Protocol for a mixed methods study investigating the impact of investment in housing, regeneration and neighbourhood renewal on the health and wellbeing of residents: the GoWell programme

BackgroundThere is little robust evidence to test the policy assumption that housing-led area regeneration strategies will contribute to health improvement and reduce social inequalities in health. The GoWell Programme has been designed to measure effects on health and wellbeing of multi-faceted regeneration interventions on residents of disadvantaged neighbourhoods in the city of Glasgow, Scotland.Methods/DesignThis mixed methods study focused (initially) on 14 disadvantaged neighbourhoods experiencing regeneration. These were grouped by intervention into 5 categories for comparison. GoWell includes a pre-intervention householder survey (n = 6008) and three follow-up repeat-cross sectional surveys held at two or three year intervals (the main focus of this protocol) conducted alongside a nested longitudinal study of residents from 6 of those areas. Self-reported responses from face-to-face questionnaires are analysed along with various routinely produced ecological data and documentary sources to build a picture of the changes taking place, their cost and impacts on residents and communities. Qualitative methods include interviews and focus groups of residents, housing managers and other stakeholders exploring issues such as the neighbourhood context, potential pathways from regeneration to health, community engagement and empowerment.DiscussionUrban regeneration programmes are 'natural experiments.' They are complex interventions that may impact upon social determinants of population health and wellbeing. Measuring the effects of such interventions is notoriously challenging. GoWell compares the health and wellbeing effects of different approaches to regeneration, generates theory on pathways from regeneration to health and explores the attitudes and responses of residents and other stakeholders to neighbourhood change.

[1]  H. Meltzer,et al.  Psychiatric morbidity among adults living in private households, 2000 , 2003, International review of psychiatry.

[2]  M. Scriven,et al.  Perspectives of curriculum evaluation , 1968 .

[3]  M. Petticrew,et al.  Giving urban policy its 'medical': assessing the place of health in area-based regeneration , 2006 .

[4]  M. Petticrew,et al.  Do urban regeneration programmes improve public health and reduce health inequalities? A synthesis of the evidence from UK policy and practice (1980–2004) , 2006, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

[5]  P. Kenway,et al.  MONITORING POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN SCOTLAND 2015 , 2006 .

[6]  L. Hiller,et al.  The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): development and UK validation , 2007, Health and quality of life outcomes.

[7]  A. Kearns,et al.  How will area regeneration impact on health? Learning from the GoWell study. , 2010, Public health.

[8]  M. Petticrew,et al.  The SHARP study: a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the short-term outcomes of housing and neighbourhood renewal , 2009, BMC public health.

[9]  Alan Shiell,et al.  Complex interventions or complex systems? Implications for health economic evaluation , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[10]  C. Palmer Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion in Scotland 2004 , 2004 .

[11]  M. Scriven The methodology of evaluation , 1966 .

[12]  Don Nutbeam,et al.  How does evidence influence public health policy? Tackling health inequalities in England , 2003 .

[13]  H Thomson,et al.  Health effects of housing improvement: systematic review of intervention studies , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[14]  S M Hunt,et al.  Damp housing, mould growth, and symptomatic health state. , 1989, BMJ.

[15]  M. Petticrew,et al.  The health impacts of housing improvement: a systematic review of intervention studies from 1887 to 2007. , 2009, American journal of public health.

[16]  H. Graham,et al.  Evidence for public health policy on inequalities: 1: The reality according to policymakers , 2004, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

[17]  H. Graham,et al.  Evidence for public health policy on inequalities: 2: Assembling the evidence jigsaw , 2004, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

[18]  M. Petticrew,et al.  Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[19]  D. Walsh,et al.  Let Glasgow Flourish , 1994 .

[20]  P. Kenway,et al.  Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion , 2003 .

[21]  Howard Meltzer,et al.  The prevalence of psychiatric morbidity among adults living in private households , 1995 .

[22]  H. Thomson A dose of realism for healthy urban policy: lessons from area-based initiatives in the UK , 2008, Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health.

[23]  Sharon Friel,et al.  Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health , 2008, The Lancet.

[24]  A. Kearns,et al.  Regeneration and health: Conceptualising the connections , 2009 .

[25]  M. Petticrew,et al.  Natural experiments: an underused tool for public health? , 2005, Public health.