{
  "abstract": "Background In the ‘age of austerity’, multiple changes to social security spending were introduced. Family-friendly policies were replaced with harsher provisions presented as socially fair. The cumulative financial impacts of these policy changes are poorly understood. We used systematic approaches to locate and review complex social security policy changes to address the question: What welfare policy changes between 2010 and 2020 in Britain had adverse impacts on the financial wellbeing of parents, and what were the inequalities in financial impacts across population groups?Methods Approaches from critical reviews of theory and systematic reviews of evidence on complex social determinants of health were adapted to identify relevant literature. Policy documents, commentaries, and studies were located through database searches, contact with experts and parliamentarians, advanced Google searches, searches of organisational websites, and citation searches. Publications containing policy information and evidence were systematically screened for inclusion/exclusion, data was extracted, and results were synthesised narratively.Results We identified over 40 policy changes likely to have adverse impacts. We categorised them into six groups. First, abolition of a policy and removal of financial support. Second, reductions or freezes to payments. Third, changes or limits to conditions under which payments were made (e.g., Two-child policy). Fourth, new obligations and punitive actions against claimants. Fifth, reducing accessibility of application systems (e.g., online only). Sixth, changing eligibility start points or waiting days. We then assessed potential inequalities in impacts relating to the categories. Looking across the policy changes, the incomes and living conditions of many thousands of the poorest families in society appear to have been adversely affected, mostly the ‘working poor’. Available evidence suggests impacts are more likely to be experienced by women due to caring responsibilities and likelihood of being a single parent. Intersections between socioeconomic position, sex, ethnicity, education, health, disability, parental and working status may increase potential adverse impacts.Conclusion While many policy makers, public, and researchers alike may be ‘lost’ in the complex waves of policy changes over time, these changes continue to be collectively responsible for an increasing proportion of parents and children in Britain being pushed into poverty. Increases in harmful manifestations of impoverishment via key health and wellbeing determinants such as food poverty, fuel poverty, rent arrears, and adverse health outcomes, including mental illness, are also likely to grow overtime. Ultimately, costs spread to wider society as demand for health, mental health, social care, criminal justice, and other publicly funded services increase.",
  "authors": [
    {
      "affiliations": [
        "Public Health, Policy and Systems, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK"
      ],
      "name": "Andy Pennington"
    },
    {
      "affiliations": [
        "Public Health, Policy and Systems, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK"
      ],
      "name": "Rebecca Geary"
    },
    {
      "affiliations": [
        "Public Health, Policy and Systems, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK"
      ],
      "name": "Chris Grollman"
    },
    {
      "affiliations": [
        "Public Health, Policy and Systems, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK"
      ],
      "name": "Kate Mason"
    },
    {
      "affiliations": [
        "Public Health, Policy and Systems, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK"
      ],
      "name": "Sophie Wickham"
    }
  ],
  "title": "P05 ‘Lost in the flood’ – a review of social security policy changes affecting the financial wellbeing of parents in Britain during the 2010s",
  "uid": "eb1752e3-3876-5bfb-b351-c2fe635d6f92"
}