Use and value of systematic reviews in English local authority public health: a qualitative study

Background Responsibility for public health in England transferred from the National Health Service to local authorities in 2013, representing a different decision-making environment. Systematic reviews are considered the gold standard of evidence for clinical decisionmaking but little is known about their use in local government public health. This study aimed to explore the extent to which public health decision-makers in local authorities engage with systematic reviews and how they do so. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with senior public health practitioners (n=14) in Yorkshire and the Humber local authorities. Sampling was purposive and involved contacting Directors of Public Health directly and snowballing through key contacts. Face-to-face or telephone interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the Framework Method. Results Public health practitioners described using systematic reviews directly in decision-making and engaging with them more widely in a range of ways, often through a personal commitment to professional development. They saw themselves as having a role to advocate for the use of rigorous evidence, including systematic reviews, in the wider local authority. Systematic reviews were highly valued in principle and public health practitioners had relevant skills to find and appraise them. However, the extent of use varied by individual and local authority and was limited by the complexity of decision-making and various barriers. Barriers included that there were a limited number of systematic reviews available on certain public health topics, such as the wider determinants of health, and that the narrow focus of reviews was not reflective of complex public health decisions facing local authorities. Reviews were used alongside a range of other evidence types, including grey literature. The source of evidence was often considered an indicator of quality, with specific organisations, such as Public Health England, NICE and Cochrane, particularly trusted. Conclusions Research use varies and should be considered within the specific decision-making and political context. There is a need for systematic reviews to be more reflective of the decisions facing local authority public health teams

Population-level interventions to reduce alcohol-related harm: an overview of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse available review-level evidence on the effectiveness of population-level interventions in non-clinical settings to reduce alcohol consumption or related health or social harm. METHOD: Health, social policy and specialist review databases between 2002 and 2012 were searched for systematic reviews of the effectiveness of population-level alcohol interventions on consumption or alcohol-related health or social outcomes. Data were extracted on review research aim, inclusion criteria, outcome indicators, results, conclusions and limitations. Reviews were quality-assessed using AMSTAR criteria. A narrative synthesis was conducted overall and by policy area. RESULTS: Fifty-two reviews were included from ten policy areas. There is good evidence for policies and interventions to limit alcohol sale availability, to reduce drink-driving, to increase alcohol price or taxation. There is mixed evidence for family- and community-level interventions, school-based interventions, and interventions in the alcohol server setting and the mass media. There is weak evidence for workplace interventions and for interventions targeting illicit alcohol sales. There is evidence of the ineffectiveness of interventions in higher education settings. CONCLUSION: There is a pattern of support from the evidence base for regulatory or statutory enforcement interventions over local non-regulatory approaches targeting specific population groups

How does money influence health?

This study looks at hundreds of theories to consider how income influences health. There is a graded association between money and health – increased income equates to better health. But the reasons are debated.<p></p> Researchers have reviewed theories from 272 wide-ranging papers, most of which examined the complex interactions between people’s income and their health throughout their lives.<p></p> Key points<p></p> This research identifies four main ways money affects people’s wellbeing:<p></p> Material: Money buys goods and services that improve health. The more money families have, the better the goods they can buy.<p></p> Psychosocial: Managing on a low income is stressful. Comparing oneself to others and feeling at the bottom of the social ladder can be distressing, which can lead to biochemical changes in the body, eventually causing ill health.<p></p> Behavioural: For various reasons, people on low incomes are more likely to adopt unhealthy behaviours – smoking and drinking, for example – while those on higher incomes are more able to afford healthier lifestyles.<p></p> Reverse causation (poor health leads to low income): Health may affect income by preventing people from taking paid employment. Childhood health may also affect educational outcomes, limiting job opportunities and potential earnings

Negative stereotypes about the policymaking process hinder productive action toward evidence-based policy.

A dearth of clear, relevant and reliable research evidence continue to block the use of research, according to a study of 145 research papers on evidence use. According to the authors of the review, Kathryn Oliver, Simon Innvær, Theo Lorenc, Jenny Woodman, and James Thomas difficulty finding and accessing this research is also a major problem

New directions in evidence-based policy research: a critical analysis of the literature.

Despite 40 years of research into evidence-based policy (EBP) and a continued drive from both policymakers and researchers to increase research uptake in policy, barriers to the use of evidence are persistently identified in the literature. However, it is not clear what explains this persistence - whether they represent real factors, or if they are artefacts of approaches used to study EBP. Based on an updated review, this paper analyses this literature to explain persistent barriers and facilitators. We critically describe the literature in terms of its theoretical underpinnings, definitions of 'evidence', methods, and underlying assumptions of research in the field, and aim to illuminate the EBP discourse by comparison with approaches from other fields. Much of the research in this area is theoretically naive, focusing primarily on the uptake of research evidence as opposed to evidence defined more broadly, and privileging academics' research priorities over those of policymakers. Little empirical data analysing the processes or impact of evidence use in policy is available to inform researchers or decision-makers. EBP research often assumes that policymakers do not use evidence and that more evidence - meaning research evidence - use would benefit policymakers and populations. We argue that these assumptions are unsupported, biasing much of EBP research. The agenda of 'getting evidence into policy' has side-lined the empirical description and analysis of how research and policy actually interact in vivo. Rather than asking how research evidence can be made more influential, academics should aim to understand what influences and constitutes policy, and produce more critically and theoretically informed studies of decision-making. We question the main assumptions made by EBP researchers, explore the implications of doing so, and propose new directions for EBP research, and health policy