Cited by 69Health disparities and outcomesMaternal and Neonatal HealthcarePublic Health and Social Inequalities

The impact of New Labour’s English health inequalities strategy on geographical inequalities in infant mortality: a time-trend analysis

Open access
Robinson, Tomos, Brown, Heather, Norman, Paul D, Fraser, Lorna K, Barr, Ben, Bambra, Clare·2019·Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health

Abstract

Background: The English health inequalities strategy (1999–2010) aimed to reduce health inequalities between the most deprived local authorities and the rest of England. The multifaceted strategy included increased investment in healthcare, the early years, education and neighbourhood renewal. The objective of this study was to investigate whether the strategy was associated with a reduction in geographical inequalities in the infant mortality rate (IMR). Methods: We used segmented regression analysis to measure inequalities in the IMR between the most deprived local authorities and the rest of England before, during and after the health inequalities strategy period. Results: Before the strategy was implemented (1983–1998), absolute inequalities in the IMR increased between the most deprived local authorities and the rest of England at a rate of 0.034 annually (95% CI 0.001 to 0.067). Once the strategy had been implemented (1999–2010), absolute inequalities decreased at a rate of −0.116 annually (95% CI −0.178 to −0.053). After the strategy period ended (2011–2017), absolute inequalities increased at a rate of 0.042 annually (95% CI −0.042 to 0.125). Relative inequalities also marginally decreased during the strategy period. Conclusion: The English health inequalities strategy period was associated with a decline in geographical inequalities in the IMR. This research adds to the evidence base suggesting that the English health inequalities strategy was at least partially effective in reducing health inequalities, and that current austerity policies may undermine these gains.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/jech-2018-211679

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Robinson, T., Brown, H., Norman, P. D., Fraser, L. K., Barr, B., & Bambra, C.
Affiliations
  • Newcastle University (GB)
  • University of Leeds (GB)
  • University of York (GB)
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
Corresponding author
Bambra, Clare
Venue
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2019-03-19
Volume
73
Issue
6
Pages
564-568
ISSN
  • 0141-7681 (ISSN-L)
  • 0143-005X
  • 1470-2738
OpenAlex
W2924492801
Cited by
69
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 4
FWCI
10.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • FUSE, the Centre for Translational Research in Public Health (MR/K02325X/1)
  • The Leverhulme Trust (RL-2012-006)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Health › Public Health and Social Inequalities
Keywords
infant mortality, socioeconomic deprivation, health policy evaluation, austerity, England
MeSH terms
Delivery of Health Care, England, Female, Geography, Health Policy, Humans, Infant, Infant Mortality, Male, Poverty Areas, Residence Characteristics, Socioeconomic Factors, State Medicine, Resource Allocation, Health Status Disparities, Healthcare Disparities

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review