Log in
Research at Lancaster has had significant, cumulative impacts on public sector thinking about, and approaches to, public involvement in health policy, practice and research locally, nationally and internationally. As a result the public in the UK and internationally is now significantly better engaged in influencing health policy and practice, in particular those from disadvantaged communities, leading to improved health and wellbeing, and enhanced employability. This research shaped the network of NHS Patient and Public Involvement Forums established in England 2003-2007, and reframed how social exclusion and vulnerability were addressed in the report of the Global Commission on The Social Determinants of Health (Marmot report) and the WHO EURO Health 2020 Strategy.
Durham University's Centre for Public Policy and Health (CPPH) has worked closely with the World Health Organisation's (WHO) Regional Office for Europe to help design the European Action Plan for Strengthening Public Health Capacities and Services. The European Action Plan (EAP) draws extensively on three major CPPH research projects on the nature and governance of the public health system in England. The EAP, endorsed by all 53 WHO Member States in September 2012, is a main pillar for the implementation of the WHO's policy framework — Health 2020 — also endorsed by Member States.
The `People in Public Health' (PIPH) study and related research on health trainers, health champions and volunteers has brought together evidence on rationales for lay engagement, effectiveness and models of support. Dissemination activities, supported by a Department of Health grant, have achieved reach into various policy arenas and national networks. At the same time there is evidence of research utilisation in public health practice. One of the impacts has been the establishment of `Active Citizens for Health', a national network of partner organisations to bring together evidence and learning that has been hosted by Leeds Metropolitan University.
Health inequalities are recognised as a critical UK policy issue with life expectancy gaps of up to 28 years between the least and most deprived areas. This case-study demonstrates how Durham University research has led to: (a) changing health service commissioning (with County Durham and Darlington Primary Care Trust [PCT]): (b) influencing NHS funding policy (by generating Parliamentary debate); as well as (c) contributing to the development of the new public health system in England and Wales (as part of the Strategic Review of Health Inequalities in England post-2010 [Marmot Review]).
In November 2008, Professor Sir Michael Marmot and his team at UCL were asked by the Secretary of State for Health to chair an independent review to propose the most effective evidence-based strategies for reducing health inequalities in England. The Marmot Review, published in 2010, has fundamentally shifted discourse on health inequalities in the UK and internationally. It has shaped public health services across England and around the world, guided government and international policy, and has given rise to a new commitment from service providers and health professionals to reducing health inequalities and addressing the social determinants of health.
This case study highlights a body of research around health Research Priority Setting (RPS) that assists policy makers in effectively targeting research that has the greatest potential health benefit. Empirical research on RPS led to organizational changes, and new policies within the Cochrane Collaboration along with new training resources and new RPS exercises. A research gap on inequalities in the risk of oral cancer in the English South Asian population led to an evidence synthesis exercise being carried out by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the formulation of a new public health guideline.
Evidence about the need for and provision of health visiting services generated through research undertaken at King's College London (KCL) has underpinned major changes in national policies for health visiting. Our findings about health visitors' practice, availability and distribution of services and effectiveness in terms of parenting/child outcomes, revealed both shortfalls in provision and opportunities for improvement and led to the development of a new caseload weighting tool and funding model for service planning. The accumulated evidence from this research helped convince the UK Government in 2010 to commit to 4,200 more health visitors by 2015 — a workforce expansion of nearly 50% — in a time of austerity and restraint elsewhere in the public sector.
Research in health economics led by Dr Christopher Gerry has catalysed important changes in the university syllabus at state universities in Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Croatia. Specifically, a 2011-2014 capacity-building teaching and research programme co-ordinated by Dr Gerry and funded by the Open Society Foundations has led to the introduction of health economics — a disciplinary field not previously well established in the region — at multiple universities within the region. Participants of the programme have subsequently incorporated health economics in their home institutions.
Professor Angus Dawson's research in public health ethics has
a) had a direct, global impact on public health policies, frameworks and interventions
b) contributed to improving the quality of decision-making about public health interventions.
His research has influenced the World Health Organisation's policy on the treatment of tuberculosis, Ontario's public health policy, the US Federal Agency's policy on the preparedness and response to public health emergencies, and a British Medical Association position paper on universal childhood Hepatitis B vaccination. Dawson's research has sought to define the nature of public health, the boundaries of ethical deliberation, and has introduced values, such as the `common good', to supplement the previous narrow range of values that tended to focus on individuals.
Globally, many health research-funding organisations, public and charitable, felt the need to demonstrate to policymakers and the public how their investments in research were benefitting society. HERG's research on developing techniques for assessing the payback (or impact) from health research tackled this need. The payback stream of research itself has had significant, wide- reaching and cumulative impacts. First, internationally, health research funding bodies adopted the framework in their evaluation strategies, including to provide accountability. Second, many stakeholders made extensive use the findings of payback studies in public debate and private lobbying for public expenditure on health research. Third, governments, public research funding bodies and medical research charities, from the UK to Australia, used the findings from payback studies to inform decisions regarding the levels and distribution of health research funding, with the aim of increasing the health and economic benefits that come from investments in research.