For example, by 2008 many participants had not experienced demolition or housing improvement and these we have used as a pragmatic control group to examine short to medium term effects of these interventions on current recipients (Bond et al., 2012 and Egan et al., 2013). Thus, while unpredictable
change presents a major challenge, we have tried to take advantage of it where possible by identifying different ways (at different time points) in which intervention exposure varies across our sample of participants. Without intending to do so, practitioners have created a ‘waiting list’ effect within the interventions that can help us assess intervention impacts and dose–response relationships. Our ability to do this learn more type of analysis is the result of efforts to link practitioner-held information on the interventions, including the dates and exact nature of actions taken, to our survey data on a case-by-case basis through property addresses. This is a time-consuming exercise as the data held by practitioners is not readily user-friendly for research purposes. It is also uncommon in regeneration evaluations to do this, as much analysis is only conducted on an area basis, but it adds another level to our ability to identify the effects of
regeneration this website on residents, and relies upon a high degree of trust between the researchers and practitioners for individual-level data to be shared in this way. Our use of several time points in longitudinal analysis (eventually four-time points) is another way of using the analysis of the survey data to test pathways to outcomes and establish whether changes in health and wellbeing outcomes can be attributed to more immediate changes in residential circumstances brought about by housing and regeneration interventions. We can also
use repeated analysis following subsequent survey waves to address unanswered questions arising from previous analysis. For example, after the first two Mephenoxalone survey waves, we found an absence of health decline among residents of demolition areas (Egan et al., 2013), as a result of which we are exploring several potential explanations for this apparent ‘protective’ effect on health in our analysis of the third wave of survey data (linked longitudinally to the previous two waves). Finally, our mixed methods approach can help with the issue of attribution of effect. For example, our survey findings indicate relatively negative trends in social outcomes in areas that have received relocatees from regeneration areas. We cannot tell through the survey evidence whether or not this is due to the arrival of ‘incomers’ from elsewhere, so-called ‘negative spill over effects’ (Kleinhans and Varady, 2011), but we are embarking on qualitative research in these areas to ascertain whether this appears to be the case from residents’ accounts of social change.
Related posts: