Search

Background: Public health decision-making structures in England have transformed since the implementation of reforms in 2013, with responsibility for public health services and planning having shifted from the "health" boundary to local authority (LA; local government) control. This transformation may have interrupted flows of research evidence use in decision-making and introduced a new political element to public health decision-making. For generators of research evidence, understanding and responding to this new landscape and decision-makers' evidence needs is essential., Methods: We conducted a systematic scoping review of the literature, drawing upon four databases and undertaking manual searching and citation tracking. Included studies were English-based, published in 2010 onwards, and were focused on public health decision-making, including the utilisation or underutilisation of research evidence use, in local (regional or sub-regional) areas. All studies presented empirical findings collected through primary research methods or through the reanalysis of existing primary data., Results: From a total of 903 records, 23 papers from 21 studies were deemed to be eligible and were included for further data extraction. Three clear trends in evidence use were identified: (i) the primacy of local evidence, (ii) the important role of local experts in providing evidence and knowledge, and (iii) the high value placed on local evaluation evidence despite the varying methodological rigour. Barriers to the use of research evidence included issues around access and availability of applicable research evidence, and indications that the use of evidence could be perceived as a bureaucratic process. Two new factors resulting from reforms to public health structures were identified that potentially changed existing patterns of research evidence use and decision-making requirements: (i) greater emphasis among public health practitioners on the perceived uniqueness of LA areas and structures following devolution of public health into LAs and (ii) challenges introduced in responding to higher levels of local political accountability., Conclusions: There is a need to better understand and respond to the evidence needs of decision-makers working in public health and to work more collaboratively in developing solutions to the underutilisation of research evidence in decision-making.

As evidence generators, we need to respond to the changes in the health delivery landscape if we are to continue to support public health decision-makers to make informed and judicious evidence-based choices. This study employs documentary analysis to (i) explore the extent of research evidence use in public health decision-making; (ii) to analyse occurrences of research evidence use in decision-making and (iii) to ascertain whether patterns of evidence use overlap with other area characteristics. Health and Wellbeing Strategies constitute the main source of documentary evidence. Initial results highlight that local areas are undertaking their own programmes of research that are used to inform specific questions, although the methodological robustness of these studies is unknown. There are also commonalities with previous findings, particularly with regard to the underutilization of qualitative research evidence and evidence on the effectiveness of interventions. Using Qualitative Comparative Analysis, this paper also highlights that underutilization of more academic research evidence appears disproportionally weighted towards areas with some of the most complex needs but that are not receiving the highest level of spending to meet these challenges. These areas in particular may be those where knowledge brokerage activities may have the greatest impacts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Intersectionality theory suggests that multiple forms of inequality need to be considered simultaneously. The extent to which intersectionality has been used within interventional health research has not been systematically examined. This scoping review explores the use of intersectionality when designing and implementing interventions to reduce health inequalities, or when analysing the impact of these interventions.Methods: We did a systematic search of MEDLINE and Scopus for articles published from inception up to June 30, 2021, with the key search terms "intersectionality", "interventions", and "public health". References were screened and those including use of intersectionality and primary data from high-income countries were included and relevant data synthesised. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines extension for scoping reviews.Findings: 2108 studies were screened, of which 12 met inclusion criteria Six (50%) of the 12 studies were qualitative and focused on alcohol and substance abuse (two studies), mental health (two studies), general health promotion (one study), and housing interventions (one study). The three quantitative studies (25%) examined mental health (two studies) and smoking cessation (one study), whereas the three mixed-methods studies (25%) examined mental health (two studies) and sexual exploitation (one study). Nine studies (75%) used intersectionality to analyse intervention effects, two studies (25%) used intersectionality for intervention design, and one study (8%) used intersectionality for both design and analysis of an intervention. Ethnicity and gender were the most commonly included axes of inequality (11 studies [92%]), followed by socioeconomic status (ten studies [83%]). Only four studies (33%) included consideration of LGBTQ+ individuals and only one (8%) considered physical disabilities.Interpretation: Intersectionality theories are not yet commonly used in either the design or the evaluation of interventional health research, and evidence on the implementation of some key elements of intersectionality is still scarce. Studies on some conditions, such as mental health, have more often used intersectionality, whereas studies considering the LGBTQ+ community and individuals with physical disabilities as axes of inequality are particularly scarce.Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research School for Public Health Research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Local public health service delivery and policy-setting in England was overhauled in 2013, with local government now responsible for the complex tasks involved in protecting and improving population health and addressing health inequalities. Since 2013, public health funding per person has declined, adding to the challenge of public health decision-making. In a climate of austerity, research evidence could help to guide the more effective use of resources, although there are concerns that the reorganisation of public health decision-making structures has disrupted traditional evidence use patterns. This study aimed to explore local public health evidence use and needs in this new decision-making climate.Methods: Semi-structured interviews with Public Health Practitioners across three Local Authorities were conducted, with sites purposefully selected to represent urban, suburban and county Local Authorities, and to reflect a range of public health issues that might be encountered. A topic guide was developed that allowed participants to reflect on their experience and involvement in providing evidence for, or making a decision around, commissioning a public health service. Data were transcribed and template analysis was employed to understand the findings, which involved developing a coding template based on an initial transcript and applying this to subsequent transcripts.Results: Increased political involvement in local public health decision-making, while welcomed by some participants as a form of democratising public health, has influenced evidence preferences in a number of ways. Political and individual ideologies of locally elected officials meant that certain forms of evidence could be overlooked in favour of evidence that corresponded to decision-makers' preferences. Political involvement at the local level has increased the appetite for local knowledge and evidence. Research evidence needs to demonstrate its local salience if it is to contribute to decision-making alongside competing sources, particularly anecdotal information.Conclusion: To better meet decision-making needs of politicians and practitioners, a shift in the scope of public health evidence is required. At a systematic review level, this could involve moving away from producing evidence that reflects broad global generalisations about narrow and simple questions, and instead towards producing forms of evidence that have local applicability and can support complex policy-focussed decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]