Mai Stafford1, Hannah Badland2, James Nazroo3, Emma Halliday4, Pierre Walthery3, Sue Povall5, Christopher Dibben6, Margaret Whitehead7, Jennie Popay8. 1. Reader in Social Epidemiology, MRC Unit for Lifelong Health and Ageing at UCL, London, UK. 2. Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 3. Cathie Marsh Centre for Census and Survey Research, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 4. Division of Health Research, University of Lancaster, Lancaster, UK. 5. Institute of Psychology, Health and Society, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. 6. School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. 7. Department of Public Health, Institute of Psychology, Health and Society, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. 8. Division of Health Research, Department of Sociology and Public Health, University of Lancaster, Lancaster, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous evaluations of area-based initiatives have not compared intervention areas with the full range of areas from top to bottom of the social spectrum to evaluate their health inequalities impact. SETTING: Deprived areas subject to the New Deal for Communities (NDC) intervention, local deprivation-matched comparator areas, and areas drawn from across the socioeconomic spectrum (representing high, medium and low deprivation) in England between 2002 and 2008. DATA: Secondary analysis of biannual repeat cross-sectional surveys collected for the NDC National Evaluation Team and the Health Survey for England (HSE). METHODS: Following data harmonisation, baseline and time trends in six health and social determinants of health outcomes were compared. Individual-level data were modelled using regression to adjust for age, sex, ethnic and socioeconomic differences among respondents. RESULTS: Compared with respondents in HSE low deprivation areas, those in NDC intervention areas experienced a significantly steeper improvement in education, a trend towards a steeper improvement in self-rated health, and a significantly less steep reduction in smoking between 2002 and 2008. In HSE high deprivation areas, significantly less steep improvements in five out of six outcomes were seen compared with HSE low deprivation areas. CONCLUSIONS: Although unable to consider prior trends and previous initiatives, our findings provide cautious optimism that well-resourced and constructed area-based initiatives can reduce, or at least prevent the widening of, social inequalities for selected outcomes between the most and least deprived groups of areas. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
BACKGROUND: Previous evaluations of area-based initiatives have not compared intervention areas with the full range of areas from top to bottom of the social spectrum to evaluate their health inequalities impact. SETTING: Deprived areas subject to the New Deal for Communities (NDC) intervention, local deprivation-matched comparator areas, and areas drawn from across the socioeconomic spectrum (representing high, medium and low deprivation) in England between 2002 and 2008. DATA: Secondary analysis of biannual repeat cross-sectional surveys collected for the NDC National Evaluation Team and the Health Survey for England (HSE). METHODS: Following data harmonisation, baseline and time trends in six health and social determinants of health outcomes were compared. Individual-level data were modelled using regression to adjust for age, sex, ethnic and socioeconomic differences among respondents. RESULTS: Compared with respondents in HSE low deprivation areas, those in NDC intervention areas experienced a significantly steeper improvement in education, a trend towards a steeper improvement in self-rated health, and a significantly less steep reduction in smoking between 2002 and 2008. In HSE high deprivation areas, significantly less steep improvements in five out of six outcomes were seen compared with HSE low deprivation areas. CONCLUSIONS: Although unable to consider prior trends and previous initiatives, our findings provide cautious optimism that well-resourced and constructed area-based initiatives can reduce, or at least prevent the widening of, social inequalities for selected outcomes between the most and least deprived groups of areas. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Authors: Pierre Walthery; Mai Stafford; James Nazroo; Margaret Whitehead; Christopher Dibben; Emma Halliday; Sue Povall; Jennie Popay Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2015-06-17 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: James White; Giles Greene; Frank Dunstan; Sarah Rodgers; Ronan A Lyons; Ioan Humphreys; Ann John; Chris Webster; Stephen Palmer; Eva Elliott; Ceri J Phillips; David Fone Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2014-10-14 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: James White; Giles Greene; Daniel Farewell; Frank Dunstan; Sarah Rodgers; Ronan A Lyons; Ioan Humphreys; Ann John; Chris Webster; Ceri J Phillips; David Fone Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2017-08-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Louise Foley; Emma Coombes; Dan Hayman; David Humphreys; Andrew Jones; Richard Mitchell; David Ogilvie Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2018-04-24 Impact factor: 3.295