While existing research indicates that housing improvements are associated with health improvements, less is known about the wider social and health benefits of meeting national housing standards, as well as those of their specific constituent measures. This study evaluates the impacts of a managed housing upgrade programme through a repeated cross-sectional survey design. A five-wave repeated cross-sectional survey was conducted over a seven-year period from 2009 to 2016 (n = 2075; n = 2219; n = 2015; n = 1991; and n = 1709, respectively). The study followed a managed upgrade programme designed to meet a national social housing standard over an extended period. The data were analysed from a multilevel perspective to take account of the time-dependent nature of the observations and differences in socio-demographic composition. The installation of the majority of individual housing measures (new windows and doors; boilers; kitchens; bathrooms; electrics; loft insulation; and cavity/external wall insulation) were associated with improvements in several social (housing suitability, satisfaction, and quality; thermal comfort and household finances) and health (mental, respiratory and general health) outcomes; and analyses showed relationships between the number of measures installed and the total amount invested on the one hand and the social and health outcomes on the other. There were however a few exceptions. Most notably, the installation of cavity wall insulation was associated with poorer health outcomes, and did not lead to better social outcomes. Also, no association was found between the number of measures installed and respiratory health. The study suggests that substantial housing investments through a managed upgrade programme may result in better social and health outcomes, and that the size of the improvements are proportionate to the number of measures installed and amount invested. However, there may be risks associated with specific measures; and more attention is needed for mechanical ventilation when upgrading energy efficiency of houses through fabric work. In addition to providing new evidence regarding the wider social and health outcomes, the study provides an analytical approach to evaluate upgrade programmes that are delivered over multiple years.

Various studies have shown that neighborhood quality is linked to neighborhood attachment and satisfaction. However, most have relied upon residents’ own perceptions rather than independent observations of the neighborhood environment. This study examines the reliability and validity of the revised Residential Environment Assessment Tool (REAT 2.0), an audit instrument covering both public and private spaces of the neighborhood environment. The research shows that REAT 2.0 is a reliable, easy-to-use instrument and that most underlying constructs can be validated against residents’ own neighborhood perceptions. The convergent validity of the instrument, which was tested against digital map data, can be improved for a number of miscellaneous urban form items. The research further found that neighborhood attachment was significantly associated with the overall REAT 2.0 score. This association can mainly be attributed to the property-level neighborhood quality and natural elements components. The research demonstrates the importance of private spaces in the outlook of the neighborhood environment.

Background: Poor-quality housing adversely affects residents’ health but there is a paucity of high-quality evidence to support this.Objective: This research investigated the health impact of bringing housing to a national quality standard.Design: A natural experiment of improvements to housing quality analysed using repeated measures of health-care utilisation and economic outcomes at an individual person level.Setting: Carmarthenshire, UK.Participants: A total of 32,009 residents registered for a minimum of 60 days at 8558 social homes that received housing improvements between January 2005 and March 2015.Interventions: Multiple internal and external housing improvements, including wall and loft insulation, windows and doors, heating system upgrades, new kitchens and bathrooms, garden path safety improvements and electrical system upgrades (adding power sockets, and extractor fans in kitchens and bathrooms).Main outcome measures: Emergency hospital admissions for cardiorespiratory conditions and injuries. Primary health-care utilisation for respiratory and common mental health disorders, emergency department injury attendances and health-care utilisation costs.Data sources: Carmarthenshire County Council home address and intervention records were anonymously linked within the Secure Anonymous Information Linkage databank to demographic information from the Welsh Demographic Service data set; hospital admission data from the Patient Episode Dataset for Wales; primary care contacts and prescribed medications from general practice data; emergency department attendances from the Emergency Department Data Set; and deaths from the Office for National Statistics mortality register.Methods: The study used a longitudinal panel design to examine changes in standard of eight housing cointervention from intervention records, and linked to individuals registered at intervention homes. Health outcomes were obtained retrospectively for each individual in a dynamic cohort and were captured for up to 123 consecutive months. An additional local authority region could not be utilised as a comparator owing to different reporting pressures resulting in the recording of a different intervention. The exposure group for each cointervention was compared with an internal reference group of people living in homes that did not receive the cointervention during their tenancy. A multilevel modelling approach was used to account for repeated observations for individuals living in intervention homes. Counts of health outcomes were analysed using negative binomial regression models to determine the effect of each cointervention that reached housing quality standards during an individual’s period of tenancy, compared with those living in properties that did not. We adjusted for potential confounding factors and for background trends in the regional general population. A cost–consequences analysis was conducted as part of the health economic evaluation.Results: Residents aged ≥ 60 years living in homes in which electrical systems were upgraded were associated with 39% fewer admissions than those living in homes in which they were not [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.72;p < 0.01]. Reduced admissions were also associated with windows and doors (IRR 0.71, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.81;p < 0.01), wall insulation (IRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.84;p < 0.01) and gardens and estates (IRR 0.73, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.83;p < 0.01) for those living in homes in which these cointervention were upgraded. There were no associations of change in emergency admissions with upgrading heating (IRR 0.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.01;p = 0.072), loft insulation (IRR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.11;p = 0.695), kitchens (IRR 0.98, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.17;p = 0.843) or bathrooms (IRR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.06;p = 0.287).Limitations: There was no randomisation, there were incomplete data on the scale of the intervention for individual households and there were no estimates for the impact of the whole programme.Conclusions: This complex interdisciplinary study found that hospital admissions could be avoided through improving housing quality standards.Future work: At their initiation, future non-health projects should have a built-in evaluation to allow intervention exposures to be randomly allocated to residents, with the simultaneous analysis of multiple health outcomes in one statistical model.Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research programme.

Background We investigated tenant healthcare utilisation associated with upgrading 8558 council houses to a national quality standard. Homes received multiple internal and external improvements and were analysed using repeated measures of healthcare utilisation. Methods The primary outcome was emergency hospital admissions for cardiorespiratory conditions and injuries for residents aged 60 years and over. Secondary outcomes included each of the separate conditions, for tenants aged 60 and over, and for all ages. Council home address and intervention records for eight housing cointerventions were anonymously linked to demographic data, hospital admissions and deaths for individuals in a dynamic cohort. Counts of health events were analysed using multilevel regression models to investigate associations between receipt of each housing improvement, adjusting for potential confounding factors and regional trends. Results Residents aged 60 years and over living in homes when improvements were made were associated with up to 39% fewer admissions compared with those living in homes that were not upgraded (incidence rate ratio=0.61, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.72). Reduced admissions were associated with electrical systems, windows and doors, wall insulation, and garden paths. There were small non-significant reductions for the primary outcome associated with upgrading heating, adequate loft insulation, new kitchens and new bathrooms. Conclusion Results suggest that hospital admissions can be avoided through improving whole home quality standards. This is the first large-scale longitudinal evaluation of a whole home intervention that has evaluated multiple improvement elements using individual-level objective routine health data.