Background: Locally delivered, place-based public health interventions are receiving increasing attention as a way of improving health and reducing inequalities. However, there is limited evidence on their effectiveness. This umbrella review synthesises systematic review evidence of the health and health inequalities impacts of locally delivered place-based interventions across three elements of place and health: the physical, social, and economic environments. Methods: Systematic review methodology was used to identify recent published systematic reviews of the effectiveness of place-based interventions on health and health inequalities (PROGRESS+) in high-income countries. Nine databases were searched from 1st January 2008 to 1st March 2020. The quality of the included articles was determined using the Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool (R-AMSTAR). Results: Thirteen systematic reviews were identified - reporting 51 unique primary studies. Fifty of these studies reported on interventions that changed the physical environment and one reported on changes to the economic environment. Only one primary study reported cost-effectiveness data. No reviews were identified that assessed the impact of social interventions. Given heterogeneity and quality issues, we found tentative evidence that the provision of housing/home modifications, improving the public realm, parks and playgrounds, supermarkets, transport, cycle lanes, walking routes, and outdoor gyms – can all have positive impacts on health outcomes – particularly physical activity. However, as no studies reported an assessment of variation in PROGRESS+ factors, the effect of these interventions on health inequalities remains unclear. Conclusions: Place-based interventions can be effective at improving physical health, health behaviours and social determinants of health outcomes. High agentic interventions indicate greater improvements for those living in greater proximity to the intervention, which may suggest that in order for interventions to reduce inequalities, they should be implemented at a scale commensurate with the level of disadvantage. Future research needs to ensure equity data is collected, as this is severely lacking and impeding progress on identifying interventions that are effective in reducing health inequalities. Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42019158309

Creating conditions to empower local people is an important determinant of health, and crucial in addressing health inequity. Yet, experimentation with initiatives to support public participation at a local level is threatened by enduring global economic instability. A better understanding of how different participatory approaches might address the social determinants of health would support future prioritisation of actions and investment.We reviewed recent literature and theories on initiatives to increase peoples’ influence in local decision-making and on social determinants of health. Our synthesis found little detail about the form and function of initiatives, but diverse factors deemed influential in achieving outcomes. Studies highlighted that pressure on resources undermines individual and community capacities to participate, and requires organisational leaders to think/act differently.Suggested priorities for local governance are: supporting capabilities and relationships between organisations and communities; creating safe and equitable spaces for interaction and knowledge-sharing; and changing institutional culture.

This paper explores public health policy implementation through partnership working at the local level by examining how local actors from public health, and the wider workforce make sense of and work on social inequalities in health. An ethnographic case study was used to examine policy implementation in one local strategic partnership in north-west England during a period of significant resource constraint. Semi-structured interviews were the primary method of data generation. Sensitising concepts from figurational sociology were used to develop a theoretical account of how local policy implementation directed at narrowing social inequalities in health tended to give rise to relatively fragmented and short-term services, projects and practices, which focused on lifestyle factors and behaviour change. Theorising partnership work as figurations goes some way to explaining the apparent paradox among participants who expressed a relatively detached appreciation of wider social influences, alongside emotional involvement in their work. This process of individualisation explains how local professionals tended to conceptualise health inequality and the social determinants of health as personal troubles. Individualisation meant that the social reality of working in partnerships on difficult issues was simplified. Thus, any scope for working on the social determinants of health tended to be overlooked. The extent to which this was intentional or a matter of struggling to see opportunities, or a mixture of the two, was difficult to discern. Although the policy landscape has changed, the findings give some insight into understanding how local collaborative processes reproduce local public health work underpinned by lifestyle choices.

Background: Most research on community empowerment provides evidence on engaging communities for health promotion purposes rather than attempts to create empowering conditions. This study addresses this gap.Intervention: Big Local started in 2010 with £271M from the National Lottery. Ending in 2026, it gives 150 relatively disadvantaged communities in England control over £1M to improve their neighbourhoods.Objective: To investigate health and social outcomes, at the population level and among engaged residents, of the community engagement approach adopted in a place-based empowerment initiative.Study design, data sources and outcome variables: This study reports on the third wave of a longitudinal mixed-methods evaluation. Work package 1 used a difference-in-differences design to investigate the impact of Big Local on population outcomes in all 150 Big Local areas compared to matched comparator areas using secondary data. The primary outcome was anxiety; secondary outcomes included a population mental health measure and crime in the neighbourhood. Work package 2 assessed active engagement in Big Local using cross-sectional data and nested cohort data from a biannual survey of Big Local partnership members. The primary outcome was mental well-being and the secondary outcome was self-rated health. Work package 3 conducted qualitative research in 14 Big Local neighbourhoods and nationally to understand pathways to impact. Work package 4 undertook a cost-benefit analysis using the life satisfaction approach to value the benefits of Big Local, which used the work package 1 estimate of Big Local impact on life satisfaction.Results: At a population level, the impacts on ‘reporting high anxiety’ (–0.8 percentage points, 95% confidence interval –2.4 to 0.7) and secondary outcomes were not statistically significant, except burglary (–0.054 change inz-score, 95% confidence interval –0.100 to –0.009). There was some effect on reduced anxiety after 2017. Areas progressing fastest had a statistically significant reduction in population mental health measure (–0.053 change inz-score, 95% confidence interval –0.103 to –0.002).Mixed results were found among engaged residents, including a significant increase in mental well-being in Big Local residents in the nested cohort in 2018, but not by 2020; this is likely to be COVID-19. More highly educated residents, and males, were more likely to report a significant improvement in mental well-being. Qualitative accounts of positive impacts on mental well-being are often related to improved social connectivity and physical/material environments. Qualitative data revealed increasing capabilities for residents’ collective control. Some negative impacts were reported, with local factors sometimes undermining residents’ ability to exercise collective control.Finally, on the most conservative estimate, the cost–benefit calculations generate a net benefit estimate of £64M.Main limitations: COVID-19 impacted fieldwork and interpretation of survey data. There was a short 4-year follow-up (2016/20), no comparators in work package 2 and a lack of power to look at variations across areas.Conclusions: Our findings suggest the need for investment to support community organisations to emerge from and work with communities. Residents should lead the prioritisation of issues and design of solutions but not necessarily lead action; rather, agencies should work as equal partners with communities to deliver change.Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research Programme (16/09/13) and will be published in full inPublic Health Research; Vol. 11, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

This commentary reflects on an important article by Fisher and colleagues who draw on four Australian policy case studies to examine how universal and targeted approaches or a combination can be deployed to improve health equity. They conclude that universal approaches are central to action to increase health equity, but that targeting can improve equity of access in some situations including in the context of proportionate universalism. However, we argue that although target services may provide benefits for some populations, they are often stigmatizing and fail to reach may people they aim to support. Instead of accepting the dominant discourse about the key role for targeted approaches, we argue that those committed to reduce social and health inequities should consider the potential of Equity Sensitive Universalism (ESU). This approach focuses on achieving proportionate outcomes with equally provided resources rather than proportionate inputs and provides a ‘cohesion dividend,’ increasing social solidarity.

Some places have better than expected health trends despite being disadvantaged in other ways. Thematic analysis of qualitative data from stakeholders (N = 25) in two case studies of disadvantaged local authorities the North West and South East of England assessed explanations for the localities' apparent health resilience. Participants identified ways of working that might contribute to improved life expectancy, such as partnering with third sector, targeting and outcome driven action. Stakeholders were reluctant to assume credit for better-than-expected health outcomes. External factors such as population change, national politics and finances were considered crucial. Local public health stakeholders regard their work as important but unlikely to cause place-centred health resilience.