Log in
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.
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.
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.
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.
Findings from research at Newcastle on health inequalities and the basis on which economic decisions are made have informed the recommendations made to and adopted by the Secretary of State of Health. These recommendations influenced two specific areas of the National Health Service (NHS) budget allocation. Formulae developed by Wildman and his colleagues are of key importance in determining the allocation of the NHS's £8 billion prescribing budget and the £10.4 billion mental health services budget.
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]).
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.
Dr Sunil Amrith's research has enhanced understanding of the historical roots of many contemporary policy problems, making him a leading expert on the history of public health in South and Southeast Asia. The critical success of his monograph Decolonizing International Health, and its positive reception among non-academic specialists in the field, led to his involvement in dialogues with policymakers in international NGOs and invitations to contribute a historical perspective to discussions about public health issues in the developing world. His work has influenced policy development and shaped capacity building programmes.
Research undertaken by Professor King and his research group on the political economy of public health has generated three types of impact: global media coverage; extensive debate among stakeholders and the general public; and influencing the political agenda.