Background

Health inequity: defined as systematic and avoidable difference in health outcome, remain entrenched across high-income countries, with socioeconomic gaps in life expectancy exceeding 7–10 years. Upstream interventions addressing the social determinants of health are critical. This umbrella review evaluates which macro-level policies and public health interventions most effectively reduce health inequity.

Methods

We conducted an umbrella review of systematic reviews. Four databases (Embase, Medline, Scopus, Cochrane) were searched from May 2017, the date of the last umbrella review on the subject, to September 2024. Eligible reviews reported population-level interventions in OECD countries, with outcomes stratified by socioeconomic status or related disadvantage. Included systematic reviews were appraised using AMSTAR II. We devised a conceptual Health Equity Pyramid that classified interventions by their agentic demand and population reach.

Results

Thirty-five systematic reviews were included. This review evaluated evidence across six policy domains. Redistributive and welfare interventions, including cash transfers, basic income and food subsidies, consistently improved food security, household financial stability and maternal–child health outcomes. Legislative and regulatory measures, such as smoke-free policies and pharmaceutical subsidy reforms, demonstrated robust population-level gains, particularly in disadvantaged groups. Community and housing interventions improved psychological health, reduced morbidity and mortality in targeted populations, and enhanced housing stability. Health system interventions, notably tailored smoking cessation and hospital discharge coordination for people experiencing homelessness, were effective in narrowing disparities. By contrast, educational and behavioural programmes and telehealth interventions often demanded high individual agency; without contextual tailoring, may exacerbate intervention-generated inequality.

Conclusions

This umbrella review demonstrates that interventions characterised by low agentic demand: welfare reform, housing support, and legislative measures; yield the most consistent reductions in inequity. High agentic interventions can be effective when carefully tailored to disadvantaged populations but may otherwise exacerbate disparities. Future policy should prioritise structural, population-level strategies to achieve sustainable equity in health outcomes.

Objectives With rising poverty and widening health inequity among children in the UK, the objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of the Sure Start programme on child health outcomes in disadvantaged children. Design Systematic review. Data sources We conducted a comprehensive search of three databases: Embase, Medline and Social Policy and Practice, with grey literature searched using Open Grey, Social Care Online and Google Scholar. The search was conducted in January 2024. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies All primary studies investigating health outcomes in children as a result of Sure Start intervention were eligible for inclusion, without limitations on study design. Data extraction and synthesis Full-text articles in English were independently screened according to the eligibility criteria by two researchers. Results were synthesised and presented in both a quantitative and narrative format. We assessed the risk of bias in each included study. Results Our initial search identified 585 records, of which 9 met our inclusion criteria with a further 3 grey literature reports included. Three themes were identified: physical health, social functioning and neurodevelopmental disorders. In terms of physical health, our findings indicate significant reductions in hospitalisations in older children, accidental injury and obesity prevalence. Furthermore, Sure Start increased the prevalence of breastfeeding and improved dental hygiene in children. In the social functioning domain, the Sure Start programme produced mixed findings: with children from certain backgrounds observing adverse effects as a result of the intervention. Yet, Sure Start demonstrated significant improvement in education attainment, with a maximal improvement of grade improvement in children from low socio-economic and ethnic minority backgrounds. For neurodevelopmental disorders, Sure Start was able to significantly improve conduct disorder and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder symptomatology with long-term clinical stabilisation, as well as improving screening rates for developmental disorders. Conclusion This study examines the evidence of the Sure Start programme, as an example of an early-years community-based intervention, to mitigate health inequity among disadvantaged children. The findings suggest the Sure Start programme to be effective in health generation across the domains of physical health and neurodevelopmental disorders for disadvantaged children, but with mixed findings for social development that can only partially be explained by methodological flaws. Trial registration number PROSPERO CRD42024503234.

Background: There are thousands of primary care estates and premises across the country. They present an ideal opportunity to both support communities, especially in disadvantaged areas, and improve integrated care. Aim We explored the impact of co-located community and health services in primary care to support disadvantaged groups. Method We undertook an umbrella review using a systematic search in Ovid Medline and Ovid Embase with supplementary snowball and grey literature searches. Systematic reviews of co-located services supporting disadvantaged groups in primary care were included. Screening and data extraction was conducted by two reviewers. Quality was assessed using the AMSTAR2 and data analysed narratively. Outcomes were synthesised according to five domains: access and engagement, quality of care, efficiency, improved health and improved social factors. Results The database search identified 2626 studies, supplemented by snowball and grey literatures searches, resulting in thirteen included studies. Three models of care were identified; six included reviews focus on legal or welfare advice services and seven focus on speciality healthcare. We found evidence that co-located services can improve access to care, engagement in treatment and quality of care for disadvantaged groups. Improvements to social determinants of health and mental health and wellbeing outcomes were reported. Efficiency outcomes, including healthcare utilisation were varied. Conclusion Co-located services in primary care have the potential to improve identification of people most in need and improve their access to care and social support. Policy makers and practitioners should maximise the use of primary care estates to support disadvantaged groups and communities.

Background Financial incentives are being increasingly adopted to help improve standards of care within general practice. However their effects on care quality are unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of practices opting out of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), a financial incentive scheme in UK general practice. Study design A retrospective before and after study of all practices in Tower Hamlets, east London. Methods Practices were given an option by local commissioners of opting out of QOF without a financial penalty and instead opting for a locally designed financial incentive scheme that promoted more holistic care. We compared those practices which opted out of QOF to those which continued. We used national, publicly available QOF achievement data from 2016/17 and 2017/18. We undertook a sub-analysis of 16 QOF indicators to better understand the impact of the intervention. Results Of the 36 practices in Tower Hamlets, 7 decided to continue with QOF and 29 opted out. The intervention resulted in a small but statistically significant reduction in the total QOF achievement scores of practices which opted out of QOF. The sub-analysis of 16 QOF indicators showed statistically significant reductions in most of achievement scores net of exceptions for the practices that opted out. The differences in performance between the two cohorts of practices became smaller when exceptions were included. Conclusions The removal of QOF financial incentives can result in a reduction in achievement of QOF-related indicators but the size of the effect seems to depend on the QOF exception rates. An alternative incentive scheme that promotes a more holistic approach to care seems to be welcomed by general practices.

Children have been disproportionately affected by the response to COVID‐19 despite having a negligible risk of morbidity and mortality. Moreover, the response to COVID‐19 has magnified the inequalities generated by the decade‐long austerity regime imposed by the coalition, and current government. The numbers of children living in poverty are rising: some 30% of children, amounting to over four million children, are living in relative poverty in the United Kingdom. Poverty will deepen due to rising levels of unemployment, and with 25% of private sector workers experiencing a reduction in hours, this will disproportionately affect families with young children. The stage is set for deepening and more entrenched inequalities, superimposed on the pre‐existing inequalities of austerity. A comprehensive and radical set of policies is needed to address this and will require full government commitment at the highest level.

Background Stratifying risk of postoperative pulmonary complications after major abdominal surgery allows clinicians to modify risk through targeted interventions and enhanced monitoring. In this study, we aimed to identify and validate prognostic models against a new consensus definition of postoperative pulmonary complications. Methods We did a systematic review and international external validation cohort study. The systematic review was done in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched MEDLINE and Embase on March 1, 2020, for articles published in English that reported on risk prediction models for postoperative pulmonary complications following abdominal surgery. External validation of existing models was done within a prospective international cohort study of adult patients (≥18 years) undergoing major abdominal surgery. Data were collected between Jan 1, 2019, and April 30, 2019, in the UK, Ireland, and Australia. Discriminative ability and prognostic accuracy summary statistics were compared between models for the 30-day postoperative pulmonary complication rate as defined by the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine Core Outcome Measures in Perioperative and Anaesthetic Care (StEP-COMPAC). Model performance was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCC). Findings In total, we identified 2903 records from our literature search; of which, 2514 (86·6%) unique records were screened, 121 (4·8%) of 2514 full texts were assessed for eligibility, and 29 unique prognostic models were identified. Nine (31·0%) of 29 models had score development reported only, 19 (65·5%) had undergone internal validation, and only four (13·8%) had been externally validated. Data to validate six eligible models were collected in the international external validation cohort study. Data from 11 591 patients were available, with an overall postoperative pulmonary complication rate of 7·8% (n=903). None of the six models showed good discrimination (defined as AUROCC ≥0·70) for identifying postoperative pulmonary complications, with the Assess Respiratory Risk in Surgical Patients in Catalonia score showing the best discrimination (AUROCC 0·700 [95% CI 0·683–0·717]). Interpretation In the pre-COVID-19 pandemic data, variability in the risk of pulmonary complications (StEP-COMPAC definition) following major abdominal surgery was poorly described by existing prognostication tools. To improve surgical safety during the COVID-19 pandemic recovery and beyond, novel risk stratification tools are required.

Background This study aimed to determine the impact of pulmonary complications on death after surgery both before and during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Methods This was a patient-level, comparative analysis of two, international prospective cohort studies: one before the pandemic (January–October 2019) and the second during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (local emergence of COVID-19 up to 19 April 2020). Both included patients undergoing elective resection of an intra-abdominal cancer with curative intent across five surgical oncology disciplines. Patient selection and rates of 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications were compared. The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative mortality. Mediation analysis using a natural-effects model was used to estimate the proportion of deaths during the pandemic attributable to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results This study included 7402 patients from 50 countries; 3031 (40.9 per cent) underwent surgery before and 4371 (59.1 per cent) during the pandemic. Overall, 4.3 per cent (187 of 4371) developed postoperative SARS-CoV-2 in the pandemic cohort. The pulmonary complication rate was similar (7.1 per cent (216 of 3031) versus 6.3 per cent (274 of 4371); P = 0.158) but the mortality rate was significantly higher (0.7 per cent (20 of 3031) versus 2.0 per cent (87 of 4371); P < 0.001) among patients who had surgery during the pandemic. The adjusted odds of death were higher during than before the pandemic (odds ratio (OR) 2.72, 95 per cent c.i. 1.58 to 4.67; P < 0.001). In mediation analysis, 54.8 per cent of excess postoperative deaths during the pandemic were estimated to be attributable to SARS-CoV-2 (OR 1.73, 1.40 to 2.13; P < 0.001). Conclusion Although providers may have selected patients with a lower risk profile for surgery during the pandemic, this did not mitigate the likelihood of death through SARS-CoV-2 infection. Care providers must act urgently to protect surgical patients from SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Introduction: Increasing rates of liver transplantation and improved outcomes have led to greater numbers of transplant recipients followed up in non-transplant centres. Our aim was to document long-term clinical outcomes of liver transplant recipients managed in this 'hub-and-spoke' healthcare model. Methods: A retrospective analysis of all adult patients who underwent liver transplantation between 1987 and 2016, with post-transplant follow-up in two non-transplant centres in the UK (Nottingham) and Canada (Ottawa), was performed. Results: The 1-, 5-, 10- and 20-year patient survival rates were 98%, 95%, 87% and 62%, and 100%, 96%, 88% and 62% in the Nottingham and Ottawa groups, respectively (p=0.87). There were no significant differences between the two centres in 1-, 5-, 10- and 20-year cumulative incidence of death-censored graft-survival (p=0.10), end-stage renal disease (p=0.29) or de novo cancer (p=0.22). Nottingham had a lower incidence of major cardiovascular events (p=0.008). Conclusion: Adopting a new model of healthcare provides a means of delivering post-transplant patient care close to home without compromising patient survival and long-term clinical outcomes.