These documents were produced through a collaboration between GLA, PHE London and Association of Directors of Public Health London. The wider impacts slide set pulls together a series of rapid evidence reviews and consultation conversations with key London stakeholders. The evidence reviews and stakeholder consultations were undertaken to explore the wider impacts of the pandemic on Londoners and the considerations for recovery within the context of improving population health outcomes. The information presented in the wider impact slides represents the emerging evidence available at the time of conducting the work (May-August 2020). The resource is not routinely updated and therefore further evidence reviews to identify more recent research and evidence should be considered alongside this resource. It is useful to look at this in conjunction with the ‘People and places in London most vulnerable to COVID-19 and its social and economic consequences’ report commissioned as part of this work programme and produced by the New Policy Institute. Additional work was also undertaken on the housing issues and priorities during COVID. A short report and examples of good practice are provided here. These reports are intended as a resource to support stakeholders in planning during the transition and recovery phase. However, they are also relevant to policy and decision-making as part of the ongoing response. The GLA have also commissioned the University of Manchester to undertake a rapid evidence review on inequalities in relation to COVID-19 and their effects on London.

This review summarizes the economic impacts of the pandemic on ethnic minorities, focusing on the city of Manchester. It utilizes multiple reporting sources to explore various dimensions of the economic shock in the UK, linking this to studies of pre-COVID-19 economic and ethnic composition in Manchester and in the combined authority area of Greater Manchester. We then make inferences about the pandemic's short-term impact specific to the city region. Greater Manchester has seen some of the highest rates of COVID-19 and as a result faced particularly stringent “lockdown” regulations. Manchester is the sixth most deprived Local Authority in England, according to 2019 English Indices of Multiple Deprivation. As a consequence, many neighborhoods in the city were always going to be less resilient to the economic shock caused by the pandemic compared with other, less-deprived, areas. Particular challenges for Manchester include the high rates of poor health, low-paid work, low qualifications, poor housing conditions and overcrowding. Ethnic minority groups also faced disparities long before the onset of the pandemic. Within the UK, ethnic minorities were found to be most disadvantaged in terms of employment and housing–particularly in large urban areas containing traditional settlement areas for ethnic minorities. Further, all Black, Asian, and Minority ethnic (BAME) groups in Greater Manchester were less likely to be employed pre-pandemic compared with White people. For example, people of Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnic backgrounds, especially women, have the lowest levels of employment in Greater Manchester. Finally, unprecedented cuts to public spending as a result of austerity have also disproportionately affected women of an ethnic minority background alongside disabled people, the young and those with no or low-level qualifications. This environment has created and sustained a multiplicative disadvantage for Manchester's ethnic minority residents through the course of the COVID-19 pandemic.

This dataset comprises of 16 anonymised interview transcripts with older adults aged 65 years and over living in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation in Manchester. These transcripts provide detail about participants' experiences of and attitudes towards engaging in physical activity in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. They were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

The Greater London Authority (GLA) commissioned the University of Manchester to conduct a rapid evidence review to document and understand the impact of COVID-19 (in terms of both health and the broader impacts on existing social and economic inequalities) on those with protected characteristics, as well as those living in poorer, or more precarious, socioeconomic circumstances, paying particular attention to its effect in London. The report provides the outcomes of the review, as well as a series of recommendations, which are focused on identifying tractable policy solutions in order to prevent, or mitigate, the inequalities in relation to protected characteristics and socioeconomic position that result from the COVID-19 pandemic and policy responses to it. Also available to download below is a spreadsheet documenting the formalised literature review searches.

These indicators are designed to accompany the SHMI publication. As of the July 2020 publication, COVID-19 activity has been excluded from the SHMI. The SHMI is not designed for this type of pandemic activity and the statistical modelling used to calculate the SHMI may not be as robust if such activity were included. There has been a fall in the number of spells for some trusts due to COVID-19 impacting on activity from March 2020 onwards and this appears to be an accurate reflection of hospital activity rather than a case of missing data. Contextual indicators on the number of provider spells which are excluded from the SHMI due to them being related to COVID-19 and on the number of provider spells as a percentage of pre-pandemic activity (January 2019 – December 2019) are produced to support the interpretation of the SHMI. These indicators are being published as experimental statistics. Experimental statistics are official statistics which are published in order to involve users and stakeholders in their development and as a means to build in quality at an early stage. Notes: 1. There is a shortfall in the number of records for Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RDU), Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (trust code R0A), Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RA2), and Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RRF). Values for these trusts are based on incomplete data and should therefore be interpreted with caution. 2. There is a high percentage of invalid diagnosis codes for Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RN5). Values for this trust should therefore be interpreted with caution. 3. A number of trusts are currently engaging in a pilot to submit Same Day Emergency Care (SDEC) data to the Emergency Care Data Set (ECDS), rather than the Admitted Patient Care (APC) dataset. As the SHMI is calculated using APC data, this does have the potential to impact on the SHMI value for these trusts. Trusts with SDEC activity removed from the APC data have generally seen an increase in the SHMI value. This is because the observed number of deaths remains approximately the same as the mortality rate for this cohort is very low; secondly, the expected number of deaths decreases because a large number of spells are removed, all of which would have had a small, non-zero risk of mortality contributing to the expected number of deaths. We are working to better understand the planned changes to the recording of SDEC activity and the potential impact on the SHMI. The trusts affected in this publication are: Barts Health NHS Trust (trust code R1H), Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RGT), Croydon Health Services NHS Trust (trust code RJ6), Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust (trust code RVR), Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RDU), Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (trust code RYJ), Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (trust code R0A), Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RM1), and University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RTG). 4. Further information on data quality can be found in the SHMI background quality report, which can be downloaded from the 'Resources' section of the publication page.

Title: Chai, Chat, Connect! – Submitted Application to National Lottery COVID-19 Response FundingDescription:This document is the full application submitted to the National Lottery COVID-19 Response Funding for Chai, Chat, Connect!, a culturally sensitive community support programme led by Manoranjan CIC and the fourth Published Work by Ria Meera Munshi. The application outlines the project’s vision to reduce isolation, improve wellbeing, and build digital confidence among South Asian women in Greater Manchester during the COVID-19 pandemic.Chai, Chat, Connect! was designed in response to community consultations and the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on South Asian communities. The programme includes facilitated Zoom sessions, creative activities, and follow-on social opportunities, all delivered in collaboration with local partners including Dipak Dristi, Khush Amdid, and HBWA.The application includes:Project summary and community-led rationaleFour-stage delivery plan with culturally sensitive facilitationBudget breakdown and resource allocationCommunity consultation findings and participant feedbackStrategic alignment with National Lottery priorities: bringing people together, supporting early intervention, and enabling potentialPlans for learning dissemination and future developmentThis document is relevant for funders, researchers, and practitioners in community arts, cultural engagement, and inclusive wellbeing. It demonstrates how a grassroots, heritage-led organisation can design and deliver responsive programming with lasting social impact.Production Company: Manoranjan CICFunding Statement: This project was supported by National Lottery COVID-19 Response Funding.

Columns indicate whether proteins were identified in all datasets, or only within acute (A1), 3-months post-hospital discharge (R1) or healthy controls (H1). If proteins were absent within a disease group, this is indicated by ‘missing’.

Baseline characteristics and vaccine uptake.

Adjusted Cox proportional hazards model of impact of coding and other predictors on hazard of COVID-19 mortality in patients with coded and uncoded CKD stages 3 and 4.

Population for 2021/22 season is shown as an illustrative example.

This statistical release makes available the most recent Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) monthly data, including activity, waiting times, and outcomes such as recovery. IAPT is run by the NHS in England and offers NICE-approved therapies for treating people with depression or anxiety. This release also includes experimental statistics from the IAPT Employment Adviser Pilot. Due to the coronavirus illness (COVID-19) disruption, it would seem that this is affecting the quality and coverage of some of our statistics, such as an increase in non-submissions for some datasets. We are also seeing some different patterns in submitted data. We hope this information is helpful and would be grateful if you could spare a couple of minutes to complete a short customer satisfaction survey. Please use the survey in the related links to provide us with any feedback or suggestions for improving the report. Note: Corrections have been made to the M110 (Count_CBTAppts) and M1020 (Count_ConsMediumChatRoomAppts) variables in the Monthly Activity Data file for April 2022 through to December 2022. In addition, Commissioning Region breakdowns have been added to the IAPT Monthly Activity Data File. Where the CCG for Provider DA201 (SURVIVORS MANCHESTER(SALFORD)) was listed as "InvalidCode" ("Unknown"), it has been changed to "14L" ("NHS MANCHESTER CCG").