Socio-economic inequalities are associated with unequal exposure to social, economic and environmental risk factors, which in turn contribute to health inequalities. Understanding the impact of specific public health policy interventions will help to establish causality in terms of the effects on health inequalities. Systematic review methodology was used to identify systematic reviews from high-income countries that describe the health equity effects of upstream public health interventions. Twenty databases were searched from their start date until May 2017. The quality of the included articles was determined using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool (AMSTAR). Twenty-nine systematic reviews were identified reporting 150 unique relevant primary studies. The reviews summarised evidence of all types of primary and secondary prevention policies (fiscal, regulation, education, preventative treatment and screening) across seven public health domains (tobacco, alcohol, food and nutrition, reproductive health services, the control of infectious diseases, the environment and workplace regulations). There were no systematic reviews of interventions targeting mental health. Results were mixed across the public health domains; some policy interventions were shown to reduce health inequalities (e.g. food subsidy programmes, immunisations), others have no effect and some interventions appear to increase inequalities (e.g. 20 mph and low emission zones). The quality of the included reviews (and their primary studies) were generally poor and clear gaps in the evidence base have been highlighted. The review does tentatively suggest interventions that policy makers might use to reduce health inequalities, although whether the programmes are transferable between high-income countries remains unclear. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42016025283

Objective: There has been an unprecedented rise in infant mortality associated with deprivation in recent years in the United Kingdom (UK) and Republic of Ireland. A healthy pregnancy can have significant impacts on the life chances of children. The objective of this review was to understand the association between individual-level and household-level measures of socioeconomic status and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources: Nine databases were searched (Medline, Embase, Scopus, ASSIA, CINAHL, PsycINFO, BNI, MIDRIS and Google Scholar) for articles published between 1999 and August 2019. Grey literature searches were also assessed. Study selection criteria: Studies reporting associations between individual-level or household socioeconomic factors on pregnancy outcomes in the UK or Ireland. Results: Among the 82 353 search results, 53 821 titles were identified and 35 unique studies met the eligibility criteria. Outcomes reported were neonatal, perinatal and maternal mortality, preterm birth, birth weight and mode of delivery. Pooled effect sizes were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis. There were significantly increased odds of women from lower levels of occupation/social classes compared with the highest level having stillbirth (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.59, I ² 98.62% ), neonatal mortality (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.57, I ² 97.09% ), perinatal mortality (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.57, I ² 98.69% ), preterm birth (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.50, I ² 70.97% ) and low birth weight (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.61, I ² 99.85% ). Limitations relate to available data, unmeasured confounders and the small number of studies for some outcomes. Conclusions: This review identified consistent evidence that lower occupational status, especially manual occupations and unemployment, were significantly associated with increased risk of multiple adverse pregnancy outcomes. Strategies to improve pregnancy outcomes should incorporate approaches that address wider determinants of health to provide women and families with the best chances of having a healthy pregnancy and baby and to decrease pregnancy-related health inequalities in the general population. PROSPERO registration number: PROSPERO CRD42019140893.

Community pharmacies have great potential to deliver services aimed at promoting health and preventing disease, and are well placed in deprived communities. This review of reviews aimed to assess the effectiveness of community pharmacy-delivered public health services and assess how they impact on inequalities in health using PROGRESS-Plus characteristics. Twenty databases were searched from their start date until January 2018. The quality of the included articles was determined using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool (AMSTAR 2). Fifteen systematic reviews were identified reporting 157 unique primary studies. There were a number of community pharmacy initiatives with positive intervention effects on health outcomes. These services were predominantly focused on primary disease prevention, and included smoking cessation, weight management programmes, syringe exchange programmes, and inoculation services. This review supports the development of some community pharmacy public health services. At present, little is known how community pharmacy-delivered public health interventions impact on health inequalities. It would be prudent for future studies to address this by explicitly reporting outcomes according to the PROGRESS-Plus framework. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017056264.

Harms related to gambling have been found not only to affect problem gamblers, but also to occur amongst low- and moderate-risk gamblers. This has resulted in calls for a public health approach to address a possible 'prevention paradox' in gambling related harm. The aim of this study was to evaluate the systematic review evidence base on the effects of prevention and harm reduction interventions on gambling behaviours, and gambling related harm. We also aimed to examine differential effects of interventions across socio-demographic groups. Systematic methods were used to locate and evaluate published systematic reviews of prevention and harm reduction interventions. We designed the review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Equity extension Guidelines. Four databases were searched from their start date until May 2018. The quality of the included articles was determined using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2). Ten systematic reviews were identified reporting 55 unique relevant primary studies. Much of the review evidence-base related to pre-commitment and limit setting (24%), self-exclusion (20%), youth prevention programmes (20%), and machine messages/feedback (20%). The effectiveness of harm reduction interventions are limited by the extent to which users adhere to voluntary systems. Less than half of studies examining youth prevention programmes demonstrated positive effects on behaviour. No review extracted data or reported on the differential effects of intervention strategies across sociodemographic groups. The quality of the included reviews (and their primary studies) were generally poor and clear gaps in the evidence base have been highlighted. The evidence base is dominated by evaluations of individual-level harm reduction interventions, with a paucity of research on supply reduction interventions. Review conclusions are limited by the quality and robustness of the primary research. Future research should consider the equity effects of intervention strategies.

Aims: Chronic pain is increasingly considered to be an international public health issue, yet gender differences in chronic pain in Europe are under-examined. This work aimed to examine gender inequalities in pain across Europe. Methods: Data for 27,552 men and women aged 25–74 years in 19 European countries were taken from the social determinants of health module of the European Social Survey (2014). Inequalities in reporting pain were measured by means of adjusted rate differences (ARD) and relative adjusted rate risks (ARR). Results: At the pooled pan-European level, a greater proportion of women (62.3%) reported pain than men (55.5%) (ARD 5.5% (95% confidence intervals (CI) 4.1, 6.9), ARR 1.10 (95% CI 1.08, 1.13)). These inequalities were greatest for back/neck pain (ARD 5.8% (95% CI 4.4, 7.1), ARR 1.15 (95% CI 1.12, 1.19)), but were also significant for hand/arm pain (ARD 4.6% (95% CI 3.5, 5.7), ARR 1.24 (95% CI 1.17, 1.30)) and foot/leg pain (ARD 2.6% (95% CI 1.5, 3.8), ARR 1.12 (95% CI 1.07, 1.18)). There was considerable cross-national variation in gender pain inequalities across European countries. Conclusions: Significant gender pain inequalities exist across Europe whereby women experience more pain than men. The extent of the gender pain gap varies by country. The gender pain gap is a public health concern and should be considered in future prevention and management strategies.

Background: The welfare state distributes financial resources to its citizens – protecting them in times of adversity. Variations in how such social protection policies are administered have been attributed to important differences in population health. The aim of this systematic review of reviews is to update and appraise the evidence base of the effects of social protection policies on health inequalities. Methods/design: Systematic review methodology was used. Nine databases were searched from 2007 to 2017 for reviews of social policy interventions in high-income countries. Quality was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 tool. Results: Six systematic reviews were included in our review, reporting 50 unique primary studies. Two reviews explored income maintenance and poverty relief policies and found some, low quality, evidence that increased unemployment benefit generosity may improve population mental health. Four reviews explored active labour-market policies and found some, low-quality evidence, that return to work initiatives may lead to short-term health improvements, but that in the longer term, they can lead to declines in mental health. The more rigorously conducted reviews found no significant health effects of any of social protection policy under investigation. No reviews of family policies were located. Conclusions: The systematic review evidence base of the effects of social protection policy interventions remains sparse, of low quality, of limited generalizability (as the evidence base is concentrated in the Anglo-Saxon welfare state type), and relatively inconclusive. There is a clear need for evaluations in more diverse welfare state settings and particularly of family policies.