Key messages

• frontline staff identified three main areas where barriers to integration persist: access to social services, interprofessional relationships and infrastructure
• difficulties contacting staff across sectors create delays in referrals and care coordination
• hostile working cultures and siloed practices contribute to poor collaboration between primary and social care
• overworked staff, inefficient multidisciplinary meetings and unclear responsibilities slow responses to patient needs
• lack of interoperable information systems, absence of pooled budgets and misaligned managerial incentives compound structural barriers.

Policy implications

• improving integration may require investment in interoperable information systems across sectors
• pooled budgets and aligned incentives could reduce structural divisions between primary and social care
• workforce strategies should address interprofessional relationships and organisational culture, not only processes
• clearer accountability arrangements may help reduce diffusion of responsibility in integrated working.

Gaps

• findings are based on London GP surgeries and may not reflect experiences in other regions
• perspectives of social care staff are not included
• limited insight into how barriers change over time or respond to policy interventions.

Commentary
This study highlights how workforce experiences shape the effectiveness of integration between primary and social care. Barriers are not limited to systems and structures, but are deeply influenced by relationships, culture and everyday working practices.

Difficulties in accessing social services and contacting staff across organisational boundaries delay referrals and disrupt continuity of care. From a care equity perspective, these delays may disproportionately affect people with complex needs who rely on coordinated support across sectors.

The findings also point to cultural and relational barriers. Hostile interprofessional relationships and siloed working undermine collaboration, while overwork and inefficient multidisciplinary meetings limit the capacity of staff to engage meaningfully in integrated care.

Structural issues, including non-interoperable information systems, lack of pooled budgets and misaligned incentives, further strengthen division between sectors. These barriers suggest that integration efforts focused solely on frontline practice are unlikely to succeed without also undertaking system-level reform.

Overall, the study shows that achieving equitable, integrated care requires attention to workforce conditions, organisational culture and infrastructure alongside policy and funding mechanisms. Without addressing these interconnected barriers, integration risks remaining aspirational rather than embedded in routine practice.

Key messages

• the review synthesises evidence mainly from the UK, with additional studies from Canada, Germany and the USA
• several key domains underpin effective integrated neighbourhood models
• the domains include the integrator host, integrator enablers, partnership principles, integrated workforce, core areas of work and services provided
• integrated neighbourhood models support multidisciplinary collaboration, improved resource use and community engagement
• funding constraints, digital exclusion and inconsistent evaluation frameworks limit scalability and sustainability.

Policy implications

• implementation of neighbourhood models requires clarity on leadership, hosting and accountability arrangements
• workforce integration and partnership principles should be explicitly designed rather than assumed
• digital inclusion must be addressed to avoid widening inequalities in neighbourhood-based models
• consistent evaluation frameworks are needed to assess impact and support scale-up.

Gaps

• limited evidence on long-term sustainability of integrated neighbourhood models
• lack of standardised evaluation approaches across settings
• limited insight into how neighbourhood models affect inequalities across different population groups.

Commentary
This systematic review provides a structured framework for understanding how integrated neighbourhood health and care models are designed and implemented. By identifying seven core domains, it moves the evidence base beyond descriptive accounts towards clearer principles that can guide practice and policy.

From a care equity standpoint, the focus on multidisciplinary collaboration and community engagement is particularly important. Integrated neighbourhood models aim to align health, social care and wider services around local populations, with the potential to improve access and responsiveness for people whose needs span multiple systems.

However, the review also highlights structural risks. Funding limitations and digital exclusion threaten the reach and sustainability of neighbourhood approaches, particularly in more deprived communities. Without deliberate action, these barriers may reinforce existing inequities rather than reduce them.

The lack of consistent evaluation frameworks further limits understanding of impact. Without robust and comparable evidence, it is difficult to determine whether integrated neighbourhood models improve outcomes equitably or which components are most effective.

Overall, the findings suggest that neighbourhood health models hold promise as a place-based approach to integration, but their contribution to equity depends on how they are resourced, evaluated and adapted to local context. Ensuring that implementation addresses digital access, funding stability and inclusive evaluation will be central to delivering equitable neighbourhood health and care.

Key messages

• effective neighbourhood integration depends on strong leadership, shared goals and clear communication
• relational and cultural factors, including trust and collaboration, are as important as structural change
• professional identity differences and siloed working cultures remain major barriers
• inconsistent data sharing limits coordination across organisations
• evidence on neighbourhood-level integration remains limited, particularly in urban UK settings.

Policy implications

• neighbourhood integration strategies should prioritise leadership development and shared vision
• investment in relationship-building across professions and organisations may be critical to success
• data sharing arrangements need to support joint working at neighbourhood level
• local implementation should be accompanied by clear evaluation frameworks.

Gaps

• limited empirical evidence describing how neighbourhood integration operates in practice
• lack of robust evaluations, including outcome measures and long-term follow-up
• insufficient inclusion of service users, carers and frontline staff perspectives.

Commentary
This rapid review highlights that neighbourhood health and care integration is shaped as much by relational and cultural dynamics as by organisational structures. Strong leadership, shared goals and effective communication are identified as central to aligning health and social care around local populations.

The persistence of siloed working and professional identity differences suggests that integration efforts risk stalling if cultural barriers are not addressed. From a care equity perspective, these barriers may disproportionately affect people with complex needs who rely on coordinated support across services.

Inconsistent data sharing further limits the effectiveness of neighbourhood integration. Without shared information, teams struggle to plan and deliver joined-up care, reducing the potential benefits of place-based approaches.

The review also draws attention to significant evidence gaps. Limited evaluation and weak inclusion of lived experience mean that it remains unclear how neighbourhood integration affects access, experience and outcomes for local communities.

Overall, the findings suggest that neighbourhood health and care in Manchester requires sustained investment in leadership, culture and evaluation alongside structural reform. Without this, integration risks remaining fragmented and uneven, limiting its contribution to equitable care.