What Works Scotland will be a collaborative centre bringing together staff from the Universities of Glasgow and Edinburgh, other academics and key non-academic partners. Its aim is to support the use of evidence to plan and deliver sustained and transformative change based on agreed outcomes at all levels with a particular focus on the local. There is a particular focus on promoting the systematic use of evidence in the design, reform and delivery of public services. Examination of what works and what does not will take place in the context of the Scottish model, an approach to policy development that, while not unique, differs considerably from elsewhere in the UK. The team has adopted a demand led and collaborative approach and will work with a range of third sector organisations, different levels of central and local government and with Community Planning Partnerships to generate an evidence culture involving feedback, improvement methodology and expert support. The Christie Commission identified a range of problems facing Scotland including demographic change, economic and fiscal challenges, inter-institutional relationships and endemic long-term 'wicked issues'. It has also been estimated that in Scotland over 40 per cent of public service expenditure is the result of preventable issues. The Scottish model of public service delivery aims to ensure that services are designed for and with communities. This 'deliberative public policy analysis' demands that communities and those who design services are aware of best practice and evidence. The Community Planning Partnerships (CPPs) are key to the delivery of these services with a focus on 'voice' through participatory, collective, decision-making, planning and delivery in the context of targets set by National Government. A key challenge for each CPP is to articulate its Single Outcome Agreement and relate this to both the outcomes set out in the National Performance Framework. However, a common criticism of the CPPs is that the implementation of the model so far has been limited and patchy. The focus of WWS will on the four key questions identified in the call: - How can we take what we know from individual projects and interventions and translate this into system-wide change? - What is working (or not working), and why, at the different levels of delivery and reform and at the interface between those levels? How do we identify actions which can be taken in communities, at CPP and the national levels to improve impact? - What does the evidence (including international) say about large-scale reform programmes that have succeeded or failed and the impact they had in a system-wide context? - Why do results vary geographically and between communities, and how can we balance local approaches with ensuring spread of what works? A wide range of methods - qualitative and qualitative - will be employed. The capabilities approach will provide the overarching framework. Originally developed by Amartya Sen, capabilities are in widespread use across the globe and underpin the work of a variety of organisations. It is a useful corrective to top down economic evaluations and fits well with the Scottish deliberative approach. We will develop the Capabilities framework and combine it with the outcomes-based National Performance Framework, ensuring that the Scottish model is intellectually grounded and contributes to broader international debates on these matters. We will have 3 workstreams: evidence into action; outcomes and capabilities; and spread, sustainability and scaling up. We will employ a range of methodologies including case studies collaborative action research, contribution analysis, elite interviews and content analysis, cost effectiveness and evaluation. WWS will focus on four case studies of key CPPS and work with them to help them change their core business processes within priority areas in four CPPs and will aim to achieve lasting impact.

In the past few decades, there has been a surge of international interest in the role of the arts and culture in healthcare, public health and health promotion, on an individual and community level. However, the vast majority of research studies have focused on the effects of targeted, time-limited arts interventions on particular patient groups. Yet, much of the arts and cultural engagement across the UK is not confined to specific interventions but involves a more general, ubiquitous participation that can be harder to measure through experimental studies. A select number of public health studies have found associations between cultural participation (including attending concerts, museums and galleries) and self-reported health, as well as inverse associations between cultural participation and mortality risk. However, important questions remain, and to date, there have been no large-scale public health studies examining the impact of the arts in the UK. This project is led by the Centre for Performance Science, an internationally distinctive partnership of the Royal College of Music and Imperial College London, with an extensive track record in arts, health and social research. It explores the effect of (i) activities that involve actively 'doing' (e.g. music, dance, art, photography and drama) and (ii) activities that require physical attendance (e.g. attending concerts, monuments, museums, galleries, cinemas, heritage archives and theatre); (iii) 'home-based' activities (e.g. listening to the radio, watching TV, reading, storytelling, using arts-based apps, digital arts experiences, online music co-production). Our research questions identify the impact of the arts and culture on individual, social and economic measures of health and wellbeing, as well as explore how associations vary between different socioeconomic, geographical and ethnic populations within the UK. To explore these questions, the project is organised into four work packages. Work package 1 will involve assessing existing data including undertaking a meta-analysis of previous studies and exploring a UK cohort study that includes some questions on the arts. However, recognising the limited data currently available, work packages 2 and 3 are based on a large-scale national survey to be carried out during our study. Open to all adults in the UK, the survey will target the general population as well as participants diagnosed with one of four major health conditions facing the UK: mental health, cancer, cardiovascular disease and chronic respiratory diseases. These conditions have all previously been researched in smaller arts-in-health intervention studies but not at a public health level, and their inclusion will facilitate understanding of the relationships between culture and the individual, social and economic facets of health and wellbeing. A total of 25,000 participants will be recruited to complete an anonymous online questionnaire consisting of demographic questions, validated psychological scales and economic metrics, assessments of arts and cultural participation and self-reporting of health. Work package 2 will explore the questions with a cross-sectional analysis of these data with nested case-control studies; work package 3 will monitor a sub-section of the sample as a cohort for the following year with 6-monthly updates to track longitudinal change in arts engagement. Recognising the complexity of cultural engagement and health, work package 4 will add context to the survey data, with a sub-sample of survey participants taking part in qualitative telephone interviews to explore motivations for, and experiences of, arts engagement across the UK and how this is reported to intersect with health behaviours, perceptions and outcomes. Through the extensive epidemiology methods proposed, an ambitious sample size and nested qualitative data, the findings promise to redefine the value of the arts and culture for public health in the UK.

The 'MARCH' Network proposes that Assets for Resilient Communities lie at the heart of Mental Health (M-ARC-H) and is dedicated to advancing research into the impact of these assets in enhancing public mental health and wellbeing, preventing mental illness and supporting those living with mental health conditions. Specifically, it will advance our understanding of the impact of social, cultural and community assets including the arts, culture, heritage, libraries, parks, community gardens, allotments, leisure centres, volunteer associations, social clubs and community groups, of which there are an anticipated 1 million in the UK. The network will bring together a Disciplinary Expert Group of researchers with a Policy Group of major national policy bodies, a Patient Public Involvement Group of national mental health charities, and a Community Engagement Group of national organisations. Across three years, our network will unite research with policy and practice to tackle critical questions of research priorities, methods, and implementation in this field; understand and resolve barriers to mobilising community assets; and provide training and support to the next generation of researchers. Specifically, our network will address questions organised in two core work streams (WS): WS1. Cross-disciplinary research and challenges: (a) What evidence is there, from a cross-disciplinary perspective, for how and why community assets impact on public health and wellbeing and the lives of those living with mental health problems, and where are the gaps for future research? (b) How can we use a cross-disciplinary approach to provide meaningful data to different stakeholders and users? WS2. Equity of engagement and access innovation: (a) Who amongst the UK population, demographically and geographically, currently engages with these programmes and how does participation vary dependent on mental health? (b) What are the current barriers and enablers to engagement at an individual, organisational and policy level and how can we develop innovative approaches to enhance engagement, especially amongst the vulnerable? This research work will be complemented by a rich portfolio of impact, engagement and training activities (see 'Impact Summary'). This network aligns with strategic priorities of the AHRC and ESRC as well as having a secondary relevance to the priorities of the MRC (through its consideration of the role of community assets and social prescribing to support medical approaches to mental health), NERC (through its exploration of the impact of green spaces) and EPSRC (through its focus on the opportunities provided by technology for driving research forwards). It has also been designed in response to the Network Plus Research Agenda. In addition to the objectives already discussed in the prior Je-S section, it is responsive to many of the mental health challenges cited in the agenda. For example, the call specification noted that only 25% of people with mental health problems receive ongoing treatment. Whilst there are recognised economic and resource constraints with delivering sufficient mental health services, this Network proposes to focus on the role that existing community assets could play in providing support to a much wider range of people in the UK including those on waiting lists. As another example, the call specification raised that 70% of children and adolescents with mental health problems have not had appropriate interventions at an earlier age. This Network will involve working with policy makers and community organisations to see how research could help overcome barriers to access with the aim of engaging more young people and those who are hard to reach. Overall, the network will seek to understand and support future research into how community assets could be mobilised to encourage more resilient individuals and communities with a greater understanding of and capacity for self-management of mental health.

The 2019 Climate Change Act committed the UK to reducing its emissions of greenhouse gases to net zero by 2050. The 2019 UK Clean Air Strategy, sees "air pollution as one of the UK's biggest public health challenges", aims to secure clean growth whilst tackling air pollution through reducing emissions. Achieving these reductions in greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions will entail substantial reductions in use of fossil fuels and changes to the transport fleet over coming years as we make the transition to a 'low carbon economy'. This will also have an important benefit for health of improving levels of outdoor air pollution by reducing emissions from power plants, motor vehicles, wood/coal burning at home and other sources. However, another important climate change action is to improve energy efficiency in homes. Those measures typically entail reducing levels of ventilation to cut down heat losses from escape of heated air. In addition to helping improve winter indoor temperatures, this can be beneficial for human health because it reduces the penetration into the home of air pollutants from the outdoor environment. But it will increase indoor levels of air pollutants derived from sources inside the home - such as particles and gases generated by cooking, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) given off from fabrics and furnishings, cleaning and personal care products. The changes to indoor pollution levels from improved home energy efficiency may thus be overall positive or negative for the health of building occupants depending on the balance of effects on pollutants entering and leaving the indoor environment. That balance is likely to depend on the levels of outdoor pollutants, indoor air pollutant sources and activities that generate these, the form of the energy efficiency improvements, the behaviour of occupants and their vulnerability to air pollutants. People at particular risk are young children, the elderly, those with pre-existing illnesses, and those experiencing social deprivation. To improve understanding of these issues, we have created a new research network (acronym 'HEICCAAM'). This network brings together experienced and early career researchers from nine universities from disciplines as diverse as air quality measurement and modelling, building physics, behavioural science, health and health inequalities, education and policy. The network will also include representatives of the public, as well as stakeholders from the public sector, business/industry and non-government bodies - including Public Health England, Health Protection and NHS Scotland, Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Age UK, the Passivhaus Trust, Good Homes Alliance, Edinburgh City Council, the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers and the UK Met Office. The network will build evidence on the consequences for exposure to air pollution of actions aimed at tackling climate change and poor air quality, with particular focus on the home environment. Its aim is to provide underpinning research that can inform and influence policy and practice to safeguard human health. The network will include activities by six Working Groups tasked with generating a series of papers on relevant issues of science and policy. It will also undertake four small research projects aimed at improving understanding of key issues where there are knowledge gaps. It will have a particular focus on protecting the health of vulnerable groups and reduction of health inequities. Network members will have multiple interactions through electronic meetings, webinars, discussion groups and an annual meeting and workshop with a wider group of stakeholders. Through its activities, the network will help build long-term capability in interdisciplinary research in this area, including through the interactions with early career researchers, the development of new research plans, and linkage to other networks and existing research programmes.