Behaviour and Risk Factors | Boltons Health Matters
Skip to main content

Behaviour and Risk Factors

A presentation by The Kings Fund that provides an overview using England level data on health and health inqualities in England. The presentation is broken down into 3 main sections:

  1. Life expectancy,

  2. mortality and recorded causes of deathIllness and morbidity

  3. What are the main drivers of our health?

This resource can be accessed by clicking here: http://bit.ly/1vzoNwt

A map showing the percentage of the adult population (age 16 and over) who participate in sport and active recreation, at moderate intensity, for at least 30 minutes on at least 12 days out of the last 4 weeks (equivalent to 30 minutes on 3 or more days a week). This includes light intensity activities (bowls, archery, croquet, yoga and pilates) for those age 65 and over. This resource can be accessed by clicking here: http://bit.ly/1txuMBQ

This briefing was commissioned by PHE and written by the Institute of Health Equity. It is a summary of a more detailed evidence review on the same topic and is intended primarily for directors of public health, public health teams and local authorities. This briefing and accompanying evidence reviews are part of a series commissioned by PHE to describe and demonstrate effective, practical local action on a range of social determinants of health.

You can view the briefing by clicking here:   http://bit.ly/1ytAshC

 

 

This briefing was commissioned by PHE and written by the Institute of Health Equity. It is a summary of a more detailed evidence review on the same topic and is intended primarily for directors of public health, public health teams and local authorities. This briefing and accompanying evidence reviews are part of a series commissioned by PHE to describe and demonstrate effective, practical local action on a range of social determinants of health.

You can view the briefing by clicking here: http://bit.ly/1EOxB4h

Key Messages

1.Economic impact tools can help support local authorities’ decisions on whether and how to invest on the social determinants of health.
2. Economic impact tools (such as cost-benefit analysis) are ways of assessing whether a particular action or intervention is likely to result in an overall benefit, and what the associated costs will be. They focus on the overall efficiency or value-for-money of taking one course of action versus another. They are designed to support investment decisions but cannot give answers alone about what action to take.
3. Most economic techniques, on their own, do not take distributional or equity effects into account - this is an important limitation. In many cases, there is a trade-off between equity and efficiency. It is therefore critical that evidence on inequalities, or the effect of an intervention for different social groups, is considered alongside economic measures when taking investment decisions for action on the social determinants of health.
4. The Social Return of Investment (SROI) approach is a helpful way of thinking about the wide range of social impacts that could arise from an intervention. The SROI approach may also be helpful for considering the effects of a programme of work for different groups
5. While there are relatively few examples of economic impact analysis on the social determinants of health, approaches to support investment decisions in this area are developing rapidly and are available. This paper summarises much of what is currently available. More need to be developed.
6. Service commissioners can play a vital role in developing best practice in this area, with support from Public Health England (PHE) by: ensuring high-quality data is collected on interventions; economic and equity

 

This briefing was commissioned by PHE and written by the Institute of Health Equity. It is a summary of a more detailed evidence review on the same topic and is intended primarily for directors of public health, public health teams and local authorities. This briefing and accompanying evidence reviews are part of a series commissioned by PHE to describe and demonstrate effective, practical local action on a range of social determinants of health.

You can view the briefing by clicking here: http://bit.ly/ZWsNtX

The associated evidence summary is: Local action on health inequalities: Reducing the number of young people not in employment, education or training (NEET)

Summary
1. Spending time not in employment, education or training (NEET) has been shown to have a detrimental effect on physical and mental health. This effect is greater when time spent NEET is at a younger age or lasts for longer.
2. The link between time spent NEET and poor health is partly due to an increased likelihood of unemployment, low wages, or low quality work later on in life. Being NEET can also have an impact on unhealthy behaviours and involvement in crime.
3. These negative health effects do not occur equally across the population, as the chance of being NEET is affected by area deprivation, socio-economic position, parental factors (such as employment, education, or attitudes), growing up in care, prior academic achievement and school experiences. Being NEET therefore occurs disproportionately among those already experiencing other sources of disadvantage.
4. Because the chances of becoming NEET follow a social gradient, reducing the proportion of people NEET could help to reduce health inequalities.
5. Local authorities have specific responsibilities and accountabilities for those who are NEET, particularly those aged 16-18. The raising of the participation age gives local authorities new roles, opportunities and challenges in supporting young people who are NEET.
6. Evidence of what works to reduce the proportion of young people NEET suggests that a successful strategy requires early intervention, tackling the barriers that young people face when attempting to move into education or employment. It also requires working across organisational and geographical boundaries and the involvement of local employers.
7. Tracking people, monitoring progress and programme evaluation can also help to drive improvements. Best practice from other successful programmes should be borne in mind when commissioning new services. For example, it is important that courses are accredited, not like school and developed in partnership with young people.

This briefing was commissioned by PHE and written by the Institute of Health Equity. It is a summary of a more detailed evidence review on the same topic and is intended primarily for directors of public health, public health teams and local authorities. This briefing and accompanying evidence reviews are part of a series commissioned by PHE to describe and demonstrate effective, practical local action on a range of social determinants of health.

You can view the briefing by clicking here: http://bit.ly/1wrU3do

The associated evidence summary is: Local action on health inequalities: Adult learning services

Summary
1. Adult learning can have indirect benefits by improving social capital and connectedness, health behaviour, skills, and employment outcomes, each of which affect health. There is also some evidence that adult learning has direct positive effects for mental health.
2. Improving skill levels and qualifications can have a positive economic impact – it has been estimated that the lifetime return on investment of level 1 courses for those aged 19-24 is £21.60 for every £1 invested.
3. There is a gradient in need for adult learning – people in more disadvantaged groups tend to have fewer qualifications, lower levels of initial education and lower skill levels. However, participation in adult learning tends to be lower among those who need it most. If this gradient in participation was reduced, provision could help to reduce health inequalities by improving skills and qualifications among most disadvantaged groups.
4. Local authorities have a key role both as a provider of learning and in partnership with others, including local businesses (in part through local enterprise partnerships), Jobcentres, the voluntary and community sector, and the education and training sector.
5. A lifecourse approach to learning is important. Those at different points will benefit most from different types of learning. For example, non-formal and informal learning for older people can decrease social isolation, whereas family learning for parents and children can help to tackle the intergenerational transfer of disadvantage.
6. Many adults in need of learning opportunities will face specific barriers to participating, such as financial constraint, which must be addressed if learning is to benefit all groups. To increase the likelihood of positive outcomes, many individuals will need support to manage this transition.
7. Employers can add value to local adult learning in many ways. They also have a training role in relation to their own employees, which local authorities can support and encourage.
8. Community engagement is key to understanding how best to deliver adult learning courses. Programmes can also use other community assets, such as libraries or universities.

This briefing was commissioned by PHE and written by the Institute of Health Equity. It is a summary of a more detailed evidence review on the same topic and is intended primarily for directors of public health, public health teams and local authorities. This briefing and accompanying evidence reviews are part of a series commissioned by PHE to describe and demonstrate effective, practical local action on a range of social determinants of health.

You can view the briefing by clicking here: http://bit.ly/1ytnBfn

The associated evidence summary is: Local action on health inequalities: Good quality parenting programmes and the home to school transition

Summary

  1. In 2013, 52% of all children reached a ‘good level of development’ at age five according to the Department for Education, compared to 36% of children who were eligible for free school meals.
  2. The quality of parenting affects children’s long-term physical, emotional, social and educational outcomes and therefore differences in parenting between social groups have implications for health inequalities.
  3. Positive, warm parenting, with firm boundaries and routines, supports social and emotional development and reduces behavioural problems.
  4. There is evidence that a range of parenting programmes designed for families with children of a particular age are effective.
  5. To reduce health inequalities, commissioning of parenting programmes should be part of a wider local system of measures to support parents. Good financial and emotional resources make it easier for parents to take good parenting actions.

This briefing was commissioned by PHE and written by the Institute of Health Equity. It is a summary of a more detailed evidence review on the same topic and is intended primarily for directors of public health, public health teams and local authorities. This briefing and accompanying evidence reviews are part of a series commissioned by PHE to describe and demonstrate effective, practical local action on a range of social determinants of health.

You can view the briefing by clicking here: http://bit.ly/1v2xT3o

The associated evidence summary is: Local action on health inequalities: Good quality parenting programmes and the home to school transition

Summary
1. When children start school, a good transition from the home or nursery environment is important, particularly for those who live in more difficult circumstances, who have special needs, or for whom English is not a first language.
2. Good home to school transition programmes have been linked to better outcomes, particularly for at-risk groups, meaning these programmes have a role to play in reducing inequalities in outcomes.
3. Practices to support children’s start at school, such as open days, familiarisation lessons and visits, are linked with them making a better adjustment to the school environment and having improved social and emotional skills.
4. Support for parents through the transition period can also be helpful in reducing anxiety and social isolation.

This briefing was commissioned by PHE and written by the Institute of Health Equity. It is a summary of a more detailed evidence review on the same topic and is intended primarily for directors of public health, public health teams and local authorities. This briefing and accompanying evidence reviews are part of a series commissioned by PHE to describe and demonstrate effective, practical local action on a range of social determinants of health.

You can view the briefing by clicking here: http://bit.ly/ZWtvHB

The associated evidence summary is: Local action on health inequalities: Improving access to green spaces

Summary
1. There is significant and growing evidence on the health benefits of access to good quality green spaces. The benefits include better self-rated health; lower body mass index, overweight and obesity levels; improved mental health and wellbeing; increased longevity.
2. There is unequal access to green space across England. People living in the most deprived areas are less likely to live near green spaces and will therefore have fewer opportunities to experience the health benefits of green space compared with people living in less deprived areas.
3. Increasing the use of good quality green space for all social groups is likely to improve health outcomes and reduce health inequalities. It can also bring other benefits such as greater community cohesion and reduced social isolation.
4. Local authorities play a vital role in protecting, maintaining and improving local green spaces and can create new areas of green space to improve access for all communities. Such efforts require joint work across different parts of the local authority and beyond, particularly public health, planning, transport, and parks and leisure.

This briefing was commissioned by PHE and written by the Institute of Health Equity. It is a summary of a more detailed evidence review on the same topic and is intended primarily for directors of public health, public health teams and local authorities. This briefing and accompanying evidence reviews are part of a series commissioned by PHE to describe and demonstrate effective, practical local action on a range of social determinants of health.

You can view the briefing by clicking here: http://bit.ly/1ytu7CS .

The associated evidence summary is: Local action on health inequalities: Fuel poverty and cold home-related health problems

Summary
1. A household is in fuel poverty if it is on a low income and faces high costs of keeping adequately warm and other basic energy services. Fuel poverty is driven by three main factors: household income, the current cost of energy and the energy efficiency of the home.
2. Fuel poverty is associated with cold homes. England’s housing stock is made up of relatively energy inefficient properties which can result in homes that are difficult or costly to heat. However, households can be cold without being in fuel poverty if people choose not to heat their homes adequately where they have the means to do so.
3. A social gradient in fuel poverty exists; those on lower household incomes are more likely to be at risk of fuel poverty, contributing to social and health inequalities.
4. The most recent data on fuel poverty in England indicates that there were 2.28 million fuel-poor households in 2012
5. Cold homes can affect or exacerbate a range of health problems including respiratory problems, circulatory problems and increased risk of poor mental health. Estimates suggest that some 10% of excess winter deaths are directly attributable to fuel poverty and a fifth of excess winter deaths are attributable to the coldest quarter of homes.
6. Cold homes can also affect wider determinants of health, such as educational performance among children and young people, as well as work absences.
7. Tackling fuel poverty and cold home-related health problems is important for improving health outcomes and reducing inequalities in health in England. Local authorities and public health are well placed to address issues relating to fuel poverty.

Share this: