This paper explores the ways in which community wellbeing is, and could be, related to individual subjective wellbeing by mapping current practice, teasing out the assumptions underlying a dominant approach and flagging neglected issues. The notion of community is widely understood as about something more than the sum of the parts. Capturing subjective aspects of local life that are not simply individual but reflect the ways in which people feel and are well together is a challenging undertaking. Most existing frameworks for assessing community wellbeing are premised on a theory of the self as an autonomous, rational and independently acting or feeling individual, and the primary interest is on how community aspects of life impact on individual subjective wellbeing. This dominant approach consistently neglects spatial and social inequalities, multiple settings and scales and temporal choices and legacies, all of which constitute important political dimensions to community wellbeing. Social theories of the self as relational put relations as prior to subjectivity and as such afford ways to conceptualise community wellbeing in terms of being well together. A relational approach can also offer routes to tackling the complex interactions of inequality, scale and time. Such an approach is not, however, easily translated into quantitative measures or simple policy interventions. The approach taken to community wellbeing is not a technological issue but a political choice.

Prisoners experience significantly worse health than the general population. This review examines the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of peer interventions in prison settings. A mixed methods systematic review of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies, including qualitative and quantitative synthesis was conducted. In addition to grey literature identified and searches of websites, nineteen electronic databases were searched from 1985 to 2012. Study selection criteria were: Population: Prisoners resident in adult prisons and children resident in Young Offender Institutions (YOIs). Intervention: Peer-based interventions. Comparators: Review questions 3 and 4 compared peer and professionally led approaches. Outcomes: Prisoner health or determinants of health; organisational/process outcomes; views of prison populations. Study designs: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed method evaluations. Fifty-seven studies were included in the effectiveness review and one study in the cost-effectiveness review; most were of poor methodological quality. Evidence suggested that peer education interventions are effective at reducing risky behaviours, and that peer support services are acceptable within the prison environment and have a positive effect on recipients, practically or emotionally. Consistent evidence from many, predominantly qualitative, studies, suggested that being a peer deliverer was associated with positive effects. There was little evidence on cost-effectiveness of peer-based interventions. There is consistent evidence from a large number of studies that being a peer worker is associated with positive health; peer support services are also an acceptable source of help within the prison environment and can have a positive effect on recipients. Research into cost-effectiveness is sparse. PROSPERO ref: CRD42012002349 .

Background: The voluntary sector has long been recognised as making an important contribution to individual and community health. In the UK, however, the links between primary health care services and the voluntary and community sector are often underdeveloped. Social prescribing is an innovative approach, which aims to promote the use of the voluntary sector within primary health care. Social prescribing involves the creation of referral pathways that allow primary health care patients with non-clinical needs to be directed to local voluntary services and community groups. Such schemes typically use community development workers with local knowledge who are linked to primary health care settings. Social prescribing therefore has the potential to assist individual patients presenting with social needs to access health resources and social support outside of the National Health Service. Aim: The aim of this paper is to explore the concept of social prescribing and discuss its value as a public health initiative embedded within general practice. Methods: The rationale for social prescribing and existing evidence are briefly reviewed. The paper draws on a case study of a pilot social prescribing scheme based in general practice. Data collected during the development, implementation and evaluation of the scheme are used to illustrate the opportunities and limitations for development in UK primary health care. Findings: The potential for social prescribing to provide a mediating mechanism between different sectors and address social need is discussed. The paper argues that social prescribing can successfully extend the boundaries of traditional general practice through bridging the gap between primary health care and the voluntary sector. The potential for wider health gain is critically examined. The paper concludes that social prescribing not only provides a means to alternative support but also acts as a mechanism to strengthen community–professional partnerships. More research is needed on the benefits to patients and professionals.

Community participation is a central concept for health promotion, covering a breadth of approaches, purposes and activities. This paper reports on a national knowledge translation project in England, UK, which resulted in a conceptual framework and typology of community-based approaches, published as national guidance. A key objective was to develop a conceptual framework linked to sources of evidence that could be used to support increased uptake of participatory methods across the health system. It was recognized that legitimacy of community participation was being undermined by a scattered evidence base, absence of a common terminology and low visibility of community practice. A scoping review, combined with stakeholder consultation, was undertaken and 168 review and conceptual publications were identified and a map produced. A ‘family of community-centred approaches for health and wellbeing’ was then produced as way of organizing the evidence and visually representing the range of intervention types. There are four main groups, with sub-categories: (i) strengthening communities, (ii) volunteer and peer roles, (iii) collaborations and partnerships and (iv) access to community resources. Each group is differentiated using key concepts and theoretical justifications around increasing equity, control and social connectedness. An open access bibliography is available to accompany the framework. The paper discusses the application of the family of community-centred approaches as a flexible planning tool for health promotion practice and its potential to be used as a framework for organizing and synthesizing evidence from a range of participatory methods.

Objectives The aim of the study was to identify key elements of whole system approaches to building healthy communities and putting communities at the heart of public health with a focus on public health practice to reduce health inequalities. Design A mixed-method qualitative study was undertaken. The primary method was semi-structured interviews with 17 public health leaders from 12 local areas. This was supplemented by a rapid review of literature, a survey of 342 members of the public via Public Health England’s (PHE) People’s Panel and a round-table discussion with 23 stakeholders. Setting Local government in England. Results Eleven elements of community-centred public health practice that constitute taking a whole system approach were identified. These were grouped into the headings of involving, strengthening, scaling and sustaining. The elements were underpinned by a set of values and principles. Conclusion Local public health leaders are in a strong position to develop a whole system approach to reducing health inequalities that puts communities at its heart. The elements, values and principles summarise what a supportive infrastructure looks like and this could be further tested with other localities and communities as a framework for scaling community-centred public health.