In order take account of new or unexpected circumstances, we have put a lot of effort into finding out how the regeneration plans have changed over time, and into monitoring progress with ongoing interventions. This has become a major research task in a way we had not anticipated; one which has required good contacts with the city’s key service providers and significant assistance from them. Nonetheless

we are conscious that some service providers have proved more willing or able to provide us with information than others, and so our knowledge of intervention delivery is, we think, substantial but not complete (see Table 1). Through a review of the relevant policy literature, as well as interviews with key respondents in national and local roles in Scotland, we established that there were no clear theories of change or logic models helping to make

explicit the health or social outcomes expected to be affected by regeneration, and/or find more the mechanisms by which these outcomes would be achieved (Beck et al., 2010). For example, diversification of tenure (one aim of regeneration in Glasgow and elsewhere) is purported to bring a range of social, environmental and residential benefits to residents although how this will occur is rarely made explicit nor is there good evidence that it occurs (Bond et al., 2011 and Sautkina et al., 2012). Therefore, we have focused on a range of plausible health outcomes from regeneration including: mental wellbeing; health behaviors; and health-related quality

of life. However, in addition to selleck inhibitor health and wellbeing outcomes, we have also examined residential (housing and neighborhood) outcomes and social and community outcomes. As Petticrew (2013) argues there is often no primary outcome for social interventions and the ones chosen reflect both the researchers’ and the stakeholders’ perspectives. Focusing only on health and wellbeing outcomes in the case of housing and regeneration interventions ‘may result in biased conclusions about their value’ (p.91). As the study has progressed we have developed Linifanib (ABT-869) our own sense of what some of the key mechanisms of change might be, including monitoring the relevant research literature produced in the years that followed our baseline survey. To this end, we are currently testing through our analysis the efficacy of several pathways to outcomes including: environmental; psychosocial; social; and empowerment. Moderators within these pathways include such issues as place attachment and resident attitudes to change. The pathways, mediators and moderators included in our analysis vary depending on the particular aspect of the intervention being studied. Through this approach we have been able to turn the variability of the intervention into a strength. Single, tightly defined interventions do not allow for this sort of detailed look at different mechanisms.