Common health assets protocol: a mixed-methods, realist evaluation and economic appraisal of how community-led organisations (CLOs) impact on the health and well-being of people living in deprived areas.

INTRODUCTION: This research investigates how community-led organisations' (CLOs') use of assets-based approaches improves health and well-being, and how that might be different in different contexts. Assets-based approaches involve 'doing with' rather than 'doing to' and bring people in communities together to achieve positive change using their own knowledge, skills and experience. Some studies have shown that such approaches can have a positive effect on health and well-being. However, research is limited, and we know little about which approaches lead to which outcomes and how different contexts might affect success. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using a realist approach, we will work with 15 CLOs based in disadvantaged communities in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. A realist synthesis of review papers, and a policy analysis in different contexts, precedes qualitative interviews and workshops with stakeholders, to find out how CLOs' programmes work and identify existing data. We will explore participants' experiences through: a Q methodology study; participatory photography workshops; qualitative interviews and measure outcomes using a longitudinal survey, with 225 CLO participants, to assess impact for people who connect with the CLOs. An economic analysis will estimate costs and benefits to participants, for different contexts and mechanisms. A 'Lived Experience Panel' of people connected with our CLOs as participants or volunteers, will ensure the appropriateness of the research, interpretation and reporting of findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This project, research tools and consent processes have been approved by the Glasgow Caledonian University School of Health and Life Sciences Ethics Committee, and affirmed by Ethics Committees at Bournemouth University, Queen's University Belfast and the University of East London. Common Health Assets does not involve any National Health Service sites, staff or patients.Findings will be presented through social media, project website, blogs, policy briefings, journal articles, conferences and visually in short digital stories, and photographic exhibitions.

It's not just about the park, it's about integration too: why people choose to use or not use urban greenspaces.

BACKGROUND: Greenspace has the potential to be a vital resource for promoting healthy living for people in urban areas, offering both opportunities for physical activity and wellbeing. Much research has explored the objectively measurable factors within areas to the end of explaining the role of greenspace access in continuing health inequalities. This paper explores the subjective reasons why people in urban areas choose to use, or not use, local public greenspace. METHODS: In-depth interviews with 24 people living in two areas of Glasgow, United Kingdom were conducted, supplemented with participant photography and participatory methods. Data was thematically categorised to explore subjectively experienced facilitators and barriers to greenspace use in urban areas. RESULTS: From the perspective of current and potential urban greenspace users, access is revealed to be about more than the physical characteristics of neighbourhoods, greenspace resources or objectively measurable features of walkability and connectivity. Subjectively, the idea of walkability includes perceptions of social cohesion at a community level and the level of felt integration and inclusion by individuals in their communities. Individual's feelings of integration and inclusion potentially mitigate the effects of experiential barriers to urban greenspace access, such as evidence of anti-social behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that improving access to greenspace for all in urban communities will require more than providing high quality resources such as parks, footpaths, activities and lighting. Physical availability interacts with community contexts already established and a holistic understanding of access is required. A key cultural component of areas and neighbourhoods is the level of social cohesion, a factor that has the potential to reinforce existing health inequalities through shaping differentiated greenspace access between subgroups of the local population.

"Not that sort of practice": the views and behaviour of primary care practitioners in a study of advance provision of emergency contraception.

BACKGROUND: Advance supplies of emergency contraception (EC) were made available to women aged 16-29 through general practice and family planning services in Lothian, Scotland. Although this intervention was not associated with an overall reduction in abortion rates in Lothian, it was hypothesized that some general practices may have been more successful than others in promoting and delivering the intervention. OBJECTIVE: To investigate, using comparative case studies, whether, and why, some general practices were more successful in promoting and delivering advance supplies of EC than others. METHODS: Eleven purposively sampled general practices from the 97 participating in the intervention were studied. The number of packs of advance supplies distributed was recorded and distribution rates per 100 eligible women per practice calculated. 44 semi-structured interviews with staff were used to describe the mechanisms through which advance supplies were distributed and health professionals' views of the intervention. RESULTS: Distribution rates varied from 0.9 to 32.0 per 100 eligible women. Respondents described three mechanisms through which advance supplies were distributed: passive, reactive and proactive. Views about EC, and the suitability of their patient population for advance supplies, varied and configured specific practice contexts that facilitated or hindered the delivery of advance supplies. Favourable views and pro-active mechanisms were associated with higher distribution rates, less favourable or ambivalent views and passive delivery mechanisms with lower distribution rates. CONCLUSION: If primary care professionals are to actively engage with a sexual health promotion agenda they need to develop appropriate interpersonal skills and address their values, attitudes and cultural competences.

Emergency contraception: why can't you give it away? Qualitative findings from an evaluation of advance provision of emergency contraception.

The Lothian Emergency Contraception Project (LECP)--a primary care-based intervention to offer advance supplies of emergency contraception (EC) to women aged 16-29 was not associated with a reduction in abortion rates. We undertook case studies, utilizing qualitative and quantitative methods, to evaluate the intervention. In this article we present findings from qualitative interviews with 44 primary care professionals working at case study sites and 22 women who had received advance supplies to explain this failure. Professionals reported that women rarely asked for advance supplies of EC and they were reluctant to offer supplies to women because of concerns about contradictory sexual health messages implied by the offer, a perceived association of EC use with chaotic behavior by women, views about the sort of women suitable for advance supplies and practical difficulties making the offer. Women were reluctant to ask for advance supplies because of misgivings about the appropriateness of offering advance supplies to everybody and concerns about being judged by health professionals as morally inadequate. If advance provision of EC is to be successful in reducing abortion rates, professionals must address their concerns about EC and develop imaginative ways of encouraging women most at risk of unwanted pregnancy to take supplies home.

Advanced provision of emergency contraception does not reduce abortion rates.

A number of small studies have demonstrated increased use of emergency contraception (EC) when women have a supply available at home. It has been suggested that widespread use of EC could reduce abortion rates. We undertook a community intervention study designed to determine whether offering advanced supplies of EC to large numbers of women influenced abortion rates. All women aged between 16 and 29 years living in Lothian, Scotland, were offered, through health services, five courses of EC without cost to keep at home. Of a population of around 85,000 women in this age group, the study showed that an estimated 17,800 women took a supply of EC home and over 4500 of them gave at least one course to a friend. It was found that nearly half (45%) of women who had a supply used at least one course during the 28 months that the study lasted. In total, an estimated 8081 courses of EC were used. EC was used within 24 h after intercourse on 75% of occasions. Abortion rates in Lothian were compared with those from three other health board areas of Scotland. No effect on abortion rates was demonstrated with advanced provision of EC. The results of this study suggest that widespread distribution of advanced supplies of EC through health services may not be an effective way to reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy in the UK.