Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41089869›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2025

Mixed-method evaluation of the Fairer Futures Fund: a £22.2 m public health initiative designed to reduce health inequalities in Birmingham and Solihull (UK).

Ian Litchfield, Andy Knight, Rebecca Howell-Jones, David Miller, Zoe Sweeney, Mike Walsh, Lorraine Harper

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Ian LitchfieldDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Andy KnightDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Rebecca Howell-JonesBirmingham City Council, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
David MillerBirmingham City Council, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Zoe SweeneyHeart of England Community Foundation Trust, Coventry, United Kingdom.
Mike WalshBirmingham City Council, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Lorraine HarperDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Birmingham and Solihull Integrated Care System created the £22.2 million Fairer Futures Fund to support community-centred collaborative innovation to address long-standing health inequalities in the region. The FFF supports the development of productive and sustainable partnerships between communities, the voluntary sector, and health and social care organisations to deliver three broad categories of projects: multiple small community-located projects; large-scale 'partnership' projects led by collaborative partnerships, and a series of system-wide projects intended to support infrastructural interventions across organisations in support of more equitable care. Methods and analysis: The work consists of a mixed-method evaluation conducted over three work packages: One, a qualitative exploration of the factors influencing the design and development of the Fairer Futures Fund programme. Two, a qualitative exploration of the effectiveness of brokered co-design processes and collaborative inter-agency working. Three, a mixed-methods evaluation of all projects, collating and analysing quantitative outputs, contextualised by a qualitative exploration of the experiences of intervention leads and participants. The quantitative data will be summarised using descriptive statistics with the ability of data to be collated and analysed by various shared characteristics across projects using univariable analyses, e.g., paired t-tests (where pre- and post-intervention outcome data are available) and/or multivariable regression analysis to assess the effectiveness of the FFF activities. The qualitative data from across the three work packages will be used in a directed content analysis to populate the Consolidate Framework of Implementation Research. Discussion: The amount invested, the innovative nature of the funding allocation, and the visibility of the FFF programme warrants this detailed and objective evaluation by experienced researchers and evaluators. To support the success of the FFF, the work will provide both formative and summative findings. Although the precise content and structure of each project is determined by the local communities and collaborating organisations, consistent data collection is supported by the requisite use of a combination of preselected and validated survey tools. This will allow for the collation of larger and comparable data across similar projects. The quantitative data outputs will be contextualised by qualitative data synthesised across work packages using the implementation framework.

Indexed as

Health Status DisparitiesPublic HealthCooperative BehaviorHumansProgram EvaluationQualitative ResearchUnited Kingdomcommunity participationhealth inequalitiesintegrated carePreventive carepublic health

Identifiers

PMID41089869
PMCPMC12515923

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.