By Public Health England (2020)
We are delighted to announce the launch of the COVID-19 Register of PHE led studies. It includes Public Health England led studies relating to COVID-19, that have taken place since February 2020. The register will be updated every two months, and can be accessed via our re-vamped Finding the evidence: Coronavirus page – 4th heading down
By Institute of Health Equity (Feb 2020)
This report, Health equity in England: The Marmot Review 10 years on, was commissioned by the Health Foundation, to explore what has happened to health inequalities and social determinants of health in the decade since the Marmot Review. We provide in-depth analysis of health inequalities in England and assess what has happened in key social determinants of health, positively and negatively, in the last 10 years. Critically, we set out an agenda for the Government and local authorities to take action to reduce health inequalities in England. This agenda is based on evidence and practical action evidence from the Marmot Review, and enhanced by new evidence from the succeeding decade, including evidence and learning from practical experience of implementing approaches to health inequalities in England and internationally.
By The Association of Directors of Public Health (2019)
The Association of Directors of Public Health (ADPH) and Public Health England (PHE) have co-produced a series of ‘What Good Looks Like’ (WGLL) publications that set out the guiding principles of ‘what good quality looks like’ for population health programmes in local systems.
The WGLL publications are based on the evidence of ‘what works and how it works’ including effectiveness, efficiency, equity, examples of best practices, opinions and viewpoints and, where available a return on investment.
Steel, et al. Lancet 2018; 392: 1647–61
Click here to view this systematic review
By Public Health England (2018)
This resource has been developed to help commissioners provide cost-effective interventions to prevent cardiovascular disease.
by NICE (2018)
This guideline covers how to improve the physical environment to encourage and support physical activity. The aim is to increase the general population’s physical activity levels. The recommendations in this guideline should be read alongside NICE’s guideline on physical activity: walking and cycling.
Recommendations
This guideline includes recommendations on:
•strategies, policies and plans to increase physical activity in the local environment
•active travel
•public open spaces
•buildings
•schools
Wilson, P.M. et al. BMC Implementation Science, 2017; 12(20)
Click here to view this article
Abstract
Background
The Health and Social Care Act mandated research use as a core consideration of health service commissioning arrangements in England. We undertook a controlled before and after study to evaluate whether access to a demand-led evidence briefing service improved the use of research evidence by commissioners compared with less intensive and less targeted alternatives.
Methods
Nine Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in the North of England received one of three interventions: (A) access to an evidence briefing service; (B) contact plus an unsolicited push of non-tailored evidence; or (C) unsolicited push of non-tailored evidence. Data for the primary outcome measure were collected at baseline and 12 months using a survey instrument devised to assess an organisations’ ability to acquire, assess, adapt and apply research evidence to support decision-making. Documentary and observational evidence of the use of the outputs of the service were sought.
Results
Over the course of the study, the service addressed 24 topics raised by participating CCGs. At 12 months, the evidence briefing service was not associated with increases in CCG capacity to acquire, assess, adapt and apply research evidence to support decision-making, individual intentions to use research findings or perceptions of CCG relationships with researchers. Regardless of intervention received, participating CCGs indicated that they remained inconsistent in their research-seeking behaviours and in their capacity to acquire research. The informal nature of decision-making processes meant that there was little traceability of the use of evidence. Low baseline and follow-up response rates and missing data limit the reliability of the findings.
Conclusions
Access to a demand-led evidence briefing service did not improve the uptake and use of research evidence by NHS commissioners compared with less intensive and less targeted alternatives. Commissioners appear well intentioned but ad hoc users of research. Further research is required on the effects of interventions and strategies to build individual and organisational capacity to use research.
By The Cochrane Library (2018)
Three Cochrane Reviews have been newly updated to incorporate the latest available evidence on vaccines for the prevention of influenza. These reviews, which focus on the prevention of influenza in healthy adults, healthy children, and in the elderly, form a long-running series by the same author team, and are available in full on the Cochrane Library:
Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults
Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children
By the CQC (2018)
This briefing flags up concerns, identified during the course of CQC’s inspections, about some independent sector services that offer residential care to people undergoing detoxification from drugs and alcohol. In 2016/17, it is estimated that about 1% of people in alcohol and drug treatment received this type of intervention. The briefing, which includes recommendations, is for providers, commissioners and other local and national bodies that play a part in assuring the quality of substance misuse services.
Dropkin, G. Journal of Public Health, https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdx136
Published: 03 November 2017
Click here to view this article
Background
NHS RightCare is an NHS England programme describing itself as ‘a proven approach that delivers better patient outcomes’. It identifies opportunities for savings and quality improvements, comparing each Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) with the ‘Best 5’ of a fixed set of ‘Similar 10’ CCGs chosen using equally weighted demographic and deprivation indicators. This article tests whether these indicators are sufficient and equal weighting is appropriate, and evaluates significance.
Methods
Robust public data on lung, colorectal, and breast cancer mortality is modelled using the indicators and incidence. Peers chosen using the preferred models are compared with the Similar 10. Confidence intervals are obtained for comparator group averages. RightCare significance is simulated.
Results
Preferred models have unequally weighted covariates. Incidence is the strongest predictor of lung cancer mortality. The ‘Similar 10’ are inappropriate comparators. RightCare significance ignores variability of comparator outcomes, causing 12% Type I errors. Whilst RightCare shows 1842 annual avoidable lung cancer deaths in 80 CCGs, only 168 deaths in 8 CCGs appear exceptional using appropriate peers and CIs.
Conclusion
CCGs cannot expect to match the average performance of the RightCare ‘Best 5’. Until the methodology is examined with data of known quality, claims that RightCare is a ‘proven approach’ are unsubstantiated.