Winter 2025-26 CHE Research Summaries

Posted on Tuesday 10 March 2026

As winter comes to an end, we’re highlighting some of the thought-provoking questions our researchers tackled this season. From exploring how better asthma treatment adherence could improve both health outcomes and NHS costs, to examining the effects of continuity of primary care on patient complaints, our latest Research Summaries shed light on pressing issues in health and healthcare. We also investigated whether screening for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm reduces health inequalities, and who benefits most from increased healthcare spending. 

Here’s a quick round-up of the key insights from these Research Summaries:

In Why more effort is needed to improve the use of asthma treatment researchers investigated the effects of improved adherence to prescribed medications, using a model to examine the potential health outcomes and NHS costs associated with patients with either controlled, partially controlled or uncontrolled asthma symptoms. Using a range of data sources, our research showed that better adherence to medication is associated with reduced asthma exacerbations and better overall health, both in terms of how long people live and the quality of those years, as measured by ‘quality adjusted life years’ (QALYs).

In The impact of continuity of primary care on patient complaints in England, CHE researchers explored how patients themselves respond to declining continuity of care. In particular, they looked at whether the inability to continuously see a preferred GP is associated with increases in the number of new complaints against general practices in the English NHS. The research highlighted an often-overlooked consequence of declining continuity: when patients lose the ability to see their preferred GP, they are more likely to be dissatisfied with their experience and to complain.

In Does screening for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm reduce health inequalities?, we aimed to find out whether the performance and health benefits of the screening programme differed for individuals depending on the economic advantage or disadvantage of the areas where individuals live. We estimated whether providing the screening programme reduces health inequalities at population-level compared to no screening. The research findings suggest that overall population health was improved by screening, with 317 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained compared to no screening. However, these health benefits were concentrated among those living in more advantaged areas of England.

Lastly, Who gains most from increased health care spending?, examined mortality data across 32,784 small geographical areas in England, and the results challenged  conventional wisdom that higher spending is bound to reduce health inequalities.  Our research showed that middle-deprivation groups gain the most from increased secondary care spending, while the most disadvantaged don’t always see the biggest health benefits or bear the largest costs when funding shifts. Factors like advantaged patients navigating the system more effectively, public funding replacing private spending, and higher levels of co-morbidities in disadvantaged groups can limit the impact of extra spending, highlighting that more resources may not automatically reduce health inequalities.

All four Research Summaries are available to download from our publications website. They provide accessible, policy-focused overviews of ongoing research at CHE and are designed to support evidence-informed decision making across health and social care.

Would you like to receive our next research summary directly in your inbox? Sign up for our mailing list.