive health and social care needs that are not well served by current silo-based models of care. A lack of integration between care providers often leads to fragmented, incomplete, and ineffective care, leaving many patients overwhelmed and unable to navigate their way towards better health outcomes. In planning for the future, healthcare policies and models of care are required that cater for the complex needs of patients with multimorbidity and that deliver coordinated care that is patient-centred and focused on disease prevention, multidisciplinary teamwork and shared decision-making, and on empowering patients to self-manage. Salient lessons can be learnt from the work undertaken at a European and national level to develop care models in cancer and diabetes - two complex and often co-occurring conditions requiring coordinated long-term care. Innovative work is also underway in many European countries aimed at improving the integration of care for people with multimorbidity, resulting in more efficient and cost-effective health outcomes. This article reviews some of the most innovative programmes that have been initiated across and within Europe with the aim of improving the way care is delivered to people with complex and multiple long-term conditions. This work provides a foundation upon which to build better, more effective models of care for people with multimorbidity.

Erratum to: Many diseases, one model of care?

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.15256/joc.2016.6.73.].

Healthy Cities Phase V evaluation: further synthesizing realism.

In this article we reflect on the quality of a realist synthesis paradigm applied to the evaluation of Phase V of the WHO European Healthy Cities Network. The programmatic application of this approach has led to very high response rates and a wealth of important data. All articles in this Supplement report that cities in the network move from small-scale, time-limited projects predominantly focused on health lifestyles to the significant inclusion of policies and programmes on systems and values for good health governance. The evaluation team felt that, due to time and resource limitations, it was unable to fully exploit the potential of realist synthesis. In particular, the synthetic integration of different strategic foci of Phase V designation areas did not come to full fruition. We recommend better and more sustained integration of realist synthesis in the practice of Healthy Cities in future Phases.