The challenges of using upstream policy instruments to reduce health inequalities: a qualitative study in the UK
Abstract
Background: In the UK, local government public health departments have responsibilities for health inequalities in their populations. Addressing these is an enduring challenge, given that the determinants of health equity lie in other sectors. A central government programme, Levelling Up, provided funds for action related to determinants of health. This study aimed to explore how these national policy instruments were used at local level to address health determinants.
Methods: To identify how Levelling Up funds had been used locally, we undertook a content analysis of 107 documents from 15 English local authorities, sampled for diversity of geographic location and authority type across areas of high disadvantage. To understand how local policy actors navigated policy instruments for health equity, we conducted a thematic content analysis of data from five workshops ( N = 60 participants) with local public health actors from four English regions.
Results: Levelling Up was widely described as an incoherent policy programme, misaligned with local framings of action on, and priorities for, health equity. However, central signaling of the necessity of intersectoral action was reported as useful, and local authorities had pragmatically engaged with Levelling Up to access funds for a diverse range of initiatives. Reported challenges were the high transaction costs of bidding for funding; opaque selection criteria; tensions between actions addressing national inequalities (which prompted regeneration in under-served places) and local inequalities (where new infrastructure was rarely a priority); and lack of congruence between funding arrangements (with one government department responsible) and local government organization, where leadership for Levelling Up was typically dispersed across the authority.
Conclusions: Leveraging intersectoral work for health equity will always be challenging; analysis of local actors’ perspectives suggests that this is particularly acute where there are tensions between actions needed to address inequalities between areas and those within local areas. To better support local public health actors, policy instruments such as central funding could be devolved more fully to the local implementation level, to ensure better alignment with democratically identified local priorities, and to minimize heavy (and inequitable) transaction costs.
Related
- Health taxes and universal health coverage in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review of pathways, challenges and policy lessons.
- Pet-inclusive housing as a social determinant of health: a multi-stakeholder qualitative study of rental policy and health equity
- Strategic Policy Approaches to Advancing Interdisciplinary Nursing Research: Challenges and directions for systemic change
- Drug repurposing and treatment optimisation in oncology: regulatory challenges and policy priorities
- Assessing maternal nutrition policy and programmatic landscape in India: a qualitative study.
BibTeX
@article{ward2026challenges,
title = {{The challenges of using upstream policy instruments to reduce health inequalities: a qualitative study in the UK}},
author = {Fiona Ward and Matilda Attrill and Judith Green and Emma Halliday and Rebecca Mead and Jennie Popay},
journal = {BMC Public Health},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1186/s12889-026-29954-x},
url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12889-026-29954-x},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - The challenges of using upstream policy instruments to reduce health inequalities: a qualitative study in the UK
AU - Fiona Ward
AU - Matilda Attrill
AU - Judith Green
AU - Emma Halliday
AU - Rebecca Mead
AU - Jennie Popay
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/29
JO - BMC Public Health
DO - 10.1186/s12889-026-29954-x
UR - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12889-026-29954-x
AB - Background: In the UK, local government public health departments have responsibilities for health inequalities in their populations. Addressing these is an enduring challenge, given that the determinants of health equity lie in other sectors. A central government programme, Levelling Up, provided funds for action related to determinants of health. This study aimed to explore how these national policy instruments were used at local level to address health determinants. Methods: To identify how Levelling Up funds had been used locally, we undertook a content analysis of 107 documents from 15 English local authorities, sampled for diversity of geographic location and authority type across areas of high disadvantage. To understand how local policy actors navigated policy instruments for health equity, we conducted a thematic content analysis of data from five workshops ( N = 60 participants) with local public health actors from four English regions. Results: Levelling Up was widely described as an incoherent policy programme, misaligned with local framings of action on, and priorities for, health equity. However, central signaling of the necessity of intersectoral action was reported as useful, and local authorities had pragmatically engaged with Levelling Up to access funds for a diverse range of initiatives. Reported challenges were the high transaction costs of bidding for funding; opaque selection criteria; tensions between actions addressing national inequalities (which prompted regeneration in under-served places) and local inequalities (where new infrastructure was rarely a priority); and lack of congruence between funding arrangements (with one government department responsible) and local government organization, where leadership for Levelling Up was typically dispersed across the authority. Conclusions: Leveraging intersectoral work for health equity will always be challenging; analysis of local actors’ perspectives suggests that this is particularly acute where there are tensions between actions needed to address inequalities between areas and those within local areas. To better support local public health actors, policy instruments such as central funding could be devolved more fully to the local implementation level, to ensure better alignment with democratically identified local priorities, and to minimize heavy (and inequitable) transaction costs.
SN - 1471-2458
ER -