3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Systematic review of the effectiveness of the health inequalities strategy in England between 1999 and 2010

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          The purpose of this systematic review is to explore the effectiveness of the National Health Inequality Strategy, which was conducted in England between 1999 and 2010.

          Design

          Three databases (Ovid Medline, Embase and PsycINFO) and grey literature were searched for articles published that reported on changes in inequalities in health outcomes in England over the implementation period. Articles published between January 1999 and November 2021 were included. Title and abstracts were screened according to an eligibility criteria. Data were extracted from eligible studies, and risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool.

          Results

          The search strategy identified 10 311 unique studies, which were screened. 42 were reviewed in full text and 11 were included in the final review. Six studies contained data on inequalities of life expectancy or mortality, four on disease-specific mortality, three on infant mortality and three on morbidities. Early government reports suggested that inequalities in life expectancy and infant mortality had increased. However, later publications using more accurate data and more appropriate measures found that absolute and relative inequalities had decreased throughout the strategy period for both measures. Three of four studies found a narrowing of inequalities in all-cause mortality. Absolute inequalities in mortality due to cancer and cardiovascular disease decreased, but relative inequalities increased. There was a lack of change, or widening of inequalities in mental health, self-reported health, health-related quality of life and long-term conditions.

          Conclusions

          With respect to its aims, the strategy was broadly successful. Policymakers should take courage that progress on health inequalities is achievable with long-term, multiagency, cross-government action.

          Trial registration number

          This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021285770).

          Related collections

          Most cited references36

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The COVID-19 pandemic and health inequalities

            This essay examines the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic for health inequalities. It outlines historical and contemporary evidence of inequalities in pandemics—drawing on international research into the Spanish influenza pandemic of 1918, the H1N1 outbreak of 2009 and the emerging international estimates of socio-economic, ethnic and geographical inequalities in COVID-19 infection and mortality rates. It then examines how these inequalities in COVID-19 are related to existing inequalities in chronic diseases and the social determinants of health, arguing that we are experiencing a syndemic pandemic. It then explores the potential consequences for health inequalities of the lockdown measures implemented internationally as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on the likely unequal impacts of the economic crisis. The essay concludes by reflecting on the longer-term public health policy responses needed to ensure that the COVID-19 pandemic does not increase health inequalities for future generations.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Health equity in England: the Marmot review 10 years on

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2022
                9 September 2022
                : 12
                : 9
                : e063137
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care , University of Cambridge , Cambridge, UK
                [2 ]University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust , London, UK
                [3 ]departmentImperial College London Faculty of Medicine , South Kensington Campus , London, UK
                [4 ]departmentMedical Library, School of Clinical Medicine , University of Cambridge , Cambridge, UK
                [5 ]Newcastle University Population Health Sciences Institute , Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr John Alexander Ford; jf653@ 123456medschl.cam.ac.uk
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7011-4116
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8033-7081
                Article
                bmjopen-2022-063137
                10.1136/bmjopen-2022-063137
                9472114
                36134765
                86503eaf-656d-4bfa-978e-a19bb422fc6b
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 22 March 2022
                : 12 August 2022
                Categories
                Public Health
                1506
                1724
                Original research
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                public health,health policy,quality in health care
                Medicine
                public health, health policy, quality in health care

                Comments

                Comment on this article