Background: Common mental health disorders are especially prevalent among people from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds. Non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions, such as social prescribing and collaborative care, provide alternatives to pharmaceutical treatments for common mental health disorders, but little is known about the impact of these interventions for patients who are socioeconomically disadvantaged.Aim: To synthesise evidence for the effects of non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions on common mental health disorders and associated socioeconomic inequalities.Design and setting: Systematic review of quantitative primary studies published in English and undertaken in high-income countries.Method: Six bibliographic databases were searched and additional grey literature sources screened. Data were extracted onto a standardised proforma and quality assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool. Data were synthesised narratively and effect direction plots were produced for each outcome.Results: Thirteen studies were included. Social-prescribing interventions were evaluated in 10 studies, collaborative care in two studies, and a new model of care in one study. Positive results (based on effect direction) were reported for the impact of the interventions on wellbeing in groups that were socioeconomically deprived. Inconsistent (mainly positive) results were reported for anxiety and depression. One study reported that people from the group with least deprivation, compared with the group with greatest deprivation, benefitted most from these interventions. Overall, study quality was weak.Conclusion: Targeting non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions at areas of socioeconomic deprivation may help to reduce inequalities in mental health outcomes. However, only tentative conclusions can be drawn from the evidence in this review and more-robust research is required.

Common mental health disorders (CMDs) disproportionately affect people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage. Non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as ‘social prescribing’ and new models of care and clinical practice, are becoming increasingly prevalent in primary care. However, little is known about how these interventions work and their impact on socioeconomic inequalities in health. Focusing on people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, this systematic review aims to: (1) explore the mechanisms by which non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions impact CMD-related health outcomes and inequalities; (2) identify the barriers to, and facilitators of, their implementation in primary care. This study is a systematic review of qualitative studies. Six bibliographic databases were searched (Medline, ASSIA, CINAHL, Embase, PsycInfo and Scopus) and additional grey literature sources were screened. The included studies were thematically analysed. Twenty-two studies were included, and three themes were identified: (1) agency; (2) social connections; (3) socioeconomic environment. The interventions were experienced as being positive for mental health when people felt a sense of agency and social connection. The barriers to effectiveness and engagement included socioeconomic deprivation and underfunding of community sector organisations. If non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions for CMDs are to avoid widening health inequalities, key socioeconomic barriers to their accessibility and implementation must be addressed.

People in the North of England live shorter, less healthy lives than those in the South. Despite the significance of this 'North South health divide', regional health inequalities in England are under-researched qualitatively. Existing literature on geographical inequalities in health is largely confined to the neighbourhood level, is quantitative, and consists of very little lay knowledge. The current study is the first to examine lay perspectives of health inequalities on a regional level: exploring how people living in two urban areas of the North and South of England experience and perceive the North South health divide - including its causes and solutions. Using three focus group discussions with a total of 34 participants, and conducting participatory analysis, we identified three key themes: 'inequalities of power', 'lack of control over lived environment' and 'communities under strain'. Findings align with existing research on lay perspectives of health inequalities at the neighbourhood level - identifying a network of material-structural and psychosocial factors. Participants across both regions discussed political and economic structures as central to understanding regional health inequalities, supporting calls to adopt a political economy approach in understanding health and place. Deindustrialisation, unemployment, loss of community facilities, and disengagement from politics were more present in Northern narratives than Southern. Findings add important 'social meaning' to emerging research on the North South health divide, reinforcing the urgency of public health professionals' recommendations for fair redistribution of power, wealth and resources to reduce regional health inequalities. In the context of government policy which diverges from public health evidence, this study sparks questions of how health inequalities research can intersect with wider social and political movements organising for systemic change.