People in Great Britain's experiences of and actions following increases in their costs of living, and how these differed by a range of personal characteristics.

In 2018-19 the GLA first undertook a Survey of Londoners. At the time it provided vital evidence on Londoners that had never been collected before in such detail. In 2021-22, the GLA conducted another Survey of Londoners, following the same methodology as the Survey of Londoners 2018-19, an online and paper self-completion survey of adults aged 16 and over in London. The survey, which received responses from 8,630 Londoners, aimed to assess the impact of COVID-19 and associated restrictions on key social outcomes for Londoners, not available from other data sources. It is important to understand the context in which the Survey of Londoners 2021-22 took place. Survey fieldwork began in November 2021; so, up to that point, it had been four months since most legal limits on social contact had been removed. However, after fieldwork had started, some restrictions due to the emergence of the Omicron variant were introduced. This may or may not have had some effect on the data. Given these changing circumstances, caution should be applied when interpreting the results. The Survey of Londoners 2021-22 also took place just before the full effects of the cost-of-living crisis began to set in. It is highly likely that the situations of Londoners have changed while analysis was taking place. On this page there is a headline findings report, published on 30 September 2022, which provides descriptive results for the key headline measures and supporting demographic data collected by the survey. Accompanying this report are more detailed tables documenting the key results of the survey by a range of demographic and other characteristics, a short summary document presenting key findings from the survey, and a technical report for those interested in the survey’s methodology. Further to these, a series of pen portraits, providing snapshots of particular groups of Londoners, as captured at the time of the Survey of Londoners 2021-22, were first added on 31 October 2022. Also on this page, there is an initial findings report, that was published on 2 September 2022. This was published to provide timely evidence from the survey to support the case for further targeted support to help low-income Londoners with the cost-of-living crisis. We have launched an online explorer where users can interrogate the data collected from the two surveys, conducted in 2018-19 and 2021-22. This is the first iteration, so we welcome any feedback on it - GO TO THE EXPLORER The record-level Survey of Londoners dataset can be accessed via the UK Data Service, University of Essex. The dataset is available for not-for-profit educational and research purposes only. Finally, as the North East London (NEL) NHS funded a 'boost' in their sub-region to enable a more detailed analysis to be conducted within, they produced an analytical report in September 2022. This is also available for download from this page.

This dataset will be published as Open DataThis dataset was created by joining Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation Datazone geographies and The Priority Places for Food Index which was developed by the CDRC at the University of Leeds in collaboration with Which?.A composite index formed of data compiled across seven different dimensions relating to food insecurity risk for the four nations in the UK. This version (Version 2.1, July 2024) reflects changes to the data and policy landscape which are detailed in the user guide below.The Priority Places for Food Index (https://priorityplaces.cdrc.ac.uk/) is constructed using open data to capture complex and multidimensional aspects of food insecurity risk. The index was initially developed in response to the 2022 cost of living crisis which has put many of our communities under severe financial pressure and at an increased risk of food insecurity. Building on the CDRC e-food desert index (EFDI), but with additional domains relating to fuel poverty and family food support, the goal of the Priority Places for Food Index is to identify neighbourhoods that are most vulnerable to increases in the cost of living and which have a lack of accessibility to cheap, healthy, and sustainable sources of food.From version 1 to version 2, data have been updated across several of the seven PPFI domains. This includes new area socio-demographics, foodbank, and food retailer location data. Data relating to Free School Meal eligibility has also been updated to reflect the changing policy landscape and to address regional inconsistencies in policies. Areas may look different to version one as a result of the new data incorporated or changes to neighbourhood boundaries. Because of these data changes we recommend that you don’t make comparisons between the versions.The index can be used to inform supermarket location analytics, improve the availability of budget food lines, and to ensure scare resources are targeted effectively.Note: Subject to the Department of Health and Social Care making a statement highlighting inaccuracies in the Healthy Start Uptake data between July 2023-February 2024, we have updated Version 2 of the Priority Places for Food Index (PPFI). Version 2.1 of the PPFI replaces the October 2023 uptake of Healthy Start Vouchers values with the average voucher uptake between January and June 2023 to minimise the impact on the Priority Places for Food Index insights.

In 2018-19 the GLA first undertook a Survey of Londoners. At the time it provided vital evidence on Londoners that had never been collected before in such detail. In 2021-22, the GLA conducted another Survey of Londoners, following the same methodology as the Survey of Londoners 2018-19, an online and paper self-completion survey of adults aged 16 and over in London. The survey, which received responses from 8,630 Londoners, aimed to assess the impact of COVID-19 and associated restrictions on key social outcomes for Londoners, not available from other data sources. It is important to understand the context in which the Survey of Londoners 2021-22 took place. Survey fieldwork began in November 2021; so, up to that point, it had been four months since most legal limits on social contact had been removed. However, after fieldwork had started, some restrictions due to the emergence of the Omicron variant were introduced. This may or may not have had some effect on the data. Given these changing circumstances, caution should be applied when interpreting the results. The Survey of Londoners 2021-22 also took place just before the full effects of the cost-of-living crisis began to set in. It is highly likely that the situations of Londoners have changed while analysis was taking place. On this page there is a headline findings report, published on 30 September 2022, which provides descriptive results for the key headline measures and supporting demographic data collected by the survey. Accompanying this report are more detailed tables documenting the key results of the survey by a range of demographic and other characteristics, a short summary document presenting key findings from the survey, and a technical report for those interested in the survey’s methodology. Further to these, a series of pen portraits, providing snapshots of particular groups of Londoners, as captured at the time of the Survey of Londoners 2021-22, were first added on 31 October 2022. Also on this page, there is an initial findings report, that was published on 2 September 2022. This was published to provide timely evidence from the survey to support the case for further targeted support to help low-income Londoners with the cost-of-living crisis. We have launched an online explorer where users can interrogate the data collected from the two surveys, conducted in 2018-19 and 2021-22. This is the first iteration, so we welcome any feedback on it - GO TO THE EXPLORER The record-level Survey of Londoners dataset can be accessed via the UK Data Service, University of Essex. The dataset is available for not-for-profit educational and research purposes only. Finally, as the North East London (NEL) NHS funded a 'boost' in their sub-region to enable a more detailed analysis to be conducted within, they produced an analytical report in September 2022. This is also available for download from this page.

This qualitative case study sets out to build a better understanding of network buildingamong organisations that are involved in providing digital inclusion activities to reduce digitalpoverty. Centred around a specific digital inclusion network, this case study willinterview key stakeholders to understand drivers, barriers and best practices to creatingsuch networks, thus gaining insights on the developing digital inclusion networks andmapping digital poverty growing trends in the country. Results will inform UK regionalorganisations’ practices for establishing effective digital inclusion networks in post-pandemicand cost of living crisis times. It will also provide recommendations for national policies tosupport and invest in digital inclusion for the delivery of public objectives in ways thatalleviate rather than exacerbate inequalities, and to increase the future resilience andsustainability of digital inclusion provision. Theoretically, this research builds on the literatureon contextual conditions to digital access and adoption.Ethics Application number: 052467

Objectives: As the initial crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic recedes, healthcare decision makers are likely to want to make rational evidence-guided choices between the many interventions now available. We sought to update a systematic review to provide an up-to-date summary of the cost-effectiveness evidence regarding tests for SARS-CoV-2 and treatments for COVID-19.Methods: Key databases, including MEDLINE, EconLit and Embase, were searched on 3 July 2023, 2 years on from the first iteration of this review in July 2021. We also examined health technology assessment (HTA) reports and the citations of included studies and reviews. Peer-reviewed studies reporting full health economic evaluations of tests or treatments in English were included. Studies were quality assessed using an established checklist, and those with very serious limitations were excluded. Data from included studies were extracted into predefined tables.Results: The database search identified 8,287 unique records, of which 54 full texts were reviewed, 28 proceeded for quality assessment, and 15 were included. Three further studies were included through HTA sources and citation checking. Of the 18 studies ultimately included, 17 evaluated treatments including corticosteroids, antivirals and immunotherapies. In most studies, the comparator was standard care. Two studies in lower-income settings evaluated the cost effectiveness of rapid antigen tests and critical care provision. There were 17 modelling analyses and 1 trial-based evaluation.Conclusion: A large number of economic evaluations of interventions for COVID-19 have been published since July 2021. Their findings can help decision makers to prioritise between competing interventions, such as the repurposed antivirals and immunotherapies now available to treat COVID-19. However, some evidence gaps remain present, including head-to-head analyses, disease-specific utility values, and consideration of different disease variants.Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021272219], identifier [PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021272219].