Assessment and Qualitative Comparative Analysis of English Local Authority Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategies to Improve Health under Austerity Conditions, 2013–2017

Tompson, Alice and Egan, Matt and McGill, Elizabeth and Rinaldi, Chiara and Mead, Rebecca and Holland, Paula and Alexiou, Alexandros and Popay, Jennie and Lhussier, Monique (2024) Assessment and Qualitative Comparative Analysis of English Local Authority Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategies to Improve Health under Austerity Conditions, 2013–2017. Health and Social Care in the Community. ISSN 0966-0410

Text (Local authority wellbeing strategies under austerity)
Local_authority_wellbeing_strategies_under_austerity.pdf - Accepted Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (517kB)

Abstract

Background. Local government is important for health equity because local policies often affect place-based health, health equity, and their wider social determinants of health. In England, local governments must produce Joint Health and Wellbeing (JH&W) Strategies, outlining local strategies for health improvement. These strategies have been produced concurrently with budget cuts to local governments that are associated with adverse health and mortality outcomes. Using a novel approach, we assessed whether English local governments’ strategies for place-based health and equity help explain why some disadvantaged areas have better mortality trends than others. Methods. We sampled “Joint Health and Wellbeing” (JH&W) Strategies for 20 disadvantaged localities covering the years 2013–2017. We sampled areas to include some with larger and some with smaller budget cuts. We developed a qualitative appraisal process for scoring the extent to which JH&W strategies focused on (i) place-based social determinants of health and (ii) health equity. Using qualitative comparative analysis, we assessed whether mortality trends might be explained by JH&W scores or wider contextual factors such as budget cuts, population age, and disadvantage. Results. JH&W strategies on place-based social determinants of health and equity were often underdeveloped. Only a minority of strategies were highly rated (i.e., scoring >2 out of 3) for addressing social inequalities of health (n . 6), and even fewer scored highly for place-based social determinants of health (n . 3). Our qualitative comparative analysis found that external and contextual factors (e.g., budget cuts and disadvantages) offer more plausible explanations than JH&W strategies for place variations in life expectancy trends. Conclusion. Budget cuts and other contextual factors better explain mortality trends than JH&W strategies. +is raises concerns about what such strategies can realistically achieve in the face of structural disadvantage and national policies that restrict local spending.