Author: Sarah Woodhall

Adult drinking habits in Great Britain: 2005 to 2016

Post author By Sarah Woodhall
Post date June 22, 2017

By Office for National Statistics (2017)

Teetotalism, drinking in the week before interview, frequent drinking and units drunk, including changes in drinking patterns in recent years.

Click here to view this statistical bulletin

STPs

Event in Manchester – Sustainability and transformation plans: moving towards implementation

Post author By Sarah Woodhall
Post date May 30, 2017

Date: 6 Jun 2017

Time: 8.45am-4.30pm

Venue: Manchester Metropolitan University, Brooks Building, M15 6GX

Event type: Conference

Click here to find out more about the event

NHS England’s Next steps on the five year forward view, published in March, outlined the aim to use sustainability and transformation partnerships as the vehicle to make the ‘biggest national move to integrated care of any major western country’.

This event is for the leaders of primary care, community care, mental health, acute hospital, social care, housing, voluntary and public health services who are responsible for implementing the changes proposed in sustainability and transformation plans.

It has been designed to help local areas strengthen their proposals into fully developed plans and will tackle the most important questions facing them as they begin to consider how these changes will be implemented.

Evidence Based Healthy Settings Library Licensing Planning

Evidence based policy making and the ‘art’ of commissioning – how English healthcare commissioners access and use information and academic research in ‘real life’ decision-making: an empirical qualitative study

Post author By Sarah Woodhall
Post date May 30, 2017

Wye, L. et al. BMC Health Services Research, 2015; 15: 430

Click here to view this full text article

Abstract

Background
Policymakers such as English healthcare commissioners are encouraged to adopt ‘evidence-based policy-making’, with ‘evidence’ defined by researchers as academic research. To learn how academic research can influence policy, researchers need to know more about commissioning, commissioners’ information seeking behaviour and the role of research in their decisions.

Methods
In case studies of four commissioning organisations, we interviewed 52 people including clinical and managerial commissioners, observed 14 commissioning meetings and collected documentation e.g. meeting minutes and reports. Using constant comparison, data were coded, summarised and analysed to facilitate cross case comparison.

Results
The ‘art of commissioning’ entails juggling competing agendas, priorities, power relationships, demands and personal inclinations to build a persuasive, compelling case. Policymakers sought information to identify options, navigate ways through, justify decisions and convince others to approve and/or follow the suggested course. ‘Evidence-based policy-making’ usually meant pragmatic selection of ‘evidence’ such as best practice guidance, clinicians’ and users’ views of services and innovations from elsewhere. Inconclusive or negative research was unhelpful in developing policymaking plans and did not inform disinvestment decisions. Information was exchanged through conversations and stories, which were fast, flexible and suited the rapidly changing world of policymaking. Local data often trumped national or research-based evidence. Local evaluations were more useful than academic research.

Discussion
Commissioners are highly pragmatic and will only use information that helps them create a compelling case for action.Therefore, researchers need to start producing more useful information.

Conclusions
To influence policymakers’ decisions, researchers need to 1) learn more about local policymakers’ priorities 2) develop relationships of mutual benefit 3) use verbal instead of writtencommunication 4) work with intermediaries such as public health consultants and 5) co-produce local evaluations.

Evidence Based Healthy Settings Library Licensing Planning

Evidence-based policymaking is not like evidence-based medicine, so how far should you go to bridge the divide between evidence and policy?

Post author By Sarah Woodhall
Post date April 27, 2017

Cairney, P. et al. Health Research Policy & Systems, 2017; 15: 35

Click here to view this article

There is extensive health and public health literature on the ‘evidence-policy gap’, exploring the frustrating experiences of scientists trying to secure a response to the problems and solutions they raise and identifying the need for better evidence to reduce policymaker uncertainty. We offer a new perspective by using policy theory to propose research with greater impact, identifying the need to use persuasion to reduce ambiguity, and to adapt to multi-level policymaking systems.

We identify insights from secondary data, namely systematic reviews, critical analysis and policy theories relevant to evidence-based policymaking. The studies are drawn primarily from countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. We combine empirical and normative elements to identify the ways in which scientists can, do and could influence policy.

We identify two important dilemmas, for scientists and researchers, that arise from our initial advice. First, effective actors combine evidence with manipulative emotional appeals to influence the policy agenda – should scientists do the same, or would the reputational costs outweigh the policy benefits? Second, when adapting to multi-level policymaking, should scientists prioritise ‘evidence-based’ policymaking above other factors? The latter includes governance principles such the ‘co-production’ of policy between local public bodies, interest groups and service users. This process may be based primarily on values and involve actors with no commitment to a hierarchy of evidence.

We conclude that successful engagement in ‘evidence-based policymaking’ requires pragmatism, combining scientific evidence with governance principles, and persuasion to translate complex evidence into simple stories. To maximise the use of scientific evidence in health and public health policy, researchers should recognise the tendency of policymakers to base judgements on their beliefs, and shortcuts based on their emotions and familiarity with information; learn ‘where the action is’, and be prepared to engage in long-term strategies to be able to influence policy; and, in both cases, decide how far you are willing to go to persuade policymakers to act and secure a hierarchy of evidence underpinning policy. These are value-driven and political, not just ‘evidence-based’, choices.

Healthy Settings Licensing Planning Public Health Advice to NHS Commissioners

Return on investment of public health interventions: a systematic review

Post author By Sarah Woodhall
Post date April 11, 2017

Masters R, et al. J Epidemiol Community Health 2017;0:1–8. doi:10.1136/jech 2016-208141

Click here to read this article

ABSTRACT
Background Public sector austerity measures in many
high-income countries mean that public health budgets
are reducing year on year. To help inform the potential
impact of these proposed disinvestments in public
health, we set out to determine the return on investment
(ROI) from a range of existing public health
interventions.
Methods We conducted systematic searches on all
relevant databases (including MEDLINE; EMBASE;
CINAHL; AMED; PubMed, Cochrane and Scopus) to
identify studies that calculated a ROI or cost-benefit ratio
(CBR) for public health interventions in high-income
countries.
Results We identified 2957 titles, and included 52
studies. The median ROI for public health interventions
was 14.3 to 1, and median CBR was 8.3. The median
ROI for all 29 local public health interventions was 4.1
to 1, and median CBR was 10.3. Even larger benefits
were reported in 28 studies analysing nationwide public
health interventions; the median ROI was 27.2, and
median CBR was 17.5.
Conclusions This systematic review suggests that local
and national public health interventions are highly costsaving.
Cuts to public health budgets in high income
countries therefore represent a false economy, and are
likely to generate billions of pounds of additional costs
to health services and the wider economy.

Grey Literature Library

Index of Grey Literature and Alternative Sources and Resources

Post author By Sarah Woodhall
Post date March 21, 2017

By Public Health England (2017)

This list has been compiled to help librarians and researchers, particularly in Public Health, to find resources that fall into this category and flag up alternative sources for queries not easily resolved by the clinical / medical database model.

Click here to visit the list

Library

NIHR Funding Opportunities for Public Health Research

Post author By Sarah Woodhall
Post date February 27, 2017

A Research Design Service North West event

16 March 2017, 9.30am-2.30pm

The Foresight Centre, Liverpool

This RDS NW seminar is for health and social care professionals and researchers in the North West of England who want to develop and submit a Public Health Research application for funding. Those thinking of other NIHR research funding streams will also benefit from attending.

What will you get from the day?

For those intending to develop and submit an application to NIHR, this event will highlight:

the funding opportunities available
the application process
what funders are looking for in a submission
the importance of a well-defined research question
how to design a study to answer your research question effectively
building a team of collaborators
the support that RDS NW can provide in the preparation of your application

What do I need to do?

As this event is aimed at those wanting to develop and submit a research funding application, we ask that:

you have a clear idea of your research question
you are prepared to discuss your idea with an RDS adviser
you let us know what the type(s) of specialist advice you will need (if known) in advance so that we can ensure an adviser is available to help you.

For more information please visit the RDS NW website events page here.

To register your place please book here.

Research Design Service North West
Central Coordinating Office
Tel: +44 (0) 1524 593209
Follow the Research Design Service on Twitter: @NIHR_RDS.

STPs

Delivering sustainability and transformation plans: from ambitious proposals to credible plans

Post author By Sarah Woodhall
Post date February 23, 2017

By The King’s Fund (2017)

Our new report examines the content of the 44 sustainability and transformation plans (STPs) submitted in October last year, arguing that the challenge now is to translate ambitious proposals into credible plans focused on the most important priorities in each area.

Click here to read this report

STPs

The sustainability and transformation plans: a critical assessment

Post author By Sarah Woodhall
Post date February 14, 2017

By Centre for Health and the Public Interest (2017)

This report assesses the published drafts for STPs and it raises concerns around the credibility of the implementation measures outlined in the plans. It argues that the scale of the planned reduction in hospital services implies rationing and risks the collapse of some services.

Click here to view this report