Search

Introduction: If an intervention is not well spatially targeted, appropriate levels of uptake, efficacy, long-term compliance and improved health outcomes are unlikely to be attained. Effective health interventions should seek to achieve not only absolute improvements in health but also to reduce inequity. There is often a disparity whereby preventative interventions are more likely to be successful amongst the more affluent, a process which has been coined the 'inverse prevention law'. Physical inactivity is known to be socially patterned and disproportionately prevalent in disadvantaged communities yet there is a lack of clear evidence on which interventions have the potential to influence inequity. Walking groups have been found to have multiple health benefits and increase physical activity. In England the major facilitator is a not for profit organisation which has 70,000 regular walkers and is lay led with 10,000 volunteers. The aim of this study was to evaluate the extent to which walking groups operated in those places with the greatest health need and whether consequently the scheme has the potential to influence health inequity., Method: The work used a spatial approach whereby geographical variations in walking group provision within the 326 local authorities in England (mean population 163,410) were linked to health and socio-economic measures of population need., Results: Generally, greater need was not associated with higher provision of the walking group intervention. Although the magnitude of differences was small, provision of the intervention tended to be poorest in those local authorities with the greatest health need, as measured by our indicators., Conclusions: Without targeting those areas with greater health and socio-economic need, there is a concern that walking groups may not be set up in areas that need them most. There is therefore a potential that this intervention could, albeit in a small way, widen inequity between local authorities. However small-scale and well-intentioned, interventions need to be evaluated for their potential impact on inequity.

A detailed health needs assessment (HNA) for end-of-life care (EoLC) services was led by public health in Leeds to inform a commissioning strategy. To answer the question: are we delivering the best possible EoLC services within the resources available? Mixed methods were used with three approaches: epidemiological, corporate and comparative. More people from deprived communities die in hospital. 18% of people who die each year are on a palliative care register, reflecting a lack of recognition and planning for EoLC given that 75% of people who die need EoLC. Over 100 staff, patients and carers were interviewed and over 200 staff returned questionnaires. Staff highlighted concerns about capacity of services; pressure on out-of-hospital care; problems at physical and electronic interfaces between services; suboptimal hospital discharge; need for earlier recognition of the EoL stage for patients. Patients and carers stressed the importance of communication, coordination and continuity of care; full involvement in care planning; honesty and support for the bereaved; an advocate for patients and families; accessible information; improved urgent care; integrated team working; pain relief, dignity and respect. Issues from comparator sites included the need for sustainable leadership for change, lack of interoperability between IT systems; building advance care planning into working culture; gaps in psychological services, bereavement and pastoral support; integration within all clinical areas; lack of district nurses; few investment opportunities; getting home care support right; concerns about 111; incentives for general practitioners to deliver EoLC; variability in service and the Liverpool Care Pathway controversy. Ethical approval was not sought as the HNA was undertaken as a service evaluation. Local policy is that ethical approval is not required for service evaluation., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Objective: To map sexual health promotion activity and resources across North West England., Study Design: Survey., Methods: A survey of all sexual health promotion activity commissioned by primary care trusts (PCTs) was carried out using a self-completion questionnaire for PCT sexual health commissioners in North West England., Results: Sixteen out of 24 PCTs responded. Some PCTs had difficulty in identifying the relevant commissioner. Most activity was focused on young people, especially around the National Chlamydia Screening Programme (NCSP) and teenage pregnancy, and on particular high-risk groups such as lesbian, gay and bisexual people, those living with human immunodeficiency virus and commercial sex workers. All PCTs commissioned education/training and a condom distribution service. Other common activities included outreach work, and producing and disseminating materials. Most services were confined to one PCT. Most PCTs were unable to identify the resources committed to sexual health promotion. The emergent themes in the analysis of service development ideas and comments were all linked to commissioning: commissioning and strategy; funding; needs assessment; service development and provision; contracting and monitoring; evaluation and evidence; and regional perspective., Conclusions: A simple tool to map sexual health promotion activities commissioned by PCTs was developed. Many PCTs could not identify a commissioner for sexual health or the resources committed to sexual health promotion. Sexual health promotion activity focused on young people (linked to the NCSP and teenage pregnancy) and particular high-risk groups, with resultant gaps and a mismatch with the epidemiology. The most frequently commissioned activities were education/training and condom provision (despite the limited evidence base). A series of recommendations to PCTs, sexual health networks and providers are made., (Copyright © 2010 The Royal Society for Public Health. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Health impact assessment (HIA) is a process that aims to predict potential positive and negative effects of project, programme or policy proposals on health and health inequalities. It is recommended by national government and internationally. Supporting health impact assessment is one of the roles of English Public Health Observatories. The few centres in England with accredited health impact training centres have inadequate resources to meet demand. Currently, the London Health Observatory is providing the bulk of the training nationally. Some Public Health Observatories are currently investigating the preferences for support of those commissioning or conducting health impact assessment within their regions. The availability of published guidance on how to conduct health impact assessments has increased substantially over the past few years. The Department of Health has funded a research project led by the London Health Observatory to develop advice for reviewing evidence for use in health impact assessment. Completed health impact assessments can be useful resources. Evaluation of the process and impact of health impact assessment is important in order to demonstrate its usefulness and to learn lessons for the future. The focus for Public Health Observatories is to train and support others to conduct health impact assessment according to good practice, rather than undertaking health impact assessments themselves. The aim is to create sufficient skilled capacity around the country to undertake health impact assessments. The London Health Observatory plans to share its support models and to roll out a train the trainer programme nationally to enable effective local delivery of their national health impact assessment programme.