Going beyond bricks and mortar to 'Up' awareness of healthy homes

Posted by Natalie Forster, Philip Hodgson, and Alex Kirton from Northumbria University

“It’s just a house”. Words famously uttered by Mr Fredricksen in the much-loved film, ‘Up’. But does this really do justice to the complicated relationships we have with our homes?

There’s a steady stream of evidence now showing that housing characteristics (including issues like overcrowding, poor insulation, damp and mould) can impact on physical and mental health. And far from being just a house, we know that where you live can make a big difference to how socially connected you are, the services you can access and how safe you feel.

This increasing awareness of home as a social determinant of health has led to many local authorities introducing initiatives to address housing-related issues. Yet, evaluations often look at the effects of specific housing enhancements in isolation, and more understanding is needed of how healthy homes services can tackle housing issues in their widest sense.

The Healthy Homes service in South Tyneside is an advice and signposting-based service that aims to address people’s home-related health needs. As Fuse researchers we set out to explore its benefits for residents. We worked with the service to create a data collection tool to help capture the financial benefits of advice given, alongside interviews to explore the experiences of those who used the service.

So, what did we find?

Our analysis showed that the service was reaching people with multiple and complex housing needs, including those related to health conditions, low income and age. We found the personalised approach taken by the service to be especially successful in engaging proactively with older homeowners (like Mr Fredricksen!) who often presumed they wouldn’t qualify for housing improvements, didn’t want to be seen to be asking for help or didn’t want to lose their independence. And without this support they would have otherwise put off seeking help until a crisis hit.

Some participants were keen to swap their bricks and mortar entirely and relocate to a more suitable home or area. For others, longstanding and deep psychological connections to homes and areas meant a move would be too painful. In these circumstances, changes to home environments made through the service (like getting extra bannisters or a stairlift, and support to address cold, damp and mould) helped reduce worries about housing problems and avoided the need for unsuitable coping strategies like coming down the stairs backwards. Participants described how small housing modifications – even getting a different lightbulb when you’re worried about your electricity bills – made a difference both practically and emotionally, helping them resume ordinary and taken-for-granted aspects of life like going to bed upstairs with your partner. Yet, for many, the service also worked on a different level, with the face-to-face interaction and warm and friendly manner of staff helping people feel heard and cared for.

Ultimately, the project illuminates the complex and varied issues and feelings people have around their homes. It underscores the importance of services which see beyond the bricks and mortar of houses and consider the importance of people’s “homes”, such as those offered by South Tyneside Council, but also the crucial role that other (non-home focused) services can play in addressing the interactions between homes, health and wellbeing. Many people we spoke to were unsure of what support they are entitled to and so there’s a need to raise awareness and take up of healthy home enhancements before problems escalate. Finally, both the stories of our participants and Mr Fredricksen demonstrate how our relationships toward our homes can shift and change over time, highlighting a need for long-term and sustainable models of housing care and support.

Natalie Forster, Assistant Professor, Social Work, Education and Community Wellbeing, Northumbria University and co-lead of the Fuse Health Inequalities Research Cluster

Philip Hodgson, Assistant Professor, Nursing, Midwifery and Health, Northumbria University

Alex Kirton, Research Fellow, Northumbria University

Image by Pascal Laurent from Pixabay

Monopoly money, pitching to the converted, and sending Mr Grumpy away happy: doing home and healthy ageing research differently

Dr Philip Hodgson, Senior Research Assistant, Northumbria University

Endings are rubbish, right?  Whether it be a great novel, play, film, TV series – there’s always that feeling that no matter how things are pulled together, it will never be as good as you have pictured in your imagination.  And then, you know, it just ends…

It was perhaps with this in mind that we decided to take a different approach in the last of our four workshops on home and healthy ageing.  Rather than guest speakers being invited to share their knowledge and prompt discussion, the project team attempted to summarise and pitch their ideas for future research back to the group (think Dragons’ Den).  This proved to be challenging, as the previous sessions had been so rich that even synthesising them into brief slides was difficult, never mind placing them in a strategic context for the participants to critique and reflect upon.  Yet, three key themes were identified.  These were in addition to the concept of a ‘home’ being more than just bricks and mortar but personal/psychological, physical and social/environment space(s) – an idea that we used as a starting block in week one and illustrated below.

More than just bricks and mortar
'Home' illustration used in the seminars 

The key themes were:

• Policies and contexts: not only a tension between housing and health policies, but also the need to consider market and narrative factors influencing housing and health decisions;
• The life course approach: the need to think about housing as an individual pathway, in which preventative measures and services are considered before crisis point;
• Transitions and soft services: the need for support to be available as and when people experience key housing and life changes, such as reduced physical health, retirement, or the loss of support networks and being able to navigate different services on offer.

However, this is where we’d like to leave you with a cliff hanger: rather than going through each of themes in-depth (fans of this series will have to wait for our spin off…  er, research papers for that!), we’d instead like to reflect on our process at this stage.  These sessions took a slightly different approach as, rather than being a series of open seminars with presentations that people could dip in and out of, we invited several key individuals to attend each session in turn.  The reasons for this were many, but primarily we wanted to ensure that a diverse range of backgrounds were represented throughout (housing providers, architects, academics, local authority workers, homelessness workers, etc.) to go on a learning journey with us as a research team.  This meant that by the time we reached the final session, there was enough of a shared understanding that we could make the most of the group’s commitment to the project – we would be actually able to start to pin down quite complex concepts, practical issues and, hopefully, future projects.

We tried out different formats to structure the discussions: from world cafés, to games (with Monopoly money!) with researchers pitching ideas to mock panels, which worked to various degrees but always ensured a lively debate.

Do not pass Go. Do not collect £200
Pitching ideas with Monopoly money 

There were, of course, some difficulties.  As I’m sure everyone reading this will know, it is a lot to ask of a practitioner to take one morning out of their schedule, let alone for four seminars.  As a result, engagement had to remain a constant focus and I spent much time nervously lingering by the registration desk hoping for just a few more name badges to disappear before we started!  It was also a challenge in terms of managing the conversations during the sessions: you want all voices to be heard in such a diverse group but we all needed to be pulling in the same direction by the end.

Yet, by the final session, the rewards were immense.  Not only were we able to pitch ideas to a group who had already undergone some of the same learning as us, but this gave everybody the confidence to relate the complex theoretical issues to their own practice (allowing us to capture the breadth of what was possible).  It allowed us to discuss concrete projects, and leave the session with a sense of trust that networks were in place to actually deliver on them.  Perhaps most importantly we found that, what started as a broad idea, was something of relevance across the housing and health sectors.  Even the grumpiest of the project group (naming no names) left the day with a spring in their step.  For that alone, everyone who attended deserves some massive thanks…

So, who needs endings, when we can all just sign up to the sequel?

To be continued…

Photo 2: By James Petts from London, England (Monopoly) [CC BY-SA 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Beyond ownership: a lifetime of housing and health

Posted by Natalie Forster (Fuse Senior Research Assistant) and Philip Hodgson (Senior Research Assistant), Northumbria University

Last month saw the second ‘Home and Health’ research interest group meeting hosted by Northumbria University and Fuse (supported through the Fuse pump-priming fund). Building on the key message that a greater emphasis is needed on understanding the relationship between housing and health – particularly in the absence of strong public health messages on the subject (such as 5-a-day) – the focus here was on good examples of practice.

It's a race to own a “forever home” but circumstances change with age

Participating in these sessions is continually challenging us to rethink the values that we attach to the idea of ‘home’ in society, and the implications this has for supporting people through housing choices and transitions. The narrative surrounding housing is often singular and fixed – the race to find and own a “forever home”, relocate to a bungalow in retirement and then manage the difficulties of ageing-in-place as ill health and social isolation increase in later life. Yet the reality painted by the examples here posed a more complex problem: how do we identify and sustain a model of housing that allows our homes to reflect and adapt to the wide range of transitions experienced by individuals? The services presented - Safe and Healthy Homes (North Tyneside Council); Housing for older people (Derwentside Homes); Wellbeing and mental health service for adults (Crisis); and Wellbeing for Life Newcastle’s Age-friendly Cities - all reflected the huge range of resources and circumstances people bring to their homes, and the need to be flexible in supporting them. Yet questions remain around how public health approaches can best prepare people to make decisions about the housing which will best support their health in later life, before a crisis occurs. One idea from the meeting was to assess future housing needs alongside the NHS health check.

The second ‘Home and Health’ research interest group meeting

Just as the much-publicised difficulties for younger people to get on the “property ladder” are prompting a shift to much less-settled housing patterns in that age group, the transitions faced in ageing are varied enough to suggest the need for more person-centred thinking. Just as retirement and later life can threaten some with social isolation and ill health, for others it can be a period of vibrant reconnection with their communities. Once again, a lifecourse approach which encourages people to engage with these transitions before they occur (e.g. groups organised by employers to maintain social contact after retirement) may help give them the agency to maintain a healthy home environment throughout their lives. Innovations are emerging which propose alternatives to traditional living arrangements (for example, housing schemes where university students live alongside older people for free, in exchange for undertaking voluntary work). The first Home and Health session illustrated how the lack of equity held by future generations can be problematic, as this cannot then be leveraged to pay for care later on. However, discussion in the second meeting prompted thought about whether present forms of home ownership (and even home design) might be too inflexible, and whether other more innovative practices could allow people a more fluid approach to tenancy.

In focusing on preparing people to make informed housing decisions, it is important not to emphasise individual responsibility at the expense of addressing structural inequalities in the choices people have available to them. Those living in poverty are likely to experience an impoverished range of choices. People are often segregated in housing according to their age and socio-economic status and some groups, such as people experiencing homelessness may ‘settle’ for housing that is inadequate for their needs, as they feel they have no alternative. This led to a ‘lightbulb moment’ for further research from group members – the need to map out the different routes people take through housing options over the course of their lives, and the menu of choices available to them depending on their circumstances at different points in time. Perhaps this will allow services to enable people to have a different form of ownership in housing – the ownership of the housing journey through the transition of our lives, rather than simply owning a building.


Photo attribution: "Home, health and happiness / Bile Bean Manufacturing Co". See page for author [CC BY 4.0], via Wikimedia Commons

Beyond bricks and mortar: re-thinking home and health

Dr Philip Hodgson, Senior Research Assistant, Northumbria University

In a time of continued public spending cuts, policy drivers to age in place (to grow old in the home or in a non-institutional setting in the community) and an increasing ageing population, the challenge to ensure that people can live longer and healthier in their own homes is growing. Yet, solutions for this, when a host of other factors – the development of housing to meet commercial rather than health pressures, future generations with little equity in housing that can be used to fund future care, the prevalence of a belief in a “forever home” – are difficult to identify.

That was one of the core messages discussed at the first ‘Home and Health’ research group hosted by Northumbria University and Fuse (via the pump-priming research fund) last month. This brings together researchers, practitioners and policy makers interested in the impact of housing on health. The seminars aim to foster a core working group, culminating in the development of concrete plans for collaborating on further research in this area. Building on insights from previous Fuse Quarterly Research Meetings (‘Creating Healthy Places in the North East’ in October 2015 and ‘Reuniting Planning and Health’ in April 2016), the seminars aim to take stock of existing evidence on how housing conditions can promote or impede healthy ageing, and identify gaps for further research. Our first seminar explored priorities for research from a policy perspective and we were thrilled to welcome Gill Leng (National Home and Health Advisor to Public Health England) to present.

Gill Leng, Public Health England, presenting at the Fuse research meeting

Gill highlighted the need to think about ‘homes’ (a term which people identify with and encompasses emotional connections to a place of living) rather than just ‘housing’ (a term used when referring to the workforce and describing bricks and mortar). While evidence and action often focuses on the risks posed by unhealthy homes, little is done to address unsuitable or precarious housing. Although most older people own their homes, these are not necessarily healthy. The challenge we face is to identify an approach to housing which allows its support to develop and mirror our own changing health needs through the life course. This is not just a case of using adaptations and facilities, but reframing how we conceptualise the home as a physical location, a part of a wider social environment and a personal / psychological space.

The conceptual spaces of home illustration used in the seminars 

Group discussions focused on this issue (among others). At the personal level, a tension was found between the maintenance of private life and the role of external sources of support. Current policy relies on care delivered by family members, but this can in turn cause problems for individuals without these links. Also, how do we develop mechanisms that initiate people’s thoughts on the best accommodation for them before they reach a point when they’re in crisis / a change is urgently needed and driven by necessity rather than choice (e.g. when people with dementia still have capacity to make an informed choice)? At the level of buildings and services, these problems take on a more concrete form, where the permanence, inconvenience and cost of a housing adaptation to support health is seen more as an obstacle to avoid rather than an enabler in the future. Meanwhile, within social and environmental factors, the current focus of housing policy on volume, rather than quality of public space, and a decrease in social cohesion were both noted as linked factors that could influence health as the population ages. The depth of discussion at each of these levels highlighted the importance of issues of home and health. But to address it we need to move beyond the ideas of bricks and mortar, and consider how we think about and use our homes to facilitate our health and wellbeing as individuals and a wider society.

Our first seminar explored priorities for research from a policy perspective

All of these issues will be picked up in future sessions, which will focus on good practice, existing research in the field and funding opportunities. We’ll be continuing to blog about each of these events and their outcomes, so please check back for more information soon.

If you are interested in joining the group and attending future seminars, please contact Phil Hodgson philip2.hodgson@northumbria.ac.uk

From left: Peter van der Graaf, Monique Lhussier, Natalie Forster, Phil Hodgson

and Dominic Aitken; organising team for the home and health research interest group