Katharina Janke

We estimate a model that allows for dynamic and interdependent responses of morbidity in different local areas to economic conditions at the local and national level, with statistical selection of optimal local area. We apply this approach to quarterly British data on chronic health conditions for those of working age over the period 2002-2016. We find strong and robust counter-cyclical relationships for overall chronic health, and for five broad types of health conditions. Chronic health conditions therefore increase in poor economic times. There is considerable spatial heterogeneity across local areas, with the counter-cyclical relationship being strongest in poorer local areas with more traditional industrial structures. We find that feedback effects are important across local areas and dynamic effects that differ by health condition. Consequently, the standard panel data model commonly used in the literature considerably under-estimates the extent of the counter-cyclical relationship in the British context.

Background: Patients living with life-limiting illnesses other than cancer constitute the majority of patients in need of palliative care globally, yet most previous systematic reviews of the cost impact of palliative care have not exclusively focused on this population. Reviews that tangentially looked at non-cancer patients found inconclusive evidence. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for treatment efficacy, while total health care costs offer a comprehensive measure of resource use. In the sole review of RCTs for non-cancer patients, palliative care reduced hospitalisations and emergency department visits but its effect on total health care costs was not assessed. The aim of this study is to review RCTs to determine the difference in costs between a palliative care approach and usual care in adult non-cancer patients with a life-limiting illness. Methods: A systematic review using a narrative synthesis approach. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO prospectively (no. CRD42020191082). Eight databases were searched: Medline, CINAHL, EconLit, EMBASE, TRIP database, NHS Evidence, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception to January 2023. Inclusion criteria were: English or German; randomised controlled trials (RCTs); adult non-cancer patients (> 18 years); palliative care provision; a comparator group of standard or usual care. Quality of studies was assessed using Drummond’s checklist for assessing economic evaluations. Results: Seven RCTs were included and examined the following diseases: neurological (3), heart failure (2), AIDS (1) and mixed (1). The majority (6/7) were home-based interventions. All studies were either cost-saving (3/7) or cost-neutral (4/7); and four had improved outcomes for patients or carers and three no change in outcomes. Conclusions: In a non-cancer population, this is the first systematic review of RCTs that has demonstrated a palliative care approach is cost-saving or at least cost-neutral. Cost savings are achieved without worsening outcomes for patients and carers. These findings lend support to calls to increase palliative care provision globally.

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.

The current air quality limit values for airborne pollutants in the UK are low by historical standards and are at levels that are believed not to harm health. We assess whether this view is correct. We examine the relationship between common sources of airborne pollution and population mortality for England. We use data at local authority level for 1998–2005 to examine whether current levels of airborne pollution, as measured by annual mean concentrations of carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter less than 10 µm in diameter (PM₁₀) and ozone, are associated with excess deaths. We examine all‐cause mortality and deaths from specific cardiovascular and respiratory causes that are known to be exacerbated by air pollution. The panel nature of our data allows us to control for any unobserved time‐invariant associations at local authority level between high levels of air pollution and poor population health and for common time trends. We estimate multi‐pollutant models to allow for the fact that three of the pollutants are closely correlated. We find that higher levels of PM₁₀ and ozone are associated with higher mortality rates, and the effect sizes are considerably larger than previously estimated from the primarily time series studies for England. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.