Coproduction and partnership with people and communities

Investigating health and social outcomes of the Big Local community empowerment initiative in England: a mixed method evaluation

Background

Most research on community empowerment provides evidence on engaging communities for health promotion purposes rather than attempts to create empowering conditions. This study addresses this gap.

Intervention

Big Local started in 2010 with £271M from the National Lottery. Ending in 2026, it gives 150 relatively disadvantaged communities in England control over £1M to improve their neighbourhoods.

Objective

To investigate health and social outcomes, at the population level and among engaged residents, of the community engagement approach adopted in a place-based empowerment initiative.

Study design, data sources and outcome variables

This study reports on the third wave of a longitudinal mixed-methods evaluation. Work package 1 used a difference-in-differences design to investigate the impact of Big Local on population outcomes in all 150 Big Local areas compared to matched comparator areas using secondary data. The primary outcome was anxiety; secondary outcomes included a population mental health measure and crime in the neighbourhood. Work package 2 assessed active engagement in Big Local using cross-sectional data and nested cohort data from a biannual survey of Big Local partnership members. The primary outcome was mental well-being and the secondary outcome was self-rated health. Work package 3 conducted qualitative research in 14 Big Local neighbourhoods and nationally to understand pathways to impact. Work package 4 undertook a cost-benefit analysis using the life satisfaction approach to value the benefits of Big Local, which used the work package 1 estimate of Big Local impact on life satisfaction.

Results

At a population level, the impacts on 'reporting high anxiety' (-0.8 percentage points, 95% confidence interval -2.4 to 0.7) and secondary outcomes were not statistically significant, except burglary (-0.054 change in z-score, 95% confidence interval -0.100 to -0.009). There was some effect on reduced anxiety after 2017. Areas progressing fastest had a statistically significant reduction in population mental health measure (-0.053 change in z-score, 95% confidence interval -0.103 to -0.002). Mixed results were found among engaged residents, including a significant increase in mental well-being in Big Local residents in the nested cohort in 2018, but not by 2020; this is likely to be COVID-19. More highly educated residents, and males, were more likely to report a significant improvement in mental well-being. Qualitative accounts of positive impacts on mental well-being are often related to improved social connectivity and physical/material environments. Qualitative data revealed increasing capabilities for residents' collective control. Some negative impacts were reported, with local factors sometimes undermining residents' ability to exercise collective control. Finally, on the most conservative estimate, the cost-benefit calculations generate a net benefit estimate of £64M.

Main limitations

COVID-19 impacted fieldwork and interpretation of survey data. There was a short 4-year follow-up (2016/20), no comparators in work package 2 and a lack of power to look at variations across areas.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest the need for investment to support community organisations to emerge from and work with communities. Residents should lead the prioritisation of issues and design of solutions but not necessarily lead action; rather, agencies should work as equal partners with communities to deliver change.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research Programme (16/09/13) and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 11, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Embedding coproduction in organisational culture and practice: a case study

PURPOSE

This paper aims to explore the challenges of coproduction at individual, team, service, organisational and system level and critically describes the work of one organization to describe ways in which coproduction can be facilitated.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

This is a case study of the approaches developed (coproduced) within an independent not-for-profit mental health consultancy organization to facilitate coproduction at every level.

FINDINGS

Although much is published about coproduction in research, there is relatively little guidance relating to coproduction in practice. This paper describes the meaning, purpose and impact of coproduction at different levels and gives examples of how it can be achieved. The learning from his work is drawn together to present a series of findings with recommendations including: inclusion, managing power difference, accommodating difference, generating new ways forward rather than debating and selecting existing options.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

The literature on coproduction in practice is replete with guidance rather than examples of good practice. It is also apparent that the ambition for coproduction has progressed rapidly from coproduction between service providers and people using services to coproduction with all relevant stakeholders. This paper provides contemporary examples of coproduction in different forms and at different levels with attention to ways of overcoming challenges.

System resilience and neighbourhood action on social determinants of health inequalities: an English Case Study

AIMS

This article seeks to make the case for a new approach to understanding and nurturing resilience as a foundation for effective place-based co-produced local action on social and health inequalities.

METHODS

A narrative review of literature on community resilience from a public health perspective was conducted and a new concept of neighbourhood system resilience was developed. This then shaped the development of a practical programme of action research implemented in nine socio-economically disadvantaged neighbourhoods in North West England between 2014 and 2019. This Neighbourhood Resilience Programme (NRP) was evaluated using a mixed-method design comprising: (1) a longitudinal household survey, conducted in each of the Neighbourhoods For Learning (NFLs) and in nine comparator areas in two waves (2015/2016 and 2018/2019) and completed in each phase by approximately 3000 households; (2) reflexive journals kept by the academic team; and (3) semi-structured interviews on perceptions about the impacts of the programme with 41 participants in 2019.

RESULTS

A difference-in-difference analysis of household survey data showed a statistically significant increase of 7.5% (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.6 to 13.5) in the percentage of residents reporting that they felt able to influence local decision-making in the NFLs relative to the residents in comparator areas, but no effect attributable to the NRP in other evaluative measures. The analysis of participant interviews identified beneficial impacts of the NRP in five resilience domains: social connectivity, cultural coherence, local decision-making, economic activity, and the local environment.

CONCLUSION

Our findings support the need for a shift away from interventions that seek solely to enhance the resilience of lay communities to interventions that recognise resilience as a whole systems phenomenon. Systemic approaches to resilience can provide the underpinning foundation for effective co-produced local action on social and health inequalities, but they require intensive relational work by all participating system players.