Major reforms to the organisation of the National Health Service (NHS) in England established 42 integrated care systems (ICSs) to plan and coordinate local services. The changes are based on the idea that cross-sector collaboration is needed to improve health and reduce health inequalities—and similar policy changes are happening elsewhere in the UK and internationally. We explored local interpretations of national policy objectives on reducing health inequalities among senior leaders working in three ICSs.

We carried out qualitative research based on semistructured interviews with NHS, public health, social care and other leaders in three ICSs in England.

We selected three ICSs with varied characteristics all experiencing high levels of socioeconomic deprivation. We conducted 32 in-depth interviews with senior leaders of NHS, local government and other organisations involved in the ICS’s work on health inequalities. Our interviewees comprised 17 leaders from NHS organisations and 15 leaders from other sectors.

Local interpretations of national policy objectives on health inequalities varied, and local leaders had contrasting—sometimes conflicting—perceptions of the boundaries of ICS action on reducing health inequalities. Translating national objectives into local priorities was often a challenge, and clarity from national policy-makers was frequently perceived as limited or lacking. Across the three ICSs, local leaders worried that objectives on tackling health inequalities were being crowded out by other short-term policy priorities, such as reducing pressures on NHS hospitals. The behaviour of national policy-makers appeared to undermine their stated priorities to reduce health inequalities.

Varied and vague interpretations of NHS policy on health inequalities are not new, but lack of clarity among local health leaders brings major risks—including interventions being poorly targeted or inadvertently widening inequalities. Greater conceptual clarity is likely needed to guide ICS action in future.

Long-term benzodiazepine use is common despite known risks. In the original Eliminating Medications Through Patient Ownership of End Results (EMPOWER) Study set in Canada, patient education led to increased rates of benzodiazepine cessation. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of implementing an adapted EMPOWER quality improvement (QI) initiative in a US-based healthcare system.

We used a pre–post design with a non-randomised control group.

A network of primary care clinics.

Patients with ≥60 days’ supply of benzodiazepines in 6 months and ≥1 risk factor (≥65 years of age, a concurrent high-risk medication prescribed or a diazepam equivalent daily dose ≥10) were eligible.

In March 2022, we engaged 22 primary care physicians (PCPs), and 308 of their patients were mailed an educational brochure, physician letter and flyer detailing benzodiazepine risks; the control group included 4 PCPs and 291 of their patients.

The primary measure was benzodiazepine cessation by 9 months. We used logistic regression and a generalised estimating equations approach to control for clustering by PCP, adjusting for demographics, frailty, number of risk factors, and diagnoses of arthritis, depression, diabetes, falls, and pain.

Patients in the intervention and control groups were comparable across most covariates; however, a greater proportion of intervention patients had pain-related diagnoses and depression. By 9 months, 26% of intervention patients (81 of 308) had discontinued benzodiazepines, compared with 17% (49 of 291) of control patients. Intervention patients had 1.73 greater odds of benzodiazepine discontinuation compared with controls (95% CI: 1.09, 2.75, p=0.02). The unadjusted number needed to treat was 10.5 (95% CI: 6.30, 34.92) and the absolute risk reduction was 0.095 (95% CI: 0.03 to 0.16).

Results from this non-randomised QI initiative indicate that patient education programmes using the EMPOWER brochures have the potential to promote cessation of benzodiazepines in primary care.