ArticleBMJ open2026
How to measure the effectiveness of healthcare providers acting as an 'anchor institution': a case study of the NHS in Greater Manchester, England.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo improve social determinants of health, healthcare organisations can support societal and economic goals in their role as anchor institutions (large organisations with an important presence and ties to a place). In England, the National Health Service (NHS) Long Term Plan highlighted the role of the NHS as an Anchor. Despite a clear policy mandate on this, less is known about specific indicators to measure and benchmark anchor performance. A set of metrics was developed to quantify anchor activity using the Greater Manchester (GM) region in England as a case study.
designDescriptive cross-sectional study.
settingData were received on employment and procurement for the financial year 2022/2023 from NHS trusts located in GM. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Performance against two anchor metrics, local spending and employment, was assessed. 'Local' was defined as the Integrated Care Board (ICB) footprint in which the trusts are located. The proportion of procurement spend to the local economy was derived from procurement data. Employment data was aggregated by ethnicity codes and deprivation levels and compared with ICB-level ethnicity and deprivation profiles using the Index of Multiple Deprivation based on 2021 Census data.
resultsThe included trusts employed 65 597 residents of GM and spent £389 million on local procurement, demonstrating their importance as anchor organisations. Considerable variation was observed between trusts in local spending, ranging from 6.4% (95% CI 6.4% to 6.41%) to 52.7% (95% CI 52.69% to 52.72%) (with the mean at 21%). The percentage of locally employed staff ranged from 82.7% (95% CI 81.45% to 83.90%) to 89.5% (95% CI 89.12% to 89.95%). All trusts demonstrate strong workforce representation from minoritised ethnic groups, but most employed a lower proportion of staff from the most deprived areas than expected based on the local population profile.
conclusionsIt is feasible to quantify aspects of anchor activity using routine NHS data, and meaningful variation exists across trusts, even within a single health system. GM provides a useful case study, but further work is needed to embed anchor metrics in routine reporting and to extend measurement to other domains such as estates and sustainability.
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.