Key statistics

Key messages

Policy implications

Gaps

Commentary
This study identifies a clear equity issue in the distribution of social care funding for people with intellectual disabilities. Local authorities with higher levels of deprivation support more individuals with intellectual disabilities but do not receive or allocate proportionately greater resources. This mismatch between need and funding creates a structural disadvantage for people living in more deprived areas.

From a care equity perspective, this finding is particularly significant. When funding does not reflect population need, local authorities face constraints in service availability, workforce capacity and quality of provision. Over time, this risks entrenching place-based inequities, where access to adequate support depends on where a person lives rather than their level of need.

The absence of effects related to rurality or political leadership suggests that these inequities are systemic rather than incidental. This points towards national funding mechanisms that insufficiently weight deprivation and prevalence, rather than local decision-making alone. As a result, local authorities with the greatest challenges may be least able to respond effectively.

For people with intellectual disabilities, these structural funding gaps can translate into reduced access to personalised support, longer waiting times and greater pressure on families and unpaid carers. Without adjustment, funding arrangements risk reproducing inequality rather than mitigating it.

Addressing these inequities requires a shift towards needs-based resource allocation that explicitly recognises socioeconomic context. Ensuring equitable access to social care for people with intellectual disabilities depends not only on local practice, but on national systems that distribute resources in line with demand and complexity of need.

Key statistics 

Key messages 

Policy implications 

Gaps 

Commentary 

This study examines the health and care needs of people experiencing homelessness who attend emergency care services in rural and coastal areas of North-East England. It uses routinely collected hospital data from Northumberland and North Tyneside to explore patterns of emergency department use and underlying health conditions. 

The findings show that people experiencing homelessness frequently present to emergency care services with complex and overlapping needs. Substance use, mental health conditions and social problems were among the most common reasons for attendance. Around one third of visits involved multiple diagnoses, highlighting the high levels of comorbidity within this population. 

Emergency departments often become a key point of access to care for people experiencing homelessness. Barriers to primary care, difficulties registering with a GP and limited availability of community services can all contribute to reliance on emergency services. 

Geography also plays an important role. Rural and coastal areas tend to have fewer specialised services, limited public transport and greater distances between service providers. These factors can make it more difficult for people experiencing homelessness to access continuous support, increasing the likelihood of emergency care use. 

From a social care equity perspective, the study highlights how homelessness intersects with geographic disadvantage. People experiencing homelessness in rural and coastal areas may face additional barriers compared with those in urban areas, including limited service availability and hidden forms of homelessness. 

The findings suggest that improving coordination between health services, housing support and community organisations could help address these challenges. Integrated approaches that address housing, health and social needs together may reduce emergency department reliance and improve outcomes for this population. 

Key messages 

Policy implications 

Gaps 

Commentary 

This commentary explores how the Covid-19 pandemic brought new attention to the role of the home in everyday care. During lockdowns, many people spent far more time at home than usual. This shift made housing conditions more visible as an important factor affecting wellbeing and the ability to provide care. 

Homes are often the main place where people care for themselves and others. Everyday activities such as cooking, resting, maintaining hygiene and supporting family members all take place within the home environment. When housing conditions are inadequate, these basic forms of care become more difficult. 

The pandemic highlighted how housing conditions vary widely across society. Some people had access to larger homes, gardens or nearby green space, which helped them cope with restrictions. Others lived in small or overcrowded homes, sometimes without outdoor space or with limited privacy. These differences shaped people’s experiences of lockdown. 

Housing conditions also interact with wider social factors such as income, gender and employment. For example, many households experienced increased unpaid care responsibilities during the pandemic, particularly childcare and support for relatives. People with fewer financial resources or insecure housing were often less able to manage these pressures. 

Neighbourhood environments also played a role. Access to local services, shops, parks and supportive communities influenced how easily people could maintain social connections and support networks during lockdown. 

From a health and social care equity perspective, the article highlights the importance of recognising housing as part of the wider infrastructure that supports care. Policies that improve housing quality, affordability and neighbourhood conditions may help strengthen people’s ability to care for themselves and others. 

Overall, the pandemic revealed how housing and care are deeply connected. Improving housing conditions and addressing structural housing inequities could play an important role in supporting wellbeing and strengthening care systems in the future. 

Key statistics 

Key messages 

Policy implications 

Gaps 

Commentary 
This report examines how housing conditions affect the health, wellbeing and care needs of older people in England, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. It highlights the central role that the home plays in supporting health and independence later in life. 

A key finding is that a large number of older people live in homes that do not meet acceptable housing standards. Around two million non-decent homes are occupied by older people, often containing hazards such as excess cold, poor repair or risks of falls. These housing conditions can contribute to a range of health problems including respiratory illness, heart disease and injury from accidents. 

The pandemic reinforced the importance of housing quality. During lockdowns, many older people spent almost all of their time at home, which intensified the effects of living in unsuitable or unhealthy housing. Poor housing conditions were associated with worsening physical health, mental health challenges and greater social isolation. 

Housing conditions also affect how health and social care systems function. For example, unsafe or inaccessible homes can delay hospital discharge, increase the risk of hospital readmission and make it more difficult for people to receive care at home. The report highlights the importance of home adaptations, such as grab rails, stair lifts and accessible bathrooms, which can help older people remain independent and reduce demand on health and social care services. 

Unpaid carers are another important part of this picture. Many carers experienced increased responsibilities during the pandemic as formal services were disrupted. Providing care in homes that are cold, unsafe or unsuitable can create additional strain for carers and increase risks for both carers and those receiving care. 

From a care equity perspective, housing conditions are unevenly distributed across society. Poor housing is more common among people with lower incomes and in disadvantaged areas. These housing inequities contribute to wider health inequities by increasing the risk of illness and reducing the ability of people to remain independent in later life. 

Overall, the report argues that improving housing conditions should be considered a core component of health and social care policy. Targeted investment in housing improvements and adaptations could support healthy ageing, reduce pressure on health and social care services and address wider inequities in health outcomes.

Key messages 

Policy implications 

Gaps 

Commentary 
This study looks at how access to care homes varies across Wales depending on where people live. The researchers mapped the location of care homes and compared this with the distribution of older people who may need residential care. This helps show whether some areas have better access to care home places than others. 

The results show that care homes are not evenly distributed. More homes tend to be located in urban areas and the post-industrial valleys of south-east Wales. However, these areas also have larger older populations, which means demand for care home places is higher. As a result, the actual availability of places may not be as high as the number of homes suggests. 

Some rural areas appear to have a better balance between the number of places and the number of older residents. However, people in these areas may still face challenges because care homes are further apart and travel distances can be longer. This can make it harder for families to visit relatives and for people to remain close to their communities when they move into residential care. 

The study also highlights how the organisation of the care sector affects access. In Wales, most care homes are run by independent providers rather than local authorities. This means the location of homes is partly shaped by market conditions and business decisions, not just local need. Areas that are less profitable or harder to operate in may therefore have fewer services. 

These patterns matter for care equity. If some communities have fewer nearby care homes, people living there may have fewer choices or may need to move further away from their families and support networks. This can affect wellbeing and continuity of care. 

Overall, the study shows that looking at where services are located, and where people live, can help policymakers understand where gaps in care provision exist. This kind of analysis can support better planning of care home services and help ensure that access to residential care is more evenly distributed across regions.

Key statistics 

Key messages 

Policy implications 

Gaps  

Commentary 
This study examines mental health emergencies attended by ambulance services in rural England during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ambulance services often act as the first point of contact for people experiencing acute mental health crises, particularly when other services are difficult to access. 

The findings show that people attended by ambulances in rural areas were more likely to present with behavioural disturbance, suicidal thoughts or actions, and anxiety-related crises. These types of emergencies often require specialist mental health support, yet access to such services can be more limited in rural areas. 

Rural ambulance services also face practical challenges that differ from urban settings. Longer travel distances, fewer nearby healthcare facilities and limited availability of specialist services can affect response times and the type of support that can be provided during an emergency. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many community and mental health services experienced disruption. As a result, ambulance services often became an important entry point into care for people experiencing acute distress. 

From a health and social care equity perspective, the study highlights how geographical location can shape access to crisis support. People living in rural areas may have fewer options for urgent mental health care and may rely more heavily on emergency services. This can place additional pressure on ambulance services and may delay access to specialist support. 

Overall, the findings suggest that improving access to community mental health services and crisis support in rural areas could reduce reliance on emergency responses and help ensure more equitable access to mental health care.

Key statistics 

Key messages 

Policy implications 

Gaps 

Commentary 

These studies highlight consistent barriers to accessing dementia care across European settings, particularly for underserved populations. A key finding is that receiving a diagnosis does not guarantee access to appropriate support, with many individuals and carers facing ongoing challenges navigating complex and fragmented systems. 

A dominant theme across both studies is lack of awareness. Individuals often do not know what services are available or how to access them, and in many cases must actively search for support themselves. This creates an access barrier that disproportionately affects those with lower health literacy or fewer resources. 

System fragmentation further compounds these issues. The absence of a single point of contact or care coordinator means that individuals and carers are required to navigate multiple services independently. Evidence from the Netherlands suggests that having a care navigator can improve access, highlighting a potential model for wider implementation. 

Cultural and language barriers are also significant. People from minority ethnic backgrounds may face additional stigma, lack of culturally appropriate services and difficulties accessing information, contributing to lower service use. These factors illustrate how structural inequalities translate into inequities in access to care. 

Financial barriers are another key issue. Many services require partial or full self-funding, which limits access for those with fewer financial resources. This reinforces existing socio-economic inequalities and aligns with broader patterns seen in social care access. 

From a care equity perspective, these findings show how multiple barriers interact. Factors such as geography, culture, income and system design combine to shape access to dementia care. Without targeted policy action, these inequities are likely to persist, particularly for underserved groups who already face disadvantages in accessing support. 

Overall, the evidence suggests that improving dementia care access requires coordinated system-level change, alongside culturally sensitive and financially accessible services.

Key messages 

Policy implications 

Gaps 

Commentary 
This report draws on learning from a national inclusion health leadership programme involving Integrated Care Systems and partner organisations. It explores how collaborative approaches can improve outcomes for people experiencing severe social exclusion. 

The report highlights that inclusion health groups, including people experiencing homelessness and other forms of extreme marginalisation, often face complex and overlapping health and social needs. Fragmented services and poor coordination across sectors can make it difficult for individuals to access consistent care and support. 

A central theme of the report is the importance of collaboration across organisations. Integrated working between health services, social care, housing providers and voluntary sector organisations is presented as a key mechanism for addressing the structural drivers of exclusion and improving service access. 

From a care equity perspective, the findings emphasise that people experiencing the most severe forms of exclusion often face the greatest barriers to accessing health and care services. Without targeted action, these populations risk remaining outside mainstream service pathways and continuing to experience poorer health and care outcomes. 

The report suggests that progress requires leadership at both national and local levels. Strategic commitment, improved data, stronger partnerships and meaningful involvement of people with lived experience are identified as essential components for reducing inequities in access to care and improving outcomes for inclusion health groups. 

Key Messages:

Commentary:

The “Delivering with Dignity” framework plays a key role in advancing social care equity by promoting inclusive, person-centred care approaches. It addresses the structural barriers and stigma often faced by marginalised groups, including asylum seekers. The framework’s focus on dignity is critical in reducing disparities caused by systemic inequities, especially in contexts where discrimination or cultural misunderstandings limit access to appropriate care.

By emphasising the importance of training for frontline staff, collaborative practices across sectors, and community engagement, the framework offers actionable strategies to reshape care environments. These recommendations aim to ensure equitable access to dignified support, aligning with broader social care equity goals. The integration of dignity principles into service delivery fosters an environment where all individuals, regardless of their background, can receive respectful and effective care.

Gaps/limitations:

There is a lack of intersectional research on the experiences of subgroups, such as disabled or LGBTQI+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning) asylum seekers. These groups’ specific barriers and enablers remain under-researched, often due to challenges in engaging such populations in research, leaving gaps in the evidence base.

Key statistics

Key messages

Policy implications

Gaps

Commentary
This briefing highlights persistent inequities faced by Black, Asian and minority ethnic carers in accessing social care support. Cultural, linguistic and systemic barriers contribute to exclusion from services intended to meet carers’ needs, despite high levels of caring intensity within these communities.

The recommended practices outlined offer practical steps towards more inclusive provision. Cultural competence training, community partnerships and co-produced resources reflect approaches that recognise diversity and lived experience.

However, the evidence base remains limited. While case studies provide useful insights, the lack of robust quantitative evaluation makes it difficult to assess whether these approaches reduce inequities at scale.

From a care equity perspective, addressing these gaps is essential. Without stronger evidence on effectiveness and outcomes, good practice risks remaining localised rather than driving system-wide change that ensures equitable access and support for all carers. 

Further reading 

Key messages 

Policy implications 

Gaps 

Commentary 
This study explores how asylum support operates in practice in the UK, focusing on the role civil society organisations play in supporting asylum seekers. The analysis shows that restrictive asylum policies create conditions in which individuals are unable to work and must rely on limited welfare payments. 

As a result, voluntary and community organisations frequently provide basic forms of assistance that fall outside formal state provision. These organisations help address immediate needs such as food security, social support and access to services. 

However, the study also highlights the uneven nature of this support. Civil society responses depend heavily on local resources, networks and organisational capacity, meaning that the level of support available can vary significantly across different areas. 

From a care inequities perspective, the findings illustrate how financial and policy structures shape access to support for asylum seekers. Low welfare payments and employment restrictions place individuals at heightened risk of poverty, while reliance on voluntary sector provision creates uneven access depending on geography. These dynamics demonstrate how financial inequities are embedded within the asylum support system and can influence individuals’ ability to access essential services, including health and social care. 

Overall, the study highlights the limitations of relying on civil society to compensate for policy gaps. Without structural policy change, the support available to asylum seekers is likely to remain unevenly distributed, reinforcing financial inequities in access to support and services.