Prophylactic interventions to prevent rebound pain after peripheral nerve block in adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

There are significant geographical inequalities in health with a 2-year gap in life expectancy between the northern and southern regions of England and up to 9 years difference in life expectancy between English neighbourhoods (). Likewise, in the US city of New Orleans, there is a 25-year gap in life expectancy between rich and poor neighbourhoods (). These geographical patterns in health outcomes are also evident in Europe () – for example, in Oslo, Norway, life expectancy varies by up to eight years between districts () – as well as globally (; Victorra et al., 2017). There are also significant inequalities in health between men and women (with higher rates of morbidity amongst women, and higher mortality amongst men [Bambra et al., 2021]); between ethnic groups (e.g. COVID-19 death rates are three-times higher amongst Black Americans [); by migration status (including inequalities in access to health care []); and amongst other marginalised groups (e.g. higher rates of mental ill health amongst LGBTQ + groups, []). Research into geographical inequalities in health has largely focused on examining the effects of area-level deprivation and has often been framed through a compositional-contextual lens, their inter-relationship (Cummings et al., 2007) and the influence of vertical macro-economic and political/policy drivers (). However, in the broader health inequalities field, intersectionality and there has been a push to take a more intersectional approach (: 113) by examining the concurrent and interacting influences on health of multiple axes of inequality (such as socio-economic status, gender, race/ethnicity and sexuality or gender-identity) and their syndemic interactions (; ; ; ). Further, social geography has been using intersectionality to analyse how mutually constitutive forms of social oppression interact and interrelate with place (). This paper exploits the analytical space opened up by this ‘intersectional turn’ by outlining the benefits for research into geographical inequalities in health that can be achieved by taking a more explicit approach to intersectional inequalities. It argues that: (1) geographical research into health inequalities should more explicitly apply an intersectional lens; and relatedly that, in turn, (2) place needs to be considered as an aspect of intersectionality and – as such - integrated into the wider intersectional inequalities in health literature. The paper summarises the evolution of theories of place and health inequalities and outlines intersectional theory and the work to date that has been undertaken to integrate this perspective into our understanding of health inequalities. Drawing on the wider social geography literature into place and intersectionality, the paper explores how this perspective is being used to enhance our understanding of place effects more generally – and how place itself can be considered as an element of intersectional inequalities. Drawing these different bodies of work together, the paper concludes by considering the implications for theories of geographical inequalities in health.