Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30346563›Full record

ArticleJournal of public health (Oxford, England)2019

Equal North: how can we reduce health inequalities in the North of England? A prioritization exercise with researchers, policymakers and practitioners.

M Addison, E Kaner, P Johnstone, F Hillier-Brown, S Moffatt, S Russell, B Barr, P Holland, S Salway, M Whitehead and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of public health (Oxford, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

M AddisonInstitute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Baddiley Clark Building, Richardson Road, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE2 4AX, UK.
E KanerInstitute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Baddiley Clark Building, Richardson Road, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE2 4AX, UK.
P JohnstonePublic Health England, North of England, Blenheim House, West One, Leeds LS1 4PL, UK.
F Hillier-BrownDepartment of Sport and Exercise, Durham University, 42 Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HN, UK.
S MoffattInstitute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Baddiley Clark Building, Richardson Road, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE2 4AX, UK.
S RussellInstitute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Baddiley Clark Building, Richardson Road, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE2 4AX, UK.
B BarrInstitute of Psychology, Health and Society, Department of Public Health and Policy, University of Liverpool, Whelan Building, The Quadrangle, Liverpool L69 3GB, UK.
P HollandLecturer in Public Health, Division of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Furness Building, Lancaster LA1 4YG, UK.
S SalwayDepartment of Sociological Studies, The University of Sheffield, Elmfield, Northumberland Road, Sheffield S10 2TU, UK.
M WhiteheadInstitute of Psychology, Health and Society, Department of Public Health and Policy, University of Liverpool, Whelan Building, The Quadrangle, Liverpool L69 3GB, UK.
C BambraInstitute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Baddiley Clark Building, Richardson Road, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE2 4AX, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K02325X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Equal North network was developed to take forward the implications of the Due North report of the Independent Inquiry into Health Equity. The aim of this exercise was to identify how to reduce health inequalities in the north of England.

methodsWorkshops (15 groups) and a Delphi survey (3 rounds, 368 members) were used to consult expert opinion and achieve consensus. Round 1 answered open questions around priorities for action; Round 2 used a 5-point Likert scale to rate items; Round 3 responses were re-rated alongside a median response to each item. In total, 10 workshops were conducted after the Delphi survey to triangulate the data.

resultsIn Round 1, responses from 253 participants generated 39 items used in Round 2 (rated by 144 participants). Results from Round 3 (76 participants) indicate that poverty/implications of austerity (4.87 m, IQR 0) remained the priority issue, with long-term unemployment (4.8 m, IQR 0) and mental health (4.7 m, IQR 1) second and third priorities. Workshop 3 did not diverge from findings in Round 1.

conclusionsPractice professionals and academics agreed that reducing health inequalities in the North of England requires prioritizing research that tackles structural determinants concerning poverty, the implications of austerity measures and unemployment.

Indexed as

Health PolicyHealth PrioritiesHealth Status DisparitiesDelphi TechniqueEducationEnglandHealth Status IndicatorsHumansSocial Determinants of HealthDelphiengagementequityhealth inequalitysocial determinantssocial policy

Identifiers

PMID30346563
PMCPMC6995035

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.