Stafford 2008.

Methods	Study design: prospective controlled cohort Sampling frame: residents age 16 or older in 39 New Deal community areas in England, and residents in comparator areas matched on deprivation score and local authority Sampling method: random sample household survey of residents of New Deal communities age 16 or older. A similar household survey was carried out in deprived but not New Deal neighborhoods. At 2‐year follow‐up, surveys were repeated and a longitudinal panel of respondents resulted. In total, 10,390 previously interviewed New Deal site respondents were interviewed again in 2004 (73%). Among residents surveyed in comparison communities, 977 (72% of baseline) were interviewed Collection method: in‐person interview Description of the community coalition: New Deal program was launched in 1998 with the aim of reducing the gap between deprived neighborhoods and the rest of England through community‐led partnerships in 39 neighborhoods. Partnerships received about £50 million over 10 years. Each partnership had to create its own operating and governance procedures and systems for financial management and monitoring; also had to hire staff, decide on the role and composition of multi‐sector boards, and appoint or elect boards. Many were incorporated as companies
Participants	Communities: 39 deprived neighborhoods in London, in Birmingham, and across England Country: England Ages included in assessment: 16+ (n = 11,367) Reasons provided for selection of intervention community: areas of high socioeconomic deprivation Intervention community (population size): Each New Deal site had a population of approximately 9800 residents Comparison community (population size): similar size
Interventions	Name of intervention: New Deal for Communities Program Theory: area‐based regeneration Aim: to reduce gaps between the poorest neighborhoods and the rest of the country through a 10‐year strategic transformation of neighborhoods and local agencies Description of costs and resources: £50 million over 10 years per site Components of the intervention: Each New Deal site chose its own 10‐year targets and delivered a different set of interventions aimed at improving the environment, crime, education, employment, and health Start date: 1998 Duration: 10 years
Outcomes	Outcomes and measures: self rated health status, SF‐36 mental health, smoking status, satisfaction with local area Time points: baseline (2002) and follow‐up (2004)
Notes	Funding source: government
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	Not randomized
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	No allocation concealment
Baseline outcome measurement similar	Low risk	Similar baseline outcome measures
Baseline characteristics similar	Low risk	Participants in intervention and control areas similar
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Study interviewers were aware of intervention allocation, as it was determined by place of residence
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	30% of longitudinal cohort members lost to follow‐up in consecutive surveys
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Participants were not necessarily aware of the coalition intervention
Protection against contamination	Unclear risk	Intervention and control communities were in relatively close proximity
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Relevant outcomes were reported