COVID-19: decision-making in public health.

Against a background of stalling UK life expectancy, the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a different way of working for public health to respond quickly to new and many demands. At the same time, public health teams had to ensure they did not concentrate on the immediate crisis at the expense of mitigating longer-term impacts of the pandemic. This was, and is, a major challenge with additional demands on an already hard-pressed workforce. This paper discusses the experience of a local public health department in responding to the pandemic and raises four key areas that influenced decisions and need to be considered in future. These are care homes issues, addressing all four harms of the pandemic, lessons for behaviour change and the need to strengthen Scotland's public health workforce.

Comparing apples and pears: misleading conclusions about the population mental health impact of a parenting programme, a commentary on Marryat, Thompson and Wilson (2017).

BACKGROUND: The article by Marryat, Thompson and Wilson (2017) in BMC Pediatrics presents an evaluation of the implementation of the Triple P system as a public health intervention conducted by the Glasgow City Council and NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. DISCUSSION: Unfortunately, the conclusions drawn are questionable for multiple reasons. The lack of a controlled design precludes defensible conclusions about intervention effects free from routine threats to internal validity. There was a substantial mismatch between the intervention sample and the population sample assessed. The article's title and abstract leave readers with the mistaken impression that the children assessed for outcome were suitably representative of intervention families, when in fact many of the children in the intervention families were missing from the teacher-report outcome assessment (a single questionnaire), and many or most of the children in the teacher-report outcome assessment belonged to families who had never received the intervention. Although Triple P targets parent-child relations and child behavioural and emotional problems at home, Marryat et al. narrowly defined mental health impact as child difficulties in nursery or preschool, while not reporting data from practitioners and parents in the same evaluation that did not support the authors' conclusion. The paper was further diminished by a number of misleading statements and factual errors related for example to other research on Triple P. Studying the extent to which child mental health functioning at home can generalise to school settings is an important topic of inquiry in relation to parenting support interventions, but unfortunately the Marryat et al. article did not move this area forward.

Failures in reproductive health policy: overcoming the consequences and causes of inaction.

It is assumed that long-established research findings and internationally accepted evidence should, and will, be translated into policy and practice. Knowledge about what prevents harm and promotes health has, in fact, guided and resulted in numerous beneficial public health actions. However, such is not always the case. The authors examine three notable, and unwelcome, exceptions in the UK-all in the field of reproductive health and all focused on the period prior to pregnancy. The three examples of counterproductive inaction discussed are: fortifying flour with Vitamin B9 (folic acid); preventing foetal alcohol spectrum disorders; and reducing risks and better regulating a highly teratogenic medication (valproate). The adverse consequences, as well as the causes, of inaction are analysed for each example. Reasons for optimism, and recommendations for overcoming inaction, are also offered, in particular, greater priority should be accorded to preconception health, education and care.

Planning and implementation of a FIGO postpartum intrauterine device initiative in six countries.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the process of planning and implementing a program of counselling and delivery of postpartum intrauterine devices (PPIUD) in 48 hospitals across six countries in Africa and Asia. METHODS: The process of planning the FIGO PPIUD initiative, selection of countries and hospitals, model of implementation, and lessons for the future are described. RESULTS: Country-level and hospital-based leadership were essential and training-the-trainer models were successful. There was a need for consistency of competency standards allowing for national variations. As the project progressed, additional steps were necessary for steady implementation of the initiative, specifically: establishment of a project steering committee and a data safety monitoring committee, audits of structure and process, and regular feedback of each center's performance to stimulate maintenance and enhancement of activities. Postnatal follow-up was challenging in many countries with fragmented maternity systems. CONCLUSION: The importance of professional leadership and commitment backed by robust data for monitoring and feedback are essential for success.

Financial incentives for smoking cessation in pregnancy: randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of a financial incentive added to routine specialist pregnancy stop smoking services versus routine care to help pregnant smokers quit. DESIGN: Phase II therapeutic exploratory single centre, individually randomised controlled parallel group superiority trial. SETTING: One large health board area with a materially deprived, inner city population in the west of Scotland, United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: 612 self reported pregnant smokers in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde who were English speaking, at least 16 years of age, less than 24 weeks pregnant, and had an exhaled carbon monoxide breath test result of 7 ppm or more. 306 women were randomised to incentives and 306 to control. INTERVENTIONS: The control group received routine care, which was the offer of a face to face appointment to discuss smoking and cessation and, for those who attended and set a quit date, the offer of free nicotine replacement therapy for 10 weeks provided by pharmacy services, and four, weekly support phone calls. The intervention group received routine care plus the offer of up to £400 of shopping vouchers: £50 for attending a face to face appointment and setting a quit date; then another £50 if at four weeks' post-quit date exhaled carbon monoxide confirmed quitting; a further £100 was provided for continued validated abstinence of exhaled carbon monoxide after 12 weeks; a final £200 voucher was provided for validated abstinence of exhaled carbon monoxide at 34-38 weeks' gestation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome was cotinine verified cessation at 34-38 weeks' gestation through saliva (<14.2 ng/mL) or urine (<44.7 ng/mL). Secondary outcomes included birth weight, engagement, and self reported quit at four weeks. RESULTS: Recruitment was extended from 12 to 15 months to achieve the target sample size. Follow-up continued until September 2013. Of the 306 women randomised, three controls opted out soon after enrolment; these women did not want their data to be used, leaving 306 intervention and 303 control group participants in the intention to treat analysis. No harms of financial incentives were documented. Significantly more smokers in the incentives group than control group stopped smoking: 69 (22.5%) versus 26 (8.6%). The relative risk of not smoking at the end of pregnancy was 2.63 (95% confidence interval 1.73 to 4.01) P<0.001. The absolute risk difference was 14.0% (95% confidence interval 8.2% to 19.7%). The number needed to treat (where financial incentives need to be offered to achieve one extra quitter in late pregnancy) was 7.2 (95% confidence interval 5.1 to 12.2). The mean birth weight was 3140 g (SD 600 g) in the incentives group and 3120 (SD 590) g in the control group (P=0.67). CONCLUSION: This phase II randomised controlled trial provides substantial evidence for the efficacy of incentives for smoking cessation in pregnancy; as this was only a single centre trial, incentives should now be tested in different types of pregnancy cessation services and in different parts of the United Kingdom. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN87508788.

The cessation in pregnancy incentives trial (CPIT): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Seventy percent of women in Scotland have at least one baby, making pregnancy an opportunity to help most young women quit smoking before their own health is irreparably compromised. By quitting during pregnancy their infants will be protected from miscarriage and still birth as well as low birth weight, asthma, attention deficit disorder and adult cardiovascular disease. In the UK, the NICE guidelines: 'How to stop smoking in pregnancy and following childbirth' (June 2010) highlighted that little evidence exists in the literature to confirm the efficacy of financial incentives to help pregnant smokers to quit. Its first research recommendation was to determine: Within a UK context, are incentives an acceptable, effective and cost-effective way to help pregnant women who smoke to quit? DESIGN AND METHODS: This study is a phase II exploratory individually randomized controlled trial comparing standard care for pregnant smokers with standard care plus the additional offer of financial voucher incentives to engage with specialist cessation services and/or to quit smoking during pregnancy.Participants (n = 600) will be pregnant smokers identified at maternity booking who, when contacted by specialist cessation services, agree to having their details passed to the NHS Smokefree Pregnancy Study Helpline to discuss the trial. The NHS Smokefree Pregnancy Study Helpline will be responsible for telephone consent and follow-up in late pregnancy. The primary outcome will be self reported smoking in late pregnancy verified by cotinine measurement. An economic evaluation will refine cost data collection and assess potential cost-effectiveness while qualitative research interviews with clients and health professionals will assess the level of acceptance of this form of incentive payment. The research questions are: What is the likely therapeutic efficacy? Are incentives potentially cost-effective? Is individual randomization an efficient trial design without introducing outcome bias? Can incentives be introduced in a way that is feasible and acceptable? DISCUSSION: This phase II trial will establish a workable design to reduce the risks associated with a future definitive phase III multicenter randomized controlled trial and establish a framework to assess the costs and benefits of financial incentives to help pregnant smokers to quit. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN87508788.

The Starting Well Health Demonstration Project.

This paper describes the initial development and implementation of the Starting Well Health Demonstration Project, Scotland's national child health demonstration project. The Project, initially launched in 2000, aims to demonstrate that child health can be improved by a program of activities that both supports families and provides them with access to enhanced community-based resources. Early process outcomes will be presented and policy implications arising out of the Project to date will be explored.

Developing community mental health services: an evaluation of Glasgow's mental health resource centres.

Greater Glasgow Health Board's strategy for the development of community mental health services includes the establishment, over a 7-year period, of multi-disciplinary community mental health resource centres throughout Glasgow. An evaluation of the first phase of the development was carried out in three resource centres. This focused on three key themes: the establishment of multi-disciplinary teams, targeting of those with the most severe illnesses and the participation of users in the care process. The evaluation exercise comprised five substantive elements: analysis of the clinical database; interviews with staff within each of those centres, interviews with representatives of key external agencies associated with each centre; a survey of general practitioners; and a survey of the views of clients, their carers, their key workers, and their general practitioners (GPs). Clients were generally very satisfied with the services and felt that the resource centres met all their mental health needs. Although the majority of current centre cases had severe mental illnesses and those with the more severe conditions had the highest contact rates there was evidence that in the absence of a clear framework for referral the centres were also providing services for those with less severe illnesses. Despite a wish by centre staff to move towards modes of working less dominated by health professionals and more inclusive of other resources and especially of clients themselves, these goals remained to be achieved: there was a lack of clarity in the definition of the appropriate target groups for the centres; access to crisis support was regarded as problematic; the concept of multi-disciplinary team working had yet to be fully realized with evidence suggesting that some psychiatrists working in the resource centres had not embraced many aspects of the new approach to service delivery including a focus on the severely ill; and progress towards the ideal of active client involvement had been slow.