Key messages

• community participation is presented as central to effective integrated care
• neighbourhood-level approaches benefit from drawing on community assets and local knowledge
• case studies show how co-production can improve service responsiveness and trust
• addressing social determinants of health requires collaboration beyond traditional health services
• community-powered approaches support prevention and early intervention.

Policy implications

• neighbourhood health and care models should embed co-production as a core principle
• partnerships with voluntary and community sector organisations are essential
• service design should reflect local priorities and lived experience
• integrated care systems may need to shift power and decision-making closer to communities.

Gaps

• evidence is largely descriptive and based on case studies
• limited use of consistent metrics to assess impact
• lack of long-term evaluation of outcomes and equity effects.

Commentary
This report positions community participation as a foundational element of neighbourhood health and care. By emphasising co-production and asset-based approaches, it reframes integration as something built with communities rather than delivered to them.

The case studies illustrate how engaging residents can improve trust, relevance and responsiveness of services. From a care equity perspective, these approaches are particularly important for addressing social determinants of health that sit beyond the reach of clinical services alone.

The report also highlights the role of voluntary and community organisations as connectors between statutory services and local populations. Their involvement can support prevention, early intervention and more holistic responses to need.

However, the evidence base remains largely qualitative. While the principles are clearly articulated, there is limited evaluative data on outcomes or how community-powered approaches reduce inequalities over time. For neighbourhood health and care, this underlines the importance of pairing community participation with robust evaluation to understand impact and sustainability.

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.