"I'll meet you at our bench": adaptation, innovation and resilience among VCSE organisations who supported marginalised and minoritised communities during the Covid-19 pandemic in Northern England - a qualitative focus group study.

BACKGROUND: The Covid-19 pandemic has exacerbated pre-existing inequalities and increased adversity and challenges for vulnerable and marginalised communities worldwide. In the UK, the Voluntary Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) sector play a vital role in supporting the health and wellbeing of people who are marginalised or experiencing multiple complex needs. However, only a small number of studies have focused on the impact that Covid-19 had on the VCSE sector. METHODS: As part of a Health Inequalities Impact Assessment (HIIA), we conducted qualitative focus groups with staff and volunteers from five organisations to examine short, medium and longer-term impacts of Covid-19 upon the VCSE sector in Northern England. Nine online focus groups were conducted between March and July 2021. FINDINGS: Focus group transcripts were analysed using Framework Analysis and yielded three central themes: (1) exacerbation of pre-existing inequalities, adversity and challenges for vulnerable and marginalised populations; (2) the 'price' of being flexible, innovative and agile for VCSE staff and volunteers; and (3) the voluntary sector as a 'lifeline' - organisational pride and resilience. CONCLUSIONS: While the voluntary sector 'adapted at pace' to provide support during Covid-19 and in its continued aftermath, this resilience has potentially come at the cost of workforce and volunteer wellbeing, compounded by political obstacles and chronic shortage in funding and support. The VCSE sector has a vital role to play in the post-lockdown 'levelling up' agenda. The expertise, capacity and resilience of VCSE organisations, and their ability to respond to Covid-19, should be celebrated, recognised and supported adequately to maintain its resilience. To not do so threatens the sector's sustainability and risks jeopardising attempts to involve the sector in addressing the social determinants of health.

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.

Community empowerment and mental wellbeing: longitudinal findings from a survey of people actively involved in the big local place-based initiative in England.

BACKGROUND: Community empowerment initiatives are receiving increased interest as ways of improving health and reducing health inequalities. PURPOSE: Longitudinally examine associations between collective control, social-cohesion and mental wellbeing amongst participants in the Big Local community empowerment initiative across 150 disadvantaged areas of England. METHODS: As part of the independent Communities in Control study, we analysed nested cohort survey data on mental wellbeing (Short Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale-SWEMWBS) and perceptions of collective control and social-cohesion. Data were obtained in 2016, 2018 and 2020 for 217 residents involved in the 150 Big Local areas in England. Adjusted linear mixed effect models were utilized to examine changes in SWEMWBS over the three waves. Subgroup analysis by gender and educational level was conducted. RESULTS: There was a significant 1.46 (0.14, 2.77) unit increase in mental wellbeing score at wave 2 (2018) but not in wave 3 (2020) (0.06 [-1.41, 1.53]). Across all waves, collective control was associated with a significantly higher mental wellbeing score (3.36 [1.51, 5.21]) as was social cohesion (1.09 [0.19, 2.00]). Higher educated participants (1.99 [0.14, 3.84]) and men (2.41 [0.55, 4.28]) experienced significant increases in mental wellbeing in 2018, but lower educated participants and women did not. CONCLUSION: Collective control and social cohesion are associated with better mental wellbeing amongst residents engaged with the Big Local initiative. These health benefits were greater amongst men and participants from higher educational backgrounds. This suggests that additional care must be taken in future interventions to ensure that benefits are distributed equally.

Collective control, social cohesion and health and well-being: baseline survey results from the communities in control study in England.

BACKGROUND: Area-based initiatives (ABIs) are receiving renewed interest as a part of the 'place-based public health' approaches to reducing health inequalities. PURPOSE: Examine associations between collective control, social cohesion and health amongst residents involved in the Big Local (BL) ABI. METHODS: Survey data on general health, mental well-being, perceptions of individual and collective control and social cohesion was obtained in 2016 for 1600 residents involved in the 150 BL ABI areas in England, and 862 responded-a response rate of >50%. Adjusted mean differences and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using random effect linear and generalized estimating equation models. Subgroup analysis by gender and educational level was conducted. RESULTS: Mental well-being was positively associated with collective control (mean difference: 3.06 units, 1.23-4.90) and some measures of social cohesion ('people in the area are willing to help each other' [mean difference: 1.77 units, 0.75-2.78]). General health was positively associated with other measures of social cohesion (area-belonging [OR: 4.25, 2.26-7.97]). CONCLUSIONS: Collective control and some aspects of social cohesion were positively associated with better mental well-being and self-rated health amongst residents involved with BL. These positive associations were often greater amongst women and participants with a lower education. Increasing the collective control residents have in ABIs could improve the health effects of ABIs.

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.

Pathways to mental health improvement in a community-led area-based empowerment initiative: evidence from the Big Local 'Communities in Control' study, England.

BACKGROUND: Area-based initiatives that include a focus on community empowerment are increasingly being seen as potentially an important way of improving health and reducing inequalities. However, there is little empirical evidence on the pathways between communities having more control and health outcomes. PURPOSE: To identify pathways to health improvement in a community-led area-based community empowerment initiative. METHODS: Longitudinal data on mental health, community control, area belonging, satisfaction, social cohesion and safety were collected over two time points, 6 months apart from 48 participants engaged in the Big Local programme, England. Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) was used to explore pathways to health improvement. RESULTS: There was no clear single pathway that led to mental health improvement but positive changes in 'neighbourhood belonging' featured in 4/5 health improvement configurations. Further, where respondents experienced no improvement in key social participation/control factors, they experienced no health improvement. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates a potential pathway between an improvement in 'neighbourhood belonging' and improved mental health outcomes in a community empowerment initiative. Increasing neighbourhood belonging could be a key target for mental health improvement interventions.