Interventions that could mitigate the adverse effects of household overcrowding: A rapid realist review with stakeholder participation from urban contexts in England

Stakeholder involvement

In an RRR, stakeholder engagement acquires a more explicit part than in a full realist review to streamline the review process. Expert panels of key stakeholders allow for the review to be guided to and oriented around key available literature and for conclusions to be co-developed (12).

As key stakeholders, we convened expert panels of a) individuals with lived experience of household overcrowding according to our definition above (hereafter: ‘residents’) in London (comprising two separate panels in Tower Hamlets and Islington); and b) local and regional government representatives (hereafter: ‘staff’) across London (Greater London Authority, Tower Hamlets, Newham, Camden and Islington) and non-London authorities (Salford and Doncaster). Residents consisted of Tower Hamlets contacts that had participated in a similar project (by MO and PS) and from an Islington charity for ethnic minority women (Jannaty). As both groups consisted mainly of ethnic minority residents, it reflected their overrepresentation in overcrowding statistics and enabled us to engage seldom heard voices (6). For the staff panels, local authorities with an expressed priority for housing problems were approached through our research team’s professional networks. A representative from either public health with a remit for the built environment, wider determinants or from housing, was sought. We believe the involved authorities provided illustrative cases of overcrowding in urban contexts in England. In a 2018 analysis of London authorities and average occupied floorspace per person (2), Tower Hamlets, Newham, Camden and Islington ranked lowest, second lowest, seventh lowest and eighth lowest, respectively (and the 2021 Census also suggested a higher overcrowding percentage in Newham and Tower Hamlets in particular (16)), while Salford and Doncaster are non-London contexts reportedly also challenged by overcrowding (17, 18).

The stakeholder groups took part in two rounds of expert panels each. In the initial panels, we discussed the nature of overcrowding in the local context, as well as initial ideas and experiences of possible interventions, and any prioritised outcomes in their contexts. These discussions guided the review scope and provided any missing terms to our preliminary search strategy. In the second expert panels, categories of interventions identified from the literature, plus questions arising from gaps or uncertainties in the literature, were shared for validation. We asked the panels how identified evidence resonated with the situation in their local contexts, whether the interventions might be relevant or transferable, if there were any mechanisms for making them work which they felt had not been covered and any contextual barriers that might compromise any observed effects/impacts.

The staff panels (first on 19.04.23 (n=11 participants); second on 26.09.23 (n=7)) were facilitated as one-hour structured online discussions enabling national participation including non-London authorities. The residents’ panels in Tower Hamlets (first on 16.05.23 (n=6 participants); second on 18.12.23 (n=5)) and in Islington (first on 24.05.23 (n=12), second on 08.01.24 (n=6)) were facilitated at local venues associated with the respective recruited community groups (see above). These in-person sessions were longer in duration to facilitate relationship building, familiarisation with the research and translation from non-English languages (e.g. Bengali): initially three hours each to accommodate for crucial background detail in conceptual review stages, while the second panels were two hours each specifically focused on findings and the identified intervention categories.

Panel members were not considered research participants (and the sessions should not be conflated with more traditional focus groups). The panel members were considered experts in overcrowding, either from a lived experience or policy perspective. Their input was sought to determine the direction of the research initially, then interpretation or contextualisation of the findings. Therefore ethical approval was not required. This fits within the remit of a rapid realist review to help streamline the process of literature identification and validation (12), but also more broadly within established realist review frameworks to support, refute or contextualise the evidence base in the interest of theory development (13).

However, panel members were still provided with full details including an information sheet on the purpose of the review and panels and they could withdraw at any time without providing any reason. Permission was requested for panels to be audio-recorded to enable researchers to focus on discussion, which in one case was denied, but permission was given to take notes. Recordings and notes of panels were not subject to analysis of individual responses and we do not report on any individualised experiences or sentiments, but only on views for which consensus was indicated by multiple voices that provided rationale for the review’s focus or added to the contextualisation or interpretation of findings.

Searches/screening process

PROSPERO was initially searched to verify that the proposed review may indeed fill a research gap and that there were no ongoing and/or significantly overlapping reviews on this topic. Due to the complex nature and corresponding solutions to overcrowding, the electronic databases used (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, SCOPUS) accounted for multiple relevant disciplines (e.g. health, public services, social science, design, built environment). Searches were conducted by KH on 01.06.23, capturing literature from 01.06.12 and onwards, while any relevant literature on overcrowding before this date was carried forward from the previous Cochrane review (10).

Reference lists of more recent reviews captured were also checked, while tracing subsequent publication of data from any identified protocols and checking any ongoing reviews from PROSPERO. For relevant primary studies, we further investigated their reference lists and searched study names in Google Scholar to supplement with any ‘sibling’ records where needing information on contexts and/or mechanisms related to the interventions. Additional grey literature was searched such as the Healthcare Management Information Consortium (HMIC), in addition to websites of participating authorities and supplemented with relevant reports suggested by expert panel members (which were all checked for relevance using the below reported eligibility criteria).

Search terms included both subject heading and free text terms, informed by a previous WHO-review (9) on the health impacts of overcrowding, as well as overcrowding definitions and categories of interventions from expert panel discussions. From the staff expert panels we added a stronger focus on (home) environment and ‘congestion’ and health, while from the resident expert panels green or play space, communication from housing authorities and cultural strategies. The search strategy and combination of terms was developed in one database (Ovid MEDLINE) and amended as required for each database, with a sample of the strategy in Additional file 2.

Studies were then de-duplicated in Rayyan (Qatar Computing Research Institute) software, assessed on title and abstract by one reviewer (KH) (with another (EE) assessing 10% to discuss disagreements), while any potentially relevant studies underwent more detailed examination against the eligibility criteria on full-text by two independent reviewers (KH, EE). They resolved all discrepancies through discussion, but any unresolvable discrepancies would have been adjudicated by a third independent reviewer (JS).

Eligibility criteria

Relevance and rigour assessments

Following realist review standards (13), the contribution of sections of data within a document was assessed based on two criteria: relevance and rigour. Relevance was determined based on the criterion of whether sections of text within a document were deemed to be relevant enough to contribute to theory testing and/or building (13), with particular attention to our inclusion/exclusion criteria outlined above. For realist approaches, judgement of rigour may not include an appraisal tool (13) – although in our endeavour to standardise assessments of ‘credibility’ and ‘trustworthiness’ of sources (13), where possible (i.e. for peer-reviewed literature) rigour was determined through the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) (20) adapted to relevant study designs. This was used by two independent reviewers (KH, EE) with all discrepancies resolved through discussion, but if they had not been resolvable adjudicated by a third independent reviewer (JS). We tabulated all our final assessments as well as comment in the main text on whether there were any concerns based on the MMAT assessments related to individual studies. It is specifically worth noting that ‘incomplete outcome data’ was a common criterion with ambiguous interpretation and required agreement on a threshold (we operated with 80 percent completion rate as threshold).

Data synthesis

In the protocol we pre-specified a consideration of meta-analyses, but recognised the little and heterogenous evidence available in previous reviews within housing to enable meta-analyses (10). Similarly, this was also the case within our more specific scope on overcrowding. As also in accordance with our protocol, we therefore proceeded to conduct a narrative synthesis (21) that examined emerging patterns around the contexts affecting potential mechanisms (as interventions, mediating factors and pathways) which in turn may lead to outcomes.

We grouped evaluated interventions from the peer-reviewed literature into categories of similar types of interventions. For each category, we constructed initial programme theories formed as CMO configurations, based on our reading of background literature and resident/policy maker engagement before the study took place. For each category, we started with peer-reviewed data to refine the CMO, using additional information from ‘sibling’ papers (see searches/screening) or the grey literature where needed, and as checked against local stakeholder consensus in the second ‘validation’ expert panels (see stakeholder involvement subsection above), to understand the ways in which specific mechanisms of interventions may be implementable in urban contexts in England and any barriers to their success. For each of the intervention categories, we have generated and display figures of the CMO configurations including our initial programme theories and how these were supported or nuanced by insights from the literature (peer-reviewed and grey) and expert panels.

Albeit we recognise that the sources of data to test and develop programme theories are of relatively different origins and, as such, in the main text we present the peer-reviewed literature, grey literature and expert panels in turn within each of the intervention categories. Essentially, keeping the narrative presentation distinct in this manner may facilitate a better understanding of how each information source contributed to the CMO configurations, as well as to highlight the limitations also within the peer-reviewed literature in this field (as key to building recommendations for the future).

Furthermore, as we combined quantitative and qualitative data particularly within the peer-reviewed literature, we were also informed by the approach to mixed-methods synthesis (22) on reporting a common format in which one type of data is ‘translated’ into the other. In our case, we ‘qualitised’ quantitative data, meaning we narratively report results through words (whether e.g. significant effects were shown or not with a p-value of 0.05 as significance threshold).

For the effect measures, we refer specifically to Table 1. We focus on effects from the peer-reviewed literature and not in the grey literature documents, because predominantly the latter consisted of reports of what local authorities had done without a corresponding evaluation evidencing the relative effects/impacts of outcomes as linked to specific interventions.

Rehousing

First, we tested/refined below the programme theory that support with rehousing (mechanisms) could benefit health (longer-term outcomes) for people whose household occupancy is over national standardised measures (e.g. bedroom standard), when it increases the probably of moving and increases experience/perceptions of space (proximal outcomes) (see Figure 2 for the CMO configuration).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2:

Rehousing

Expert panel validation

The staff panel concurred with caveats from the literature in reporting that proposed rehousing sites were often away from residents’ communities and only some had been willing to move to these.

Residents confirmed that more space in general was usually only available outside of London, with additional outdoor space being a specific need for children with neurological conditions such as autism. However, prospective rehousing sites were often in relatively socioeconomically deprived neighbourhoods and with a prospective break-up of their communities affecting both available support networks and their sense of belonging. A further concern was not only the location, but the actual dwellings they were rehoused to, with open plans offering insufficient room for privacy. Combined with this, residents were frustrated by the fact they had to accept the offer immediately without having a chance to see inside dwellings first. There was a lack of tailoring to households’ needs and inadequate accommodation for special needs prevented some households from moving in the first place. Furthermore, residents felt that new builds in London were designed to prioritise single professionals rather than families. In relation to any financial incentives to move or rent elsewhere, residents (as well as the grey literature) indicated that these are limited in scope or, if available, may be means-tested and risk compromising benefit caps. Also, residents experienced rental prices as so high, and especially in London, that any financial incentives might be insufficient.

Home improvements

Our initial programme theory proposed that in overcrowded homes it is more likely that the space/layout/storage fails to meet the household’s needs and that quality issues affect dwellings including unusable rooms or damaged furniture (e.g. due to damp/mould damage, or other housing hazards such as rodent infestation) (context). Improvements (mechanisms) to space in residents’ current dwelling or their surrounding environments – either quantitatively in actual physical space or qualitatively as experienced amount of available space – could offset the need to move elsewhere (proximal outcomes) and improve health/well-being (longer-term outcomes) by making the home environment safer and use of space better (proximal outcomes) (see Figure 3 for the CMO configuration).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3:

Home improvements

Co-ordination with healthcare and wider services

Our initial programme theory was that the health of residents living in overcrowding may be affected (context). Residents’ well-being may be improved (longer-term outcome) by better access to healthcare (mechanism) (see Figure 4 for the CMO configuration).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4:

Co-ordination with healthcare and wider services

Main findings

We conducted an RRR including a search for peer-reviewed and grey literature combined with resident and staff involvement, which allowed us to test our initial programme theories and identify promising interventions and mechanisms to alleviate the negative effects of overcrowding on households’ well-being. Consistent with our programme theory for this intervention and findings in peer-reviewed literature, rehousing (mechanism) was not always considered as ideal by residents (proximal outcome) who described a trade-off between more space vs. loss of social networks and potentially poorer quality housing or environment (longer-term outcomes). Also consistent with another programme theory and the literature, resident expert panels verified how in the case of home improvements (mechanisms), these may alleviate the worst impacts of overcrowding (outcomes) and address changing needs (context) especially if delivered from a design and planning stage (mechanism). Additionally, interventions to improve healthcare co-ordination and access (mechanisms) can be effective (outcome) and may be particularly appropriate for residents living for several years in overcrowded conditions (context).

Comparison with previous research

This review updates the evidence base of the 2013 Cochrane review on housing interventions (10), providing a stronger focus on overcrowding. In the Cochrane review many interventions of potential relevance to overcrowding focused on rehousing. This left some questions unaddressed about what can be done when residents cannot move. Our review adds to this while providing a broader overview including alternative mechanisms that may be available for councils to reduce overcrowding or alleviate its negative health impacts. We acknowledge that a more recent and full realist review has been published on the topic of holistic housing renovations (77), but this concerns adults in disadvantaged neighbourhoods more broadly than the specific issue of overcrowding. In fact, of the nine pathways to improved health that those authors presented, only one mentioned addressing overcrowding as a subset of multiple actions to support the particular pathway of physical housing improvements combined with health referrals – and, as such, gives further validation to our key finding on healthcare co-ordination. Another relatively recent review (although not systematic or realist) (78) is also of relevance to the findings on how improved layout and space can have a positive impact on overcrowded children, in which this may provide private space to be alone and serve a protective well-being effect enabling children to regulate negative stimuli in the house due to overcrowding, such as stressful social interactions or noise. The importance of the home for children cannot in this sense be overestimated, with other literature highlighting that children often have less of a world outside the home than adults and may need private space to concentrate on schoolwork (79, 80).

Limitations

There are some limitations. Firstly, time and resource constraints necessitated a ‘rapid’ review format. As this resulted in a shorter window for iteration or the possibility of adding further documents, the present review may not be as comprehensive as a full realist review. However, we conducted a comprehensive search in electronic databases similar to systematic review standards and benefited from key stakeholders pointing us to potentially missing literature, as well as further searching the grey literature on participating authorities’ websites. ‘Sibling’ papers were then identified to provide any additional information on context and/or mechanisms related to interventions evaluated in the peer-reviewed literature. Another caveat is that some care should be taken in generalising to urban contexts in England in general. For example, practical considerations and the need to facilitate in-person events to enhance participation, necessitated restriction of the residents’ expert panels to two councils within London. We do believe though that the expert panels and particularly accounting for residents’ perspectives including of seldom heard voices of ethnic minority residents, may be considered a strength. Finally, although the grey literature directed us to interventions implemented in participating contexts, and may suggest more evidence can be found in the grey compared to academic literature, these were typically not evaluated or as robustly evaluated as the peer-reviewed literature. Hence, the ways in which these have an impact or not, may not invariably be as certain despite the expert consultations and comparisons with similar evaluated interventions from the peer-reviewed (and occasionally international) literature.

Recommendations for research

A realist review format was deemed necessary, with studies lacking specific outcome measures for overcrowding and using multiple study designs of variable quality and across contexts. As such, the present review benefitted from complementary information from the grey literature and stakeholder groups – enhancing local relevance and the prospect of achieving intended impacts of interventions.

In light of this observation, we offer four research recommendations. Firstly, more research is needed into interventions that are not concerned with rehousing only, but also other alternatives that allow residents to stay in their current homes such as home improvements. Secondly, evaluations should incorporate consideration of both the intervention itself as well as its implementation, from residents’ perspectives. This will help focus on a wider set of outcomes of importance to residents themselves and their qualitative amount of usable space, rather than merely through housing registers/metrics quantifying the numbers of people per rooms. Thirdly, findings need to be disaggregated by population groups. There were only a few examples of this, such as e.g. where home improvements combined with health and social care links appeared to have a stronger preventative effect in younger age groups with less prior exposure to overcrowding, when compared to older household members. Primary studies should therefore improve assessment of outcomes across multiple sociodemographic characteristics such as age and gender (etc.) and do so consistently across all intervention categories for comparison. Finally, the lack of evidence on some intervention categories suggested by the expert panels on buy-back schemes, government promotions, or alleviation of overcrowding in HMO or hotel settings, as well as overall measurement of health outcomes across any intervention categories relating to recently prominent issues in the UK such as the COVID-19 pandemic, cost-of-living crisis or food insecurity, should also be explored.

Recommendations for policy/practice

This review focused on interventions that could be implemented at a local level in England. Our findings however also clearly demonstrate that local policy needs to be supported by national policy and needs to take into account local and national context. For example, staff described how councils need to balance limited resources to tackle overcrowding alongside other housing priorities such as shelter for a growing homeless population (61), which may be tackled through national prioritisation of affordable housing supply (e.g. building of social housing) (81). However, a lack of or reduced funding over many years from central and more regional structures (68) have potentially worsened the ‘housing crisis’. The accumulating challenges of post-pandemic recession, unemployment, increased living costs and rents, lack of discretionary housing payments and inappropriate benefit caps for those in need, as well as unfair evictions from the private rented market (54), speak to the larger concerted effort needed to tackle broader socio-economic inequalities – probably far beyond investing in effective and relevant overcrowding measures alone.

There are of course solutions available to councils in the immediate term – while realising that to be effective across urban contexts and population groups they may require further standardisation across councils through nationwide campaigns. In particular we offer four recommendations for policy and practice. Firstly, rather than just focusing on the prevalence of overcrowding in the prioritisation of policy, a more explicit consideration can be made of health and well-being. This is because the prevalence of overcrowding is not likely to drop immediately and there may be a transitional period in which our review has suggested solutions such as various home improvement initiatives that may alleviate the worst impacts of overcrowding and improve family health and well-being whilst still being in overcrowded conditions. Secondly, overcrowding should be considered as a council-wide issue that may not be tackled within the housing sector alone. Thirdly, the grey literature revealed that some of the evaluated interventions and mechanisms from the peer-reviewed literature are in place within local authorities – as such it may not be necessary to ‘re-invent the wheel’ completely, but ensure these are more closely aligned to residents’ needs (for example longer time to prepare for inspections or selection/move to any rehousing opportunities).

This may not be a separate endeavour for authorities, but in fact it is suggested that for initiatives to work, better signposting to organisations that support residents in their current or new environments may be needed. This then relates to the final policy/practice recommendation of more accurate and ongoing communication, such as regular status updates on residents’ applications and available options to alleviate overcrowding in the immediate as well as the longer-term. Ensuring that residents experience communication and any messages as appropriate may necessitate further co-design of engagement campaigns with the affected communities themselves. As the evidence shows that ethnic minority people are disproportionately affected by overcrowding in urban contexts in England (6), it is also pivotal that potential language barriers are addressed and sufficient translation services provided for non-English languages widely spoken within local communities.