Search

The role of cities in population health has long been discussed. This historical and comparative review compares the discourse and policy underpinning two approaches: the World Health Organization (WHO) settings-based approach Healthy Cities, and more recent place-based approaches. It aims to illuminate what has been learned over the past three to four decades about how initiatives can best be developed for the future. Document analysis was conducted using the Ready Extract Analyse Distil (READ) protocol to review eligible grey literature: plans, guidelines or frameworks from any health policy-making body in the UK which defines their approach in relation to cities. A set of comparative criteria guided analysis and categorisation of documents: overall vision of the approach, underpinning principles, stakeholder roles, community participation and engagement, types of intervention, funding sources, impact, and legacy. A second researcher conducted a blind review of 20% of the sample. Preliminary data extraction finds that while both approaches seek to improve population health by leveraging the influence of cities, each describes how this is done in different ways, potentially reflective of their historical point in time and continuing trajectories. For example, principles of the current phase of WHO Healthy Cities include commitments to prosperity, peace, planet, and 'healthy places and settings' for the first time. Except settings, all these commitments are present in place-based approaches to reducing health inequalities. This review builds the evidence base about how cities shape health and identifies types of intervention likely to enhance health. Delineation of the differences between settings-based and place-based approaches, and between 'settings' and 'places' for health, is a key outcome: in a context of limited funding in the UK, it is important to ensure that learning is retained and informs the legacy of approaches as public health concepts and policies evolve. None. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the volume and breadth of health literacy research related to children, children's involvement in that research is rare. Research with children is challenging, but the principles of involvement and engagement underpin all health promotion work, including health literacy. This commentary reflects on the process of setting up a Children's Advisory Group to consult on an institutional ethnography study of health literacy work from children's standpoint. The Children's Advisory Group contributed feedback on the study ethics and design and piloted methods for rapport-building and data collection, including livestreamed draw-and-describe and modified Interview to the Double. Consulting with the Children's Advisory Group highlighted the importance of listening to children and recognizing and valuing children's imaginative contributions to methods for involving children in health literacy research. Insights from this commentary can be used to foreground equity-focused approaches to future research and practice with children in the field of health literacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Communities of Practice (CoPs) are increasingly used in health and non-health sectors globally. Evidence suggests that CoPs can support health promotion activities, but the research mainly encompasses formal, professional contexts: the role and contribution of CoPs in community-centred health promotion has not been explored. This paper presents a process evaluation of a CoP that aimed to facilitate social innovation among voluntary, community, faith and social enterprise (VCFSE) organisations. Hosted by a city-region government in England, VCFSE organisations were invited to join a CoP to enable the development and implementation of their ideas for addressing gambling harms., Methods: The process evaluation sought to develop mid-level programme theory for the use of CoPs in community-centred health promotion. Data collection consisted of 33 qualitative interviews with stakeholders, as well as project reporting. Data were organised using a framework approach which supported the construction of themes and a complex intervention model. The research team reflected on these to develop the programme theory., Results: The CoP facilitated the development of community-centred interventions for addressing gambling harms through a two-track process: first, a community of VCFSE staff was formed, whose understanding of gambling harms was nurtured through discussions led by people with Lived Experience; second, the CoP contributed to project development via collaboration, knowledge sharing and an integrated referral pathway, although project-level benefits were uneven. Learning was generated in community engagement, training, education, support and social campaigns., Conclusions: The findings confirm the combined effectiveness of a CoP, varied VCFSE projects and people with Lived Experience to co-create an evolving knowledge-base for a city-region government's gambling harms reduction strategy. CoPs may therefore complement partnership working in community settings, although additional training support may be required in comparison with CoPs involving health professionals. The city-region government's approach could be replicated in other emerging public health areas., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe authors declare that they have no conflicting interests: TM, JE, CJ, JG, PR, JW and SS have not previously received research funding from the gambling industry, either directly or indirectly. TM has worked as a researcher on various NIHR-funded health service and public health projects over the past five years, including most recently PHIRST South Bank. CJ is an Early Career Researcher attached to PHIRST South Bank: their PhD, completed in 2023, was funded by a London South Bank University scholarship.JE and JG have no past research funding to report. JE’s role in gambling harms reduction at GMCA is funded by Gambling Commission regulatory settlement money. JG works for the charity ‘Gambling with Lives’ which has previously received regulatory settlement money from the Gambling Commission for service development: JG’s participation in the research was funded via the PHIRST South Bank NIHR grant.Besides her work with PHIRST South Bank, PR has received funding for three NIHR projects in the past five years to evaluate digital mental health platforms and mental health service use in inpatient and community child and adolescent services. She has also received funding from the Wellcome Trust and St. Andrew’s Healthcare. JW and SS have, over the past five years, received funding for diverse research, commissioned and educational projects from Public Health England, Health Education England, National Health Service England, European Regional Development Fund, Burdett Trust for Nursing and NIHR.