Monthly Archives: July 2017

Public health interventions may offer society a return on investment of £14 for each £1 spent

By NHS National Institute for Health Research (2017)

Each £1 invested in public health interventions could offer an average return on investment to the wider health and social care economy of £14.

This systematic review looked at 52 studies where the return on each £1 ranged from -£21.3 to £221. Legislative interventions such as sugar taxes, and health protection interventions such as vaccination programmes, gave the highest returns on investment. Interventions such as anti-stigma campaigns, blood pressure monitoring and early education programmes, provided smaller (but still favourable) returns. National campaigns offered greater returns than local campaigns. Falls prevention provided the quickest return, within 18 months.

These findings apply to high-income countries. There are some limitations to the data, as a variety of calculation techniques were used and the quality of the included studies varied. However, these are unlikely to alter the direction or approximate size of these effects. The study shows how cost-effective public health interventions can be and should inspire future research into how to better implement what is already known.

Click here to view the systematic review

Welfare confidentiality: sanctions, support and behaviour change

By Welfare Confidentiality Project (2016)

Below is the overview, summarising our key first wave findings on the effects and ethics of welfare conditionality. It draws on data from interviews with 52 policy stakeholders, 27 focus groups conducted with practitioners, and 480 ‘wave a’ qualitative longitudinal interviews with with nine groups of welfare service users in England.Overview

Below are nine first wave findings papers covering each of our study’s policy areas in more detail.

First wave findings: anti-social behaviour

First wave findings: disabled people

First wave findings: homelessness

First wave findings: jobseekers

First wave findings: lone parents

First wave findings: migrants

First wave findings: offenders

First wave findings: social tenants

First wave findings: Universal Credit

Sustainability and Transformation Plans: Five key questions for planners

By Centre for Health & the Public Interest (2017)

Click here to view this research

Big cuts planned to public health budgets

by The King’s Fund (2017)

Central government cuts have forced councils to reduce planned spending on vital public health services such as sexual health clinics and reducing harm from smoking, alcohol and drugs by £85 million, according to new analysis by The King’s Fund.

Click here to view this news

Click here to view the King’s Fund analysis

Delivery Costs Extra: Can STPs Survive Without The Funding They Need?

By BMA (2017)

This BMA report analyses all 44 STP plans. It highlights concerns around poor engagement with clinicians, patients and the public. It also identifies that there is a challenging timeline for STP implementation and little in the way of firm commitment to deliver the plans. The report is also accompanied by a paper summarising each STP plan and a glossary of commonly used acronyms.

Click here to view this report

Sustainability and Transformation Plans How serious are the proposals? A critical review

By London South Bank University (2017)

This report brings to the fore the challenge of NHS and Local Government collaboration. With local government democratically accountable to its local population, working to meet local needs; and with the NHS accountable through NHS England and NHS Improvement; planning together over a wider footprint in terms of population, with completely different accountabilities, means the starting point for STP-level collective decision-making and planning is a challenge. Layer on top of this the fact that the STP process is an NHS policy (not provided in partnership with the Department for Communities and Local Government), which is being translated by NHS leaders in STP footprints as a policy requirement for collective working and joint decisions with local government, where some of these decisions are likely to be challenged by local populations (and where local government clearly has to consult and represent local people’s views), and you have the recipe for a poor starting place for collaboration. Finally the lack of clarity about the relationship between populations (local and STP footprint) makes this a messy process without clear boundaries.

Click here to view this report