different localities, what they are intended to achieve, and the implications for local-level alcohol availability. We found that the case study CIPs varied greatly in terms of aims, health focus and scale of implementation. However, they shared some common functions around influencing the types and managerial practices of alcohol outlets in specific neighbourhoods without reducing outlet density. The assumption that this will lead to alcohol harm-reduction needs to be quantitatively tested.

Introduction The social and economic consequences of COVID‐19 have the potential to affect individuals and populations through different pathways (e.g., bereavement, loss of social interaction). Objective This study adopted a solicited diary method to understand how mental health was affected during England's first lockdown. We also considered the experiences of diary keeping during a pandemic from the perspective of public participants. Methods Fifteen adults older than 18 years of age were recruited from northwest England. Diarists completed semistructured online diaries for 8 weeks, which was combined with weekly calls. A focus group captured participants' experiences of diary keeping. Findings Four key factors influenced mental health, which fluctuated over time and in relation to diarists' situations. These concerned navigating virus risk, loss of social connections and control and constrictions of the domestic space. Diarists also enacted a range of strategies to cope with the pandemic. This included support from social networks, engagement with natural environments, establishing normality, finding meaning and taking affirmative action. Conclusion Use of diary methods provided insights into the lived experiences of the early months of a global pandemic. As well as contributing evidence on its mental health effects, diarists' accounts illuminated considerable resourcefulness and strategies of coping with positive effects for well‐being. While diary keeping can also have therapeutic benefits during adversity, ethical and practical issues need to be considered, which include the emotional nature of diary keeping. Public Contribution Members of the public were involved in interpretation of data as well as critiquing the overall diary method used in the study.

Reducing or eliminating the cost to the public of using leisure facilities is one tool that local authorities have available to reduce inequalities in physical activity (PA). There is limited evidence about the effect of leisure entrance charges and their impact on participation. This study aimed to ascertain how facility pricing influenced the decisions people made about how to pay and what to pay for and how, in turn, these decisions impacted on participation for different groups. A total of 83 members of the public living in 4 local authorities in the North West of England were involved in focus groups or individual interviews. The results show that cost was a key factor which influenced PA participation in low income neighbourhoods. In practise, however, the majority of service users navigated the range of prices or payment options to find one that was suitable rather than simply reporting whether leisure was affordable or not. Whilst pre-paid options (e.g. direct debit memberships) encouraged participation, entrance charges incurred each time an individual participated had a negative impact on frequency but were a convenient way of paying for occasional use or for people who were unable to afford a pre-paid option. Free access also helped people who could not afford pre-paid membership to exercise regularly as well as incentivizing non-users to try activities. The research concluded that policies that include components of free access and offer more flexible payment options are most likely to contribute to reducing inequalities in PA.

Many LAs are reviewing the extent of subsidy for facilities or are considering whether to invest public health budgets in leisure. The findings offer evidence of how pricing decisions are made and the approaches adopted in practice as well as the conflicting priorities for decision makers within an austerity context.