Resources

People from ethnic minority backgrounds and socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds experience consistently worse health outcomes than their white British and more affluent counterparts. Statutory guidance has recognised that community engagement and empowerment are vital to reduce these health inequalities. In this evidence brief, we summarise evidence examining the effectiveness of different community-centred strategies to improve health in disadvantaged communities.

There are stark inequalities in the supply, demand and need of general practice. ICBs can take action to address these inequalities.

We’ve developed datapacks for each ICB England to help them understand their inequalities and take action.

Below are the datapacks for the East of England ICBs. If you’d like a copy of your own ICBs datapack, please email us [email protected]

We have decades of evidence on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of investing in prevention. However, current health and care funding mechanisms do not facilitate investment in prevention. Here we explore what works best to increase and improve funding for prevention defined as any healthcare-based initiative that enhances long-term patient outcomes by reducing harmful exposure, disease onset, and illness progression across all life stages. 

Mortality rates are higher in areas of greater deprivation, and life expectancy a decade shorter in the least affluent areas compared to most affluent areas in England. Addressing inequalities through funding is crucial given its impact on service provision, workforce distribution and consequently patient outcomes. This brief examines the evidence on how health care funding can be structured to reduce health and care inequalities.

Digital health literacy is becoming increasingly important as more health information is shared through digital platforms. However, many individuals face challenges in accessing digital devices and understanding or critically evaluating digital health information. This evidence brief examines effective strategies for improving health and digital health literacy, particularly among disadvantaged groups.

The NHS Constitution states that access to NHS services is based on clinical need, not an individual’s ability to pay. Most NHS services are free of charge. There is a large evidence base describing the problems that people with low incomes face accessing healthcare; much of the international literature relates to insurance premiums. However, there is little research describing how to ensure people on low incomes are not inadvertently excluded from healthcare services.

Tackling chronic disease risk factors requires a systemic approach that addresses the structural barriers that disadvantaged groups face in managing their health. In this evidence brief, we focus on how health care services, as part of this system, can improve behavioural interventions aiming to tackle chronic disease risk factors like smoking, obesity, or hypertension, so that they better address the needs and preferences of disadvantaged groups.

Millions of people in England have an undiagnosed health problem, with people living in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas more likely to be unaware of a health problem. In this evidence brief we explore what works to improve case finding for disadvantaged groups, specifically those lower socioeconomic and ethnic minority groups.

The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) is a widely used measure in public health research and policymaking relating to health inequalities. By identifying areas with the greatest levels of deprivation, resources can be allocated more effectively to tackle systemic issues that contribute to unequal health outcomes. This blog provides an overview of the IMD and it’s use in public health research.