Search

A growing body of research attests to the impact of welfare regimes on health and health equity. However, the mechanisms that link different kinds of welfare entitlement to health outcomes are less well understood. This study analysed the accounts of 29 older adults in England to delineate how the form of entitlement to welfare and other resources (specifically, whether this was understood as a universal entitlement or as targeted to those in need) impacts on the determinants of health. Mechanisms directly affecting access to material resources (through deterring uptake of benefits) have been well documented, but those that operate through psychosocial and more structural pathways less so, in part because they are more challenging to identify. Entitlement that was understood collectively, or as arising from financial or other contributions to a social body, had positive impacts on wellbeing beyond material gains, including facilitating access to important health determinants: social contact, recognition and integration. Entitlement understood as targeted in terms of individualised concepts of need or vulnerability deterred access to material resources, but also fostered debate about legitimacy, thus contributing to negative impacts on individual wellbeing and the public health through the erosion of social integration. This has important implications for both policy and evaluation. Calls to target welfare benefits at those in most need emphasise direct material pathways to health impact. We suggest a model for considering policy change and evaluation which also takes into account how psychosocial and structural pathways are affected by the nature of entitlement., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: There is growing consensus on the importance of identifying age-related inequities in the receipt of public health and healthcare interventions, but concerns regarding conceptual and methodological rigour in this area of research. Establishing age inequity in receipt requires evidence of a difference that is not an artefact of poor measurement of need or receipt; is not warranted on the grounds of patient preference or clinical safety; and is judged to be unfair., Method: A systematic, thematic literature review was undertaken with the objective of characterising recent research approaches. Studies were eligible if the population was in a country within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and analyses included an explicit focus on age-related patterns of healthcare receipt including those 60 years or older. A structured extraction template was applied. Extracted material was synthesised in thematic memos. A set of categorical codes were then defined and applied to produce summary counts across key dimensions. This process was iterative to allow reconciliation of discrepancies and ensure reliability., Results: Forty nine studies met the eligibility criteria. A wide variety of concepts, terms and methodologies were used across these studies. Thirty five studies employed multivariable techniques to produce adjusted receipt-need ratios, though few clearly articulated their rationale, indicating the need for great conceptual clarity. Eighteen studies made reference to patient preference as a relevant consideration, but just one incorporated any kind of adjustment for this factor. Twenty five studies discussed effectiveness among older adults, with fourteen raising the possibility of differential effectiveness, and one differential cost-effectiveness, by age. Just three studies made explicit reference to the ethical nature of healthcare resource allocation by age. While many authors presented suitably cautious conclusions, some appeared to over-stretch their findings concluding that observed differences were 'inequitable'. Limitations include possible biases in the retrieved material due to inconsistent database indexing and a focus on OECD country populations and studies with English titles., Conclusions: Caution is needed among clinicians and other evidence-users in accepting claims of healthcare 'ageism' in some published papers. Principles for improved research practice are proposed.

Ethnic diversity and racism have not featured strongly in English research, policy or practice centred on understanding and addressing health inequalities. However, the COVID-19 pandemic and the Black Lives Matter movement have shone fresh light on deep-rooted ethnic inequalities and mobilised large segments of the population into anti-racist demonstration. These recent developments suggest that, despite strong counterforces within national government and the mainstream media, there could be a shift towards greater public awareness of racism and potentially a willingness to take individual and collective action. This paper addresses these developments, and specifically engages with the contested notion of 'allyship'. We bring together the experiences of 25 young adults living across England and prior literature to raise questions about whether and how racialized White individuals can play a role in dismantling systemic racism and reducing ethnic inequalities in health. Our analysis reveals a variety of complexities and obstacles to effective and widespread allyship. Findings suggest the need to nurture contingent, responsive and reflexive forms of allyship that can attend to the harms inflicted upon racially minoritized people as well as push for systemic transformation. White allyship will need to take a variety of forms, but it must be underpinned by an understanding of racism as institutional and systemic and a commitment to tackling interlocking systems of oppression through solidarity. The issues addressed are relevant to those occupying public health research, policy and practice roles, as well as members of the public, in England and other multi-racial settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper draws on the experience of two Romani and three non‐Romani scholars in knowledge production on the health and social inequalities experienced by European Roma populations. Together, we explore how we might better account for, and work against, the complex web of dynamic oppressions embedded within processes of academic knowledge production. Our aim is to encourage careful scrutiny through which sociologists of health and illness might better recognise our own complicity with oppression and identify concrete actions towards transforming our research practices. Drawing on a well‐known domains of racism typology (Annual Review of Public Health, 40, 2019, 105), we use examples from our own work to illustrate three interconnected domains of oppression in which we have found ourselves entangled (structural, cultural and interpersonal). A new conceptual framework is proposed as an aid to understanding the spectrum of different "types" of complicity (voluntary–involuntary, conscious–unconscious) that one might reproduce across all three domains. We conclude by exploring how sociologists of health and illness might promote a more actively anti‐racist research agenda, identifying and challenging subtle, hidden and embedded negative ideologies and practices as well as more obviously oppressive ones. We hope these reflections will help revitalise important conversations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the health field, there is great interest in the role empowerment might play in reducing social inequalities in health. Empowerment is understood here as the processes of developing capabilities that individuals and/or communities need to exercise control over decisions and actions impacting on their lives and health. There is a fundamental problem, however, in identifying and measuring capabilities for collective control that emerge at the level of the collective, with much of the existing literature focusing on individual measures even where community-level processes are concerned. Collective measures need to capture the dynamics of interactions within and between groups, not simply aggregate individual-level measures. This article, Part 2 in a three-part series, takes up the challenge of identifying qualitative markers of capabilities for collective control. We applied the emancipatory power framework (EPF) reported in Part 1 of the series, to qualitative data generated during a longitudinal evaluation of a major English area-based empowerment initiative, the Big Local (BL). We identified empirical 'markers' of shifts towards greater collective control pertaining to each of the 'power' dimensions in the EPF—'power within', 'power with' and 'power to'—and markers of communities exercising 'power over' other institutions/community members. These markers can usefully be applied in the evaluation planning and evaluation of empowerment initiatives. Part 3 in the series uses these markers and a second analytical framework developed during our evaluation of BL to explore how power dynamics unfold in participatory spaces in BL neighbourhoods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article—third in a series of three—uses theoretical frameworks described in Part 1, and empirical markers reported in Part 2, to present evidence on how power dynamics shifted during the early years of a major English community empowerment initiative. We demonstrate how the capabilities disadvantaged communities require to exercise collective control over decisions/actions impacting on their lives and health (conceptualized as emancipatory power) and the exercise of power over these communities (conceptualized as limiting power) were shaped by the characteristics of participatory spaces created by and/or associated with this initiative. Two main types of participatory spaces were identified: governance and sense-making. Though all forms of emancipatory power emerged in all spaces, some were more evident in particular spaces. In governance spaces , the development and enactment of ' power to ' emerged as residents made formal decisions on action, allocated resources and managed accountability. Capabilities for alliance building— power with —were more likely to emerge in these spaces, as was residents' resistance to the exercise of institutional power over them. In contrast, in sense-making spaces residents met informally and 'made sense' of local issues and their ability to influence these. These processes led to the development of power within capabilities and power to resist stigmatizing forms of productive power. The findings highlight the importance of designing community initiatives that: nurture diverse participatory spaces; attend to connectivity between spaces; and identify and act on existing power dynamics undermining capabilities for collective control in disadvantaged communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The concept of "intersectionality" is increasingly employed within public health arenas, particularly in North America, and is often heralded as offering great potential to advance health inequalities research and action. Given persistently poor progress towards tackling health inequalities, and recent calls to reframe this agenda in the United Kingdom and Europe, the possible contribution of intersectionality deserves attention. Yet, no existing research has examined professional stakeholder understandings and perspectives on applying intersectionality to this field.Methods: In this paper we seek to address that gap, drawing upon a consultation survey and face-to-face workshop (n = 23) undertaken in the United Kingdom. The survey included both researchers (n = 53) and policy and practice professionals (n = 20) with varied roles and levels of engagement in research and evaluation. Topics included familiarity with the term and concept "intersectionality", relevance to health inequalities work, and issues shaping its uptake. Respondents were also asked to comment on two specific policy suggestions: intersectionally targeting and tailoring interventions, and evaluating the intersectional effects of policies. The workshop aims were to share examples of applying intersectionality within health inequalities research and practice; understand the views of research and practice colleagues on potential contributions and challenges; and identify potential ways to promote intersectional approaches.Results: Findings indicated a generally positive response to the concept and a cautiously optimistic assessment that intersectional approaches could be valuable. However, opinions were mixed and various challenges were raised, especially around whether intersectionality research is necessarily critical and transformative and, accordingly, how it should be operationalized methodologically. Nonetheless, there was general agreement that intersectionality is concerned with diverse inequalities and the systems of power that shape them.Conclusions: We position intersectionality within the wider context of health inequalities policy and practice, suggesting potential ways forward for the approach in the context of the United Kingdom. The views of policy and practice professionals suggest that intersectionality has far to travel to help counter individualistic narratives and to encourage an approach that is sensitive to subgroup inequalities and the processes that generate them. Examples of promising practice, albeit mostly in North America, suggest that it is possible for intersectionality to gain traction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to explore the emergence of "Roma health and wellbeing" as a focus of attention in European research and in policy and the possible detrimental consequences of action founded on a generic representation of "Roma health." Design/methodology/approach: Based on discussions with and research conducted by scholars who work directly with Roma communities across European regions from a wide range of academic disciplines it suggests how future research might inform: a more nuanced understanding of the causes of poor health and wellbeing among diverse Roma populations and; actions that may have greater potential to improve the health and wellbeing among these populations. Findings: In summary, the authors promote three types of research: first critical analyses that unpick the implications of current and past representations of "Roma" and "Roma health." Second, applied participatory research that meaningfully involves people from specific self-defined Roma populations to identify important issues for their health and wellbeing. Third, learning about processes that might impact on the health and wellbeing of Roma populations from research with other populations in similarly excluded situations. Originality/value: The authors provide a multidisciplinary perspective to inform research that does not perpetuate further alienation and prejudice, but promotes urgent action to redress the social and health injustices experienced by diverse Roma populations across Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To develop a simple health literacy intervention aimed at supporting informed reproductive choice among members of UK communities practising customary consanguineous marriage. Background: The contribution of 'health literacy' to reducing health inequalities and improving primary health-care efficiency is increasingly recognised. Enhancing genetic literacy has received particular attention recently. Consanguineous marriage is customarily practised among some UK minority ethnic communities and carries some increased risk of recessive genetic disorders among offspring compared with unions among unrelated partners. The need to enhance genetic literacy on this issue has been highlighted, but no national response has ensued. Instead, a range of undocumented local responses are emerging. Important knowledge gaps remain regarding how the development and implementation of culturally appropriate, effective and sustainable responses can be achieved. Methods: Our co-design approach involved active participation by local people. Initial insight generation employed six focus group discussions and 14 individual interviews to describe current understandings and information needs. A total of 11 personas (heuristic narrative portraits of community 'segments') resulted; four participatory workshops provided further understanding of: preferred information channels; feasible information conveyance; and responses to existing materials. Prototype information resources were then developed and feedback gathered via two workshops. Following further refinement, final feedback from health-care professionals and community members ensured accuracy and appropriateness. Findings: The project demonstrated the utility of co-design for addressing an issue often considered complex and sensitive. With careful planning and orchestration, active participation by diverse community members was achieved. Key learning included: the importance of establishing trusting and respectful relationships; responding to diversity within the community; and engendering a creative and enjoyable experience. The resultant materials were heavily shaped by local involvement. Evaluative work is now needed to assess impacts on knowledge and service uptake. Longer term sustainability will depend on whether innovative community-level work is accompanied by broader strategy including investment in services and professional development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a need for greater conceptual clarity in place‐based initiatives that seek to give residents of disadvantaged neighbourhoods more control over action to address the social determinants of health inequalities at a local level. In this article, we address this issue as it relates to the concepts of participation and inclusion. We draw on qualitative data generated during the first phase of the Communities in Control Study, a longitudinal multisite independent evaluation of the impact of Big Local on the social determinants of health and health inequalities. Big Local is a resident‐led area improvement initiative in England, funded by the UK Big Lottery Fund. Initiatives focused on community empowerment are increasingly prominent in public health policy and practice globally. Approaches emphasise the promotion of greater control over decisions and action among individuals, groups, and communities, particularly those living in disadvantaged circumstances. However, when it comes to participation and inclusion in taking action and making decisions, the field is characterised by conceptual confusion. This risks undermining the impact of these initiatives. While participation and inclusion are necessary conditions for empowerment and collective control, they are not necessarily sufficient. Sufficiency requires attention to the breadth of participation (i.e., to inclusion) and to the depth of participation (i.e., the extent to which it is experienced as empowering and ultimately enables the exercise of collective control over decisions and actions). In observing how different Big Local resident‐led partnerships across England are tackling the day‐to‐day challenges of engaging with their communities, we reveal the potential for policy and practice of reframing, and therefore clarifying (to highlight the different roles they have) the concepts of participation and inclusion in terms of depth and breadth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evidence suggests national- and community-level interventions are not reaching women living at the economic and social margins of society in Pakistan. We conducted a 10-month qualitative study (May 2010-February 2011) in a village in Punjab, Pakistan. Data were collected using 94 in-depth interviews, 11 focus group discussions, 134 observational sessions, and 5 maternal death case studies. Despite awareness of birth complications and treatment options, poverty and dependence on richer, higher-caste people for cash transfers or loans prevented women from accessing required care. There is a need to end the invisibility of low-caste groups in Pakistani health care policy. Technical improvements in maternal health care services should be supported to counter social and economic marginalization so progress can be made toward Millennium Development Goal 5 in Pakistan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While social and spatial determinants of biomarkers have been reported, no previous study has examined both together within an intersectional perspective. We present a novel extension of quantitative intersectional analyses using cross-classified multilevel models to explore how intersectional positions and neighbourhood deprivation are associated with biomarkers, using baseline UK Biobank data (collected from 2006 to 2010). Our results suggest intersectional inequalities in biomarkers of healthy ageing are mostly established by age 40-49, but different intersections show different relationships with deprivation. Our study suggests that certain biosocial pathways are more strongly implicated in how neighbourhoods and intersectional positions affect healthy ageing than others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]