ArticleBMC public health2026
Increasing community vulnerability to gastrointestinal infections in austerity's shadow: a comparative study of two English local authorities.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGastrointestinal (GI) infections are spread through food, water and the environment. They cause significant morbidity and mortality worldwide and are a UK public health priority. In England, local authority (local government) Environmental and Regulatory Services (ERS) play a crucial role in GI infection services. During the period of UK government ‘austerity’ policies in the 2010s there were significant cuts to national spending, including reductions to ERS budgets which may have compromised GI infection prevention and control. In this paper, we examine how reductions in ERS spending across contrasting local authorities in England have shaped the lived experience of staff providing GI infection work, within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
methodsData were collected between June 2021—March 2022 from staff linked to ERS across two urban English local authorities with contrasting ERS budget cuts, contrasting socio-economic deprivation and different local authority structures. Data consisted of observations (14 h) and semi-structured interviews (n = 17) collected from staff from the following teams: regional UK Health Security Agency teams (n = 6); local authority public health teams (n = 2); public protection teams (including Environmental Health Officers (EHOs)) (n = 6); and local authority-commissioned infection prevention and control teams (n = 2). Data were analysed using a reflexive thematic analysis.
resultsOur analysis showed more significant impacts on GI infection prevention and control in our socio-economically ‘disadvantaged’ local authority, underpinned by a greater loss of EHO staff. Budget cuts in our ‘disadvantaged’ area have reduced the capacity for on-the-ground GI infection work in communities, hampered collaborative working across local health protection systems, and forced staff to ration and prioritise their work according to risk, reducing or discontinuing crucial preventative functions. Our ‘advantaged’ area was less affected.
conclusionContrasting levels of cuts have created socio-spatial inequalities in the experience of delivering GI infection prevention and control. Austerity may therefore be contributing to geographical inequalities in community vulnerability to GI infections. Staff should be supported in using risk assessment tools as they adapt their work practices to accommodate the impact of cuts. Illuminating these inequalities allows community vulnerability to GI infections to be more effectively targeted through policy measures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.