Containing COVID, part 4. The limits of knowledge exchange

It is tempting to think that we can learn lessons from how other countries have handled COVID-19, and from studying those outcomes. But, warn Linda Hantrais (LSE) and Susanne MacGregor (LSHTM), we should avoid drawing simplistic conclusions

Containing COVID, part 2. The problem of unreliable and incompatible evidence

Calculating and comparing COVID-19 death rates is not a simple matter. Linda Hantrais (LSE) and Susanne MacGregor (LSHTM) explain why, and how these complex processes enabled public figures, journalists and social media users to spread misleading information

Incorporating complexity into policy learning: the case of COVID-19 in Europe

Across the three waves of the Covid-19 pandemic that hit European countries in the space of twelve months, outcome indicators for Covid-19 cases and deaths diverged, as did policy responses. Linda Hantrais and Susanne MacGregor examine evidence about what societies and their institutions could have learnt from each other and from their own experiences during successive waves of the pandemic. They ask whether policy learning seemed to be more effective in some societies than in others, and if so why

Containing COVID, part 1. First things first: the difficulty of building an evidence base

Unprecedented cooperation meant that scientists quickly built a picture of the novel coronavirus. Yet the evidence they accumulated should not be taken at face value. Linda Hantrais (LSE) and Susanne MacGregor (LSHTM) introduce a series about the challenges of learning from statistical datasets and other scientific evidence

Containing COVID, part 3. Learning (or not) from past crises

Historians of previous pandemics and crises offered lessons on how to deal with COVID-19, write Linda Hantrais (LSE) and Susanne MacGregor (LSHTM), though they were not always heeded

The alcohol improvement programme: evaluation of an initiative to address alcohol-related health harm in England

Aims: The evaluation aimed to assess the impact of The Alcohol Improvement Programme (AIP). This was a UK Department of Health initiative (April 2008–March 2011) aiming to contribute to the reduction of alcohol-related harm as measured by a reduction in the rate of increase in alcohol-related hospital admissions (ARHAs). Methods: The evaluation (March 2010–September 2011) used a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods to assess the impact of the AIP on ARHAs, to describe and assess the process of implementation, and to identify elements of the programme which might serve as a ‘legacy’ for the future. Results: There was no evidence that the AIP had an impact on reducing the rise in the rate of ARHAs. The AIP was successfully delivered, increased the priority given to alcohol-related harm on local policy agendas and strengthened the infrastructure for the delivery of interventions. Conclusion: Although there was no measurable short-term impact on the rise in the rate of ARHAs, the AIP helped to set up a strategic response and a delivery infrastructure as a first, necessary step in working towards that goal. There are a number of valuable elements in the AIP which should be retained and repackaged to fit into new policy contexts

Perceptions on the role of evidence: an English alcohol policy case study

This paper explores the competing influences which inform public health policy and describes the role that research evidence plays within the policy-making process. In particular it draws on a recent English alcohol policy case study to assess the role of evidence in informing policy and practice. Semi-structured interviews with key national, regional and local policy informants were transcribed and analysed thematically. A strong theme identified was that of the role of evidence. Findings are discussed in the context of competing views on what constitutes appropriate evidence for policy-making