Integrated neighbourhood working and asset-based approaches

Key messages

• the review synthesises evidence from over 100 UK documents on neighbourhood and asset-based working
• integrated neighbourhood approaches are associated with improved wellbeing and reduced social isolation
• positive outcomes are most evident where councils, the NHS and voluntary organisations work together
• equity outcomes are strongest when residents are actively involved in design and control of resources
• co-production and community leadership are central to effective neighbourhood working.

Policy implications

• neighbourhood health and care models should prioritise co-production with residents
• asset-based approaches may help shift services from deficit-based to strengths-based models
• partnership working across statutory and voluntary sectors is critical to delivery
• evaluation frameworks are needed to better evidence outcomes and equity impacts.

Gaps

• much of the evidence is based on case studies and descriptive accounts
• limited use of consistent metrics across neighbourhood initiatives
• lack of robust evaluation linking neighbourhood working to long-term outcomes
• limited comparative evidence on what works best in different contexts.

Commentary
This literature review brings together a substantial body of UK evidence on integrated neighbourhood working and asset-based approaches. It highlights how collaboration between councils, the NHS and voluntary organisations can support wellbeing and reduce isolation at neighbourhood level.

From a care equity perspective, the review’s strongest finding relates to co-production. Where residents are involved in shaping priorities and controlling resources, neighbourhood approaches are more likely to address local need and reduce unequal access to support.

The emphasis on asset-based working reflects a shift away from service-led models towards approaches that recognise community strengths. This aligns with neighbourhood health and care ambitions to build trust, improve engagement and tailor support to local context.

However, the review also highlights limitations in the evidence base. Many examples are anecdotal, with limited measurement of outcomes or equity impacts. This makes it difficult to assess scalability or to compare neighbourhood models systematically.

Overall, the review supports neighbourhood health and care as a promising approach for improving wellbeing and equity, but highlights the need for stronger evaluation and clearer metrics to understand how and for whom these approaches deliver benefit.