Abstract
Abstract
Background
Housing is an important wider determinant of health. Private Rented Sector (PRS) housing is generally the worst quality of housing stock across tenures. Although a wide range of interventions are available to local governments to manage and improve the quality of PRS housing and therefore the health of tenants, there is limited evidence about the extent to which these are used. This study aims to explore what drives the use of different interventions in different local governments, to better understand and inform local strategies.
Methods
As the first realist evaluation on this topic, the range of available interventions was informed by a Local Government Association toolkit. Consistent with realist approaches, retroductive analysis of intervention-context-mechanism-outcome configurations helped to develop and refine Initial Programme Theories (IPTs). Data sources included local government housing documents, a survey and eleven semi-structured interviews with housing officers.
Results
Using data for 22 out of the 30 local governments in the South West region of the United Kingdom, eight IPTs were developed which act on different levels from individual PRS team leaders to system wide. The IPTs include a belief in market forces, risk adverse to legal challenge, attitude to enforcement, relational approaches to partnership working, job security and renumeration, financial incentives drive action, and system-level understanding of the drivers of poor health, inequalities and opportunities for cost-savings. The findings suggest that limited objective health outcomes are being used to understand impact, which hinders interpretation of the effectiveness of all mechanisms.
Conclusion
Interventions that bring about positive outcomes in managing PRS housing are unlikely to be universal; they depend on the context which differs across place and over time. The proposed IPTs highlight the need for strategies to be tailored considering the local context and should be evaluated in subsequent phases of study.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference43 articles.
1. Gibson M, Petticrew M, Bambra C, Sowden A, Wright K, Whitehead M. Housing and health inequalities: A synthesis of systematic reviews of interventions aimed at different pathways linking housing and health. Health Place. 2011;17(1):175–84.
2. World Health Organisation (WHO). WHO Housing and health guidelines. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018.
3. Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS): Guidance for Landlords and Property-Related Professionals. London: DCLG; 2006.
4. Ige J, Pilkington P, Orme J, Williams B, Prestwood E, Black D, et al. The relationship between buildings and health: a systematic review. J Public Health (Oxf). 2020;41(2):121–32.
5. Woetzel, J., Ram, S., Mischke, J., Garemo, N., and Sankhe, S. (2014). A blueprint for addressing the global affordable housing challenge. McKinsey Global Institute. Available from: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/featured%20insights/urbanization/tackling%20the%20worlds%20affordable%20housing%20challenge/mgi_affordable_housing_executive%20summary_october%202014.ashx Accessed 21 July 2022.