Public health and fuel poverty
As a part of the Panel’s continuing work on fuel poverty and health, two new pieces of research were published today. The first, undertaken by Vanessa Kleinheinz, the Panel’s Scottish Graduate School of Social Sciences (SGSSS) PhD intern, explores the ways fuel poverty and public health policy interact in the Scottish Government. Vanessa reflected on these findings as well as her experience undertaking a SGSSS Internship in a blog published earlier in the year. Her headline finding is that there is currently very little interaction between fuel poverty and public health policy in Scotland. The current Fuel Poverty Strategy covers several policy areas, but health receives little attention, with only two out of 55 strategy actions directly addressing health. There is a need health to be better accounted for in fuel poverty policy, and for fuel poverty to be better accounted for in health policy, including an understanding and recognition of the complex interaction between the fitting of energy efficiency measures and their impact on health.
The second piece of research, undertaken by the Panel’s Analytical Manager, considers UK case studies of interventions which target both fuel poverty and health. 17 case studies were identified which were grouped into three themes: social prescribing; multi-agency collaboration, and effective use of data. Cross-cutting case study findings indicate that these dual-focused interventions can have positive impacts on wellbeing, comfort, and wider determinants of health, although there is limited robust evidence of long-term clinical health outcomes. Success is strongly associated with cross-sector collaboration, integration within existing healthcare systems, and person-centred, holistic approaches.
However, most initiatives focus on supporting people with existing conditions rather than preventing ill health before it occurs. Furthermore, several challenges remain, including difficulties in identifying and engaging eligible households, securing long-term funding to sustain and expand programmes, and overcoming barriers related to data access, linkage, and governance. Limited evaluation capacity further constrains the ability to demonstrate impact and support the scaling of successful interventions.
In terms of theme specific findings, the following was concluded:
- Social prescribing – evidence of health impact is stronger for larger and better-evaluated social prescribing pilots. In order for the projects to work optimally, data should be used effectively to identify eligible populations and support scaling. There is also a need for effective collaboration between health fuel professionals and those specialising in fuel poverty, and a requirement for sustainable funding.
- Multi-agency collaboration – when establishing projects, it is important to work with existing organisations and community networks in order to increase reach in local communities. These partnership-based approaches often have a positive impact on the wider determinants of health, including stress and isolation. However, consideration needs to be given to capacity and budget constraints of partners, including local authorities, GPs and other health services, and the third sector.
- Effective use of data – the identified case studies show that the use of analytics and dashboards can support more effective population health management and intervention design, as well as improve the identification and targeting of households most likely to benefit from interventions. Furthermore, toolkits and shared methodologies can support replication across regions but consideration needs to be given to what data proxies are appropriate for identifying fuel poverty risk.
The Panel are currently reflecting on these findings and intend to build learnings into their wider advice to the Scottish Government on their upcoming refreshed Fuel Poverty Strategy. The Panel’s initial thinking can be found in the meeting minute from the 30th of June.