Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41057193›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

From policy to action: a document content analysis reviewing the adoption of the healthcare inequalities programme in local health system plans in England.

Hannah Elliott, Chloe Tozer, Andrew Fenton, Cassandra Powers, Cathy Lines, Mary Hill, Bola Owolabi, John Alexander Ford

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

8 authors.

Hannah ElliottNHS South Central and West Commissioning Support Unit, Newbury, UK.
Chloe TozerNHS South Central and West Commissioning Support Unit, Newbury, UK.
Andrew FentonNHS South Central and West Commissioning Support Unit, Newbury, UK.
Cassandra PowersSolutions for Public Health, Wootton, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8796-8473
Cathy LinesSolutions for Public Health, Wootton, UK.
Mary HillNHS England, Redditch, UK.
Bola OwolabiNHS England, Redditch, UK.
John Alexander FordWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK j.a.ford@qmul.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8033-7081

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis analysis aimed to explore how local health system strategies and plans seek to tackle health and care inequalities and address national policies. Specifically, the analysis considered alignment with five national priority areas: restoring services inclusively, mitigating digital exclusion, ensuring the completeness and timeliness of datasets, accelerating preventative programmes and strengthening leadership and accountability. In addition, the analysis explored the extent to which systems are engaging with the Core20PLUS5 approach, which targets the most deprived 20% of the population ('Core 20') and population groups experiencing disproportionately poor access, outcomes or experiences of care ('PLUS'). DESIGN AND

settingIntegrated Care Systems (ICSs) are statutory partnerships that bring together healthcare, social care, local government and wider system organisations to collaboratively address the root causes of ill health and health inequalities. We conducted a document analysis of available ICS strategies, 5-year plans and health inequalities plans published in England between 1 January 2022 and 31 July 2023. A total of 43 strategy documents, 38 5-year plans and 7 health inequalities plans were analysed. A data extraction framework was used to guide reviewers and independent quality assurance was completed to ensure internal validity, intrarater reliability, and reproducibility of the project.

resultsThe analysis highlighted good alignment with national healthcare inequalities policies and local approaches to tackling healthcare inequalities, with the majority of systems citing the Core20PLUS5 framework. There was notable variation between systems on the adoption of the framework with the children and young people's framework being less widely considered than the adult's framework. Across systems, equity-focused tools were widely used, and numerous systems had developed outcome frameworks to monitor progress. Leadership for health inequalities was strengthened with senior leadership roles being established to hold integrated care boards accountable for improving access, experiences and outcomes. However, competing priorities, particularly concerning implementations of new organisational models and multiple national priorities, were evident within the plans which may challenge progress on reducing health and healthcare inequalities.

conclusionsThe review concluded that while progress has been made in adopting national healthcare inequalities policies and steers, significant variation exists between systems, possibly reflecting local population needs and varying levels of maturity of the systems across England. The review highlights the need for further evaluations at both national and local levels, allowing for further development of the systems. Additionally, consistent and sustainable funding and more robust training for health inequalities leadership roles is needed to ensure equitable access, experience and outcomes.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health Care, IntegratedHealthcare DisparitiesHealth PolicyEnglandHealth Services AccessibilityHumansLocal GovernmentState MedicineDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedHealth EquityHealth policy

Identifiers

PMID41057193
PMCPMC12506202

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.