2013-2017 年英国地方政府在紧缩条件下改善健康状况的联合健康与福利战略的评估和定性比较分析

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Alice Tompson, Matt Egan, Elizabeth McGill, Chiara Rinaldi, Rebecca Mead, Paula Holland, Alexandros Alexiou, Jennie Popay, Monique Lhussier
{"title":"2013-2017 年英国地方政府在紧缩条件下改善健康状况的联合健康与福利战略的评估和定性比较分析","authors":"Alice Tompson,&nbsp;Matt Egan,&nbsp;Elizabeth McGill,&nbsp;Chiara Rinaldi,&nbsp;Rebecca Mead,&nbsp;Paula Holland,&nbsp;Alexandros Alexiou,&nbsp;Jennie Popay,&nbsp;Monique Lhussier","doi":"10.1155/2024/4764325","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n <p><i>Background</i>. Local government is important for health equity because local policies often affect place-based health, health equity, and their wider social determinants of health. In England, local governments must produce Joint Health and Wellbeing (JH&amp;W) Strategies, outlining local strategies for health improvement. These strategies have been produced concurrently with budget cuts to local governments that are associated with adverse health and mortality outcomes. Using a novel approach, we assessed whether English local governments’ strategies for place-based health and equity help explain why some disadvantaged areas have better mortality trends than others. <i>Methods</i>. We sampled “Joint Health and Wellbeing” (JH&amp;W) Strategies for 20 disadvantaged localities covering the years 2013–2017. We sampled areas to include some with larger and some with smaller budget cuts. We developed a qualitative appraisal process for scoring the extent to which JH&amp;W strategies focused on (i) place-based social determinants of health and (ii) health equity. Using qualitative comparative analysis, we assessed whether mortality trends might be explained by JH&amp;W scores or wider contextual factors such as budget cuts, population age, and disadvantage. <i>Results</i>. JH&amp;W strategies on place-based social determinants of health and equity were often underdeveloped. Only a minority of strategies were highly rated (i.e., scoring &gt;2 out of 3) for addressing social inequalities of health (<i>n</i> = 6), and even fewer scored highly for place-based social determinants of health (<i>n</i> = 3). Our qualitative comparative analysis found that external and contextual factors (e.g., budget cuts and disadvantages) offer more plausible explanations than JH&amp;W strategies for place variations in life expectancy trends. <i>Conclusion</i>. Budget cuts and other contextual factors better explain mortality trends than JH&amp;W strategies. This raises concerns about what such strategies can realistically achieve in the face of structural disadvantage and national policies that restrict local spending.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":48195,"journal":{"name":"Health & Social Care in the Community","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/2024/4764325","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment and Qualitative Comparative Analysis of English Local Authority Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategies to Improve Health under Austerity Conditions, 2013–2017\",\"authors\":\"Alice Tompson,&nbsp;Matt Egan,&nbsp;Elizabeth McGill,&nbsp;Chiara Rinaldi,&nbsp;Rebecca Mead,&nbsp;Paula Holland,&nbsp;Alexandros Alexiou,&nbsp;Jennie Popay,&nbsp;Monique Lhussier\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2024/4764325\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n <p><i>Background</i>. Local government is important for health equity because local policies often affect place-based health, health equity, and their wider social determinants of health. In England, local governments must produce Joint Health and Wellbeing (JH&amp;W) Strategies, outlining local strategies for health improvement. These strategies have been produced concurrently with budget cuts to local governments that are associated with adverse health and mortality outcomes. Using a novel approach, we assessed whether English local governments’ strategies for place-based health and equity help explain why some disadvantaged areas have better mortality trends than others. <i>Methods</i>. We sampled “Joint Health and Wellbeing” (JH&amp;W) Strategies for 20 disadvantaged localities covering the years 2013–2017. We sampled areas to include some with larger and some with smaller budget cuts. We developed a qualitative appraisal process for scoring the extent to which JH&amp;W strategies focused on (i) place-based social determinants of health and (ii) health equity. Using qualitative comparative analysis, we assessed whether mortality trends might be explained by JH&amp;W scores or wider contextual factors such as budget cuts, population age, and disadvantage. <i>Results</i>. JH&amp;W strategies on place-based social determinants of health and equity were often underdeveloped. Only a minority of strategies were highly rated (i.e., scoring &gt;2 out of 3) for addressing social inequalities of health (<i>n</i> = 6), and even fewer scored highly for place-based social determinants of health (<i>n</i> = 3). Our qualitative comparative analysis found that external and contextual factors (e.g., budget cuts and disadvantages) offer more plausible explanations than JH&amp;W strategies for place variations in life expectancy trends. <i>Conclusion</i>. Budget cuts and other contextual factors better explain mortality trends than JH&amp;W strategies. This raises concerns about what such strategies can realistically achieve in the face of structural disadvantage and national policies that restrict local spending.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48195,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health & Social Care in the Community\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/2024/4764325\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health & Social Care in the Community\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2024/4764325\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health & Social Care in the Community","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2024/4764325","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景。地方政府对健康公平非常重要,因为地方政策通常会影响到基于地方的健康、健康公平及其更广泛的健康社会决定因素。在英格兰,地方政府必须制定 "健康与福利联合战略"(JH&W),概述地方的健康改善战略。在制定这些战略的同时,地方政府的预算也在削减,这与不利的健康和死亡率结果有关。我们采用一种新颖的方法,评估了英国地方政府的地方健康与公平战略是否有助于解释为什么一些贫困地区的死亡率趋势比其他地区好。研究方法我们对 20 个贫困地区 2013-2017 年的 "联合健康与福利"(JH&W)战略进行了抽样调查。我们的抽样地区包括一些预算削减较多的地区和一些预算削减较少的地区。我们开发了一种定性评估流程,用于对 "健康与福利 "战略在多大程度上关注(i)基于地方的健康社会决定因素和(ii)健康公平进行评分。通过定性比较分析,我们评估了死亡率趋势是否可以用 JH&W 评分或更广泛的背景因素(如预算削减、人口年龄和不利条件)来解释。研究结果关于基于地方的健康与公平社会决定因素的 JH&W 战略往往不够完善。只有少数战略在解决社会健康不平等方面获得了高度评价(即满分 3 分中的 2 分)(n = 6),而在基于地方的社会健康决定因素方面获得高度评价的战略则更少(n = 3)。我们的定性比较分析发现,与 JH&W 战略相比,外部和环境因素(如预算削减和不利条件)为预期寿命趋势的地方差异提供了更合理的解释。结论。预算削减和其他背景因素比 JH&W 战略更能解释死亡率趋势。这引起了人们的关注,即在面临结构性不利条件和限制地方支出的国家政策时,这些战略能够真正实现什么。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Assessment and Qualitative Comparative Analysis of English Local Authority Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategies to Improve Health under Austerity Conditions, 2013–2017

Assessment and Qualitative Comparative Analysis of English Local Authority Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategies to Improve Health under Austerity Conditions, 2013–2017

Background. Local government is important for health equity because local policies often affect place-based health, health equity, and their wider social determinants of health. In England, local governments must produce Joint Health and Wellbeing (JH&W) Strategies, outlining local strategies for health improvement. These strategies have been produced concurrently with budget cuts to local governments that are associated with adverse health and mortality outcomes. Using a novel approach, we assessed whether English local governments’ strategies for place-based health and equity help explain why some disadvantaged areas have better mortality trends than others. Methods. We sampled “Joint Health and Wellbeing” (JH&W) Strategies for 20 disadvantaged localities covering the years 2013–2017. We sampled areas to include some with larger and some with smaller budget cuts. We developed a qualitative appraisal process for scoring the extent to which JH&W strategies focused on (i) place-based social determinants of health and (ii) health equity. Using qualitative comparative analysis, we assessed whether mortality trends might be explained by JH&W scores or wider contextual factors such as budget cuts, population age, and disadvantage. Results. JH&W strategies on place-based social determinants of health and equity were often underdeveloped. Only a minority of strategies were highly rated (i.e., scoring >2 out of 3) for addressing social inequalities of health (n = 6), and even fewer scored highly for place-based social determinants of health (n = 3). Our qualitative comparative analysis found that external and contextual factors (e.g., budget cuts and disadvantages) offer more plausible explanations than JH&W strategies for place variations in life expectancy trends. Conclusion. Budget cuts and other contextual factors better explain mortality trends than JH&W strategies. This raises concerns about what such strategies can realistically achieve in the face of structural disadvantage and national policies that restrict local spending.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
8.30%
发文量
423
期刊介绍: Health and Social Care in the community is an essential journal for anyone involved in nursing, social work, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, general practice, health psychology, health economy, primary health care and the promotion of health. It is an international peer-reviewed journal supporting interdisciplinary collaboration on policy and practice within health and social care in the community. The journal publishes: - Original research papers in all areas of health and social care - Topical health and social care review articles - Policy and practice evaluations - Book reviews - Special issues
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信