Solving poverty or tackling healthcare inequalities? Qualitative study exploring local interpretations of national policy on health inequalities under new NHS reforms in England.

OBJECTIVES: Major reforms to the organisation of the National Health Service (NHS) in England established 42 integrated care systems (ICSs) to plan and coordinate local services. The changes are based on the idea that cross-sector collaboration is needed to improve health and reduce health inequalities-and similar policy changes are happening elsewhere in the UK and internationally. We explored local interpretations of national policy objectives on reducing health inequalities among senior leaders working in three ICSs. DESIGN: We carried out qualitative research based on semistructured interviews with NHS, public health, social care and other leaders in three ICSs in England. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We selected three ICSs with varied characteristics all experiencing high levels of socioeconomic deprivation. We conducted 32 in-depth interviews with senior leaders of NHS, local government and other organisations involved in the ICS's work on health inequalities. Our interviewees comprised 17 leaders from NHS organisations and 15 leaders from other sectors. RESULTS: Local interpretations of national policy objectives on health inequalities varied, and local leaders had contrasting-sometimes conflicting-perceptions of the boundaries of ICS action on reducing health inequalities. Translating national objectives into local priorities was often a challenge, and clarity from national policy-makers was frequently perceived as limited or lacking. Across the three ICSs, local leaders worried that objectives on tackling health inequalities were being crowded out by other short-term policy priorities, such as reducing pressures on NHS hospitals. The behaviour of national policy-makers appeared to undermine their stated priorities to reduce health inequalities. CONCLUSIONS: Varied and vague interpretations of NHS policy on health inequalities are not new, but lack of clarity among local health leaders brings major risks-including interventions being poorly targeted or inadvertently widening inequalities. Greater conceptual clarity is likely needed to guide ICS action in future.

A systematic review of national interventions and policies to optimize antibiotic use in healthcare settings in England.

OBJECTIVES: To identify and assess the effectiveness of national antibiotic optimization interventions in primary and secondary care in England (2013-2022). METHODS: A systematic scoping review was conducted. Literature databases (Embase and Medline) were used to identify interventions and evaluations. Reports included the UK AMR Strategy (2013-2018), National Action Plan (2019-2024) and English Surveillance Programme for Antimicrobial Utilisation and Resistance (ESPAUR) reports (2014-2022). The design, focus and quality of evaluations and the interventions' effectiveness were extracted. FINDINGS: Four hundred and seventy-seven peer-reviewed studies and 13 reports were screened. One hundred and three studies were included for review, identifying 109 interventions in eight categories: policy and commissioning (n = 9); classifications (n = 1); guidance and toolkits (n = 22); monitoring and feedback (n = 17); professional engagement and training (n = 19); prescriber tools (n = 12); public awareness (n = 17); workforce and governance (n = 12).Most interventions lack high-quality effectiveness evidence. Evaluations mainly focused on clinical, microbiological or antibiotic use outcomes, or intervention implementation, often assessing how interventions were perceived to affect behaviour. Only 16 interventions had studies that quantified effects on prescribing, of which six reported reductions. The largest reduction was reported with structural-level interventions and attributed to a policy and commissioning intervention (primary care financial incentives). Behavioural interventions (guidance and toolkits) reported the greatest impact in hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Many interventions have targeted antibiotic use, each pulling different levers across the health system simultaneously. On the basis of these studies, structural-level interventions may have the greatest impact. Collectively, the combination of interventions may explain England's decline in prescribing but direct evidence of causality is unavailable.

The sociocultural framing of public attitudes to sharing the costs of social care for older people in England.

Twelve synchronous online focus groups were conducted, each involving four to six members of the general public who had expressed in-principle support for sharing the costs of social care for older people between service users and government. These explored participants' reasons for preferring a shared approach and their views on how costs should be shared, with particular attention given to the sociocultural frames employed. Four main sociocultural frames were identified, reflecting dominant discourses concerning (i) the financial burden of meeting social care need ('scarcity' frame) (ii) the core purpose of social care ('medicalised conception of care' frame) (iii) the role and perceived limitations of the private market ('consumer' frame), and (iv) fundamental concerns about safety, security and belonging ('loss and abandonment' frame). Of these four frames, the 'scarcity' frame was dominant, with views about how costs should be shared overwhelmingly formulated upon assumptions of insufficient resources. This was reflected in concerns about affordability and the consequent need for the financial burden to be shared between individuals and government, and resulted in a residual vision for care and anxieties about care quality, cliff-edge costs and abandonment. The concept of shared funding was also employed rhetorically to suggest an equitable approach to managing financial burden, reflected in phrases such as 'splitting the difference'. Whilst out-of-pocket payments were sometimes seen as useful or necessary in the context of scarce public resources, the idea of shared funding was sometimes interpreted more flexibly to include individual contributions made in a range of ways, including tax, social insurance payments and wider social and economic contributions to society. Despite the dominance of the 'scarcity' frame, participants favoured greater government contribution than currently. These four frames and their associated discourses provide insight into how the public 'hear' and make sense of the debate about social care funding and, specifically, how apparent support for shared public-private funding is structured. Government and those hoping to influence the future of social care funding need to promote a vision of funding reform and win support for it by actively engaging with the sociocultural frames that the public recognise and engage with, with all of their apparent inconsistencies and contradictions.

The impacts of collaboration between local health care and non-health care organizations and factors shaping how they work: a systematic review of reviews.

BACKGROUND: Policymakers in many countries promote collaboration between health care organizations and other sectors as a route to improving population health. Local collaborations have been developed for decades. Yet little is known about the impact of cross-sector collaboration on health and health equity. METHODS: We carried out a systematic review of reviews to synthesize evidence on the health impacts of collaboration between local health care and non-health care organizations, and to understand the factors affecting how these partnerships functioned. We searched four databases and included 36 studies (reviews) in our review. We extracted data from these studies and used Nvivo 12 to help categorize the data. We assessed risk of bias in the studies using standardized tools. We used a narrative approach to synthesizing and reporting the data. RESULTS: The 36 studies we reviewed included evidence on varying forms of collaboration in diverse contexts. Some studies included data on collaborations with broad population health goals, such as preventing disease and reducing health inequalities. Others focused on collaborations with a narrower focus, such as better integration between health care and social services. Overall, there is little convincing evidence to suggest that collaboration between local health care and non-health care organizations improves health outcomes. Evidence of impact on health services is mixed. And evidence of impact on resource use and spending are limited and mixed. Despite this, many studies report on factors associated with better or worse collaboration. We grouped these into five domains: motivation and purpose, relationships and cultures, resources and capabilities, governance and leadership, and external factors. But data linking factors in these domains to collaboration outcomes is sparse. CONCLUSIONS: In theory, collaboration between local health care and non-health care organizations might contribute to better population health. But we know little about which kinds of collaborations work, for whom, and in what contexts. The benefits of collaboration may be hard to deliver, hard to measure, and overestimated by policymakers. Ultimately, local collaborations should be understood within their macro-level political and economic context, and as one component within a wider system of factors and interventions interacting to shape population health.

Funding and planning for social care in later life: a deliberative focus group study.

This study examined people's perceptions and behaviours in relation to planning for their social care needs, and their values and priorities concerning how social care should be funded. Eight deliberative focus groups were conducted in May 2018 with 53 participants, aged 25-82 years, in London, Manchester and rural locations near York and Sheffield. Multiple uncertainties created barriers to planning for social care needs including not knowing how much to save, not thinking it possible for an average person to save enough to meet significant needs, reluctance to plan for something potentially unnecessary, lack of suitable and secure ways of saving, and a perception of social care policy as unsettled. Participants also had significant concerns that they would not be able to obtain good-quality care, regardless of resources. In addition, it was commonly thought unrealistic to expect families to provide more than low-intensity, supplementary care, while use of housing assets to pay for care was considered unfair, both for home-owners who could lose their assets and non-home-owners who were left reliant on the state although it was more acceptable where people were childless or had substantial assets. Participants thought any new arrangements should be inclusive, personally affordable, sustainable, transparent, good-quality and honest. They preferred to contribute regularly rather than find considerable sums of money at times of crisis, and preferred to risk-pool, with everyone obliged or heavily encouraged to contribute. Transparency was valued so those better at 'working the system' were not able to benefit unfairly  and participants wanted to know that, if they contributed, they would be assured of good-quality care. Trust in Government and other institutions, however, was low. New funding arrangements should incorporate measures to increase transparency and trust, be clear about the responsibilities of individuals and the state, provide meaningful options to save, and place significant focus on improving actual and perceived care quality. For acceptability, proposals should be framed to emphasise their affective dimensions and positive values.

Exploring the impacts of the 2012 Health and Social Care Act reforms to commissioning on clinical activity in the English NHS: a mixed methods study of cervical screening.

OBJECTIVES: Explore the impact of changes to commissioning introduced in England by the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (HSCA) on cervical screening activity in areas identified empirically as particularly affected organisationally by the reforms. METHODS: Qualitative followed by quantitative methods. Qualitative: semi-structured interviews (with NHS commissioners, managers, clinicians, senior administrative staff from Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs), local authorities, service providers), observations of commissioning meetings in two metropolitan areas of England. Quantitative: triple-difference analysis of national administrative data. Variability in the expected effects of HSCA on commissioning was measured by comparing CCGs working with one local authority with CCGs working with multiple local authorities. To control for unmeasured confounders, differential changes over time in cervical screening rates (among women, 25-64 years) between CCGs more and less likely to have been affected by HSCA commissioning organisational change were compared with another outcome-unassisted birth rates-largely unaffected by HSCA changes. RESULTS: Interviewees identified that cervical screening commissioning and provision was more complex and 'fragmented', with responsibilities less certain, following the HSCA. Interviewees predicted this would reduce cervical screening rates in some areas more than others. Quantitative findings supported these predictions. Areas where CCGs dealt with multiple local authorities experienced a larger decline in cervical screening rates (1.4%) than those dealing with one local authority (1.0%). Over the same period, unassisted deliveries decreased by 1.6% and 2.0%, respectively, in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Arrangements for commissioning and delivering cervical screening were disrupted and made more complex by the HSCA. Areas most affected saw a greater decline in screening rates than others. The fact that this was identified qualitatively and then confirmed quantitatively strengthens this finding. The study suggests large-scale health system reforms may have unintended consequences, and that complex commissioning arrangements may be problematic.

The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?

BACKGROUND: Coproduction, a collaborative model of research that includes stakeholders in the research process, has been widely advocated as a means of facilitating research use and impact. We summarise the arguments in favour of coproduction, the different approaches to establishing coproductive work and their costs, and offer some advice as to when and how to consider coproduction. DEBATE: Despite the multiplicity of reasons and incentives to coproduce, there is little consensus about what coproduction is, why we do it, what effects we are trying to achieve, or the best coproduction techniques to achieve policy, practice or population health change. Furthermore, coproduction is not free risk or cost. Tensions can arise throughout coproduced research processes between the different interests involved. We identify five types of costs associated with coproduced research affecting the research itself, the research process, professional risks for researchers and stakeholders, personal risks for researchers and stakeholders, and risks to the wider cause of scholarship. Yet, these costs are rarely referred to in the literature, which generally calls for greater inclusion of stakeholders in research processes, focusing exclusively on potential positives. There are few tools to help researchers avoid or alleviate risks to themselves and their stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: First, we recommend identifying specific motivations for coproduction and clarifying exactly which outcomes are required for whom for any particular piece of research. Second, we suggest selecting strategies specifically designed to enable these outcomes to be achieved, and properly evaluated. Finally, in the absence of strong evidence about the impact and process of coproduction, we advise a cautious approach to coproduction. This would involve conscious and reflective research practice, evaluation of how coproduced research practices change outcomes, and exploration of the costs and benefits of coproduction. We propose some preliminary advice to help decide when coproduction is likely to be more or less useful.

The Public Health Responsibility Deal: Using a Systems-Level Analysis to Understand the Lack of Impact on Alcohol, Food, Physical Activity, and Workplace Health Sub-Systems.

The extent to which government should partner with business interests such as the alcohol, food, and other industries in order to improve public health is a subject of ongoing debate. A common approach involves developing voluntary agreements with industry or allowing them to self-regulate. In England, the most recent example of this was the Public Health Responsibility Deal (RD), a public⁻private partnership launched in 2011 under the then Conservative-led coalition government. The RD was organised around a series of voluntary agreements that aim to bring together government, academic experts, and commercial, public sector and voluntary organisations to commit to pledges to undertake actions of public health benefit. This paper brings together the main findings and implications of the evaluation of the RD using a systems approach. We analysed the functioning of the RD exploring the causal pathways involved and how they helped or hindered the RD; the structures and processes; feedback loops and how they might have constrained or potentiated the effects of the RD; and how resilient the wider systems were to change (i.e., the alcohol, food, and other systems interacted with). Both the production and uptake of pledges by RD partners were largely driven by the interests of partners themselves, enabling these wider systems to resist change. This analysis demonstrates how and why the RD did not meet its objectives. The findings have lessons for the development of effective alcohol, food and other policies, for defining the role of unhealthy commodity industries, and for understanding the limits of industry self-regulation as a public health measure.

Comparative institutional analysis for public health: governing voluntary collaborative agreements for public health in England and the Netherlands.

Democratic institutions and state-society relations shape governance arrangements and expectations between public and private stakeholders about public health impact. We illustrate this with a comparison between the English Public Health Responsibility Deal (RD) and the Dutch 'All About Health…' (AaH) programme. As manifestations of a Whole-of-Society approach, in which governments, civil society and business take responsibility for the co-production of economic utility and good health, these programmes are two recent collaborative platforms based on voluntary agreements to improve public health. Using a 'most similar cases' design, we conducted a comparative secondary analysis of data from the evaluations of the two programmes. The underlying rationale of both programmes was that voluntary agreements would be better suited than regulation to encourage business and civil society to take more responsibility for improving health. Differences between the two included: expectations of an enforcing versus facilitative role for government; hierarchical versus horizontal coordination; big business versus civil society participants; top-down versus bottom-up formulation of voluntary pledges and progress monitoring for accountability versus for learning and adaptation. Despite the attempt in both programmes to base voluntary commitments on trust, the English 'shadow of hierarchy' and adversarial state-society relationships conditioned non-governmental parties to see the pledges as controlling, quasi-contractual agreements that were only partially lived up to. The Dutch consensual political tradition enabled a civil society-based understanding and gradual acceptance of the pledges as the internalization by partner organizations of public health values within their operations. We conclude that there are institutional limitations to the implementation of generic trust-building and learning-based models of change 'Whole-of-Society' approaches.

Systems Thinking as a Framework for Analyzing Commercial Determinants of Health.

Policy Points: Worldwide, more than 70% of all deaths are attributable to noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), nearly half of which are premature and apply to individuals of working age. Although such deaths are largely preventable, effective solutions continue to elude the public health community. One reason is the considerable influence of the "commercial determinants of health": NCDs are the product of a system that includes powerful corporate actors, who are often involved in public health policymaking. This article shows how a complex systems perspective may be used to analyze the commercial determinants of NCDs, and it explains how this can help with (1) conceptualizing the problem of NCDs and (2) developing effective policy interventions. CONTEXT: The high burden of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) is politically salient and eminently preventable. However, effective solutions largely continue to elude the public health community. Two pressing issues heighten this challenge: the first is the public health community's narrow approach to addressing NCDs, and the second is the involvement of corporate actors in policymaking. While NCDs are often conceptualized in terms of individual-level risk factors, we argue that they should be reframed as products of a complex system. This article explores the value of a systems approach to understanding NCDs as an emergent property of a complex system, with a focus on commercial actors. METHODS: Drawing on Donella Meadows's systems thinking framework, this article examines how a systems perspective may be used to analyze the commercial determinants of NCDs and, specifically, how unhealthy commodity industries influence public health policy. FINDINGS: Unhealthy commodity industries actively design and shape the NCD policy system, intervene at different levels of the system to gain agency over policy and politics, and legitimize their presence in public health policy decisions. CONCLUSIONS: It should be possible to apply the principles of systems thinking to other complex public health issues, not just NCDs. Such an approach should be tested and refined for other complex public health challenges.

The impact of new forms of large-scale general practice provider collaborations on England's NHS: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, collaboration between general practices in England to form new provider networks and large-scale organisations has been driven largely by grassroots action among GPs. However, it is now being increasingly advocated for by national policymakers. Expectations of what scaling up general practice in England will achieve are significant. AIM: To review the evidence of the impact of new forms of large-scale general practice provider collaborations in England. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review. METHOD: Embase, MEDLINE, Health Management Information Consortium, and Social Sciences Citation Index were searched for studies reporting the impact on clinical processes and outcomes, patient experience, workforce satisfaction, or costs of new forms of provider collaborations between general practices in England. RESULTS: A total of 1782 publications were screened. Five studies met the inclusion criteria and four examined the same general practice networks, limiting generalisability. Substantial financial investment was required to establish the networks and the associated interventions that were targeted at four clinical areas. Quality improvements were achieved through standardised processes, incentives at network level, information technology-enabled performance dashboards, and local network management. The fifth study of a large-scale multisite general practice organisation showed that it may be better placed to implement safety and quality processes than conventional practices. However, unintended consequences may arise, such as perceptions of disenfranchisement among staff and reductions in continuity of care. CONCLUSION: Good-quality evidence of the impacts of scaling up general practice provider organisations in England is scarce. As more general practice collaborations emerge, evaluation of their impacts will be important to understand which work, in which settings, how, and why.

The spatial politics of place and health policy: Exploring Sustainability and Transformation Plans in the English NHS.

This paper explores how 'place' is conceptualised and mobilized in health policy and considers the implications of this. Using the on-going spatial reorganizing of the English NHS as an exemplar, we draw upon relational geographies of place for illumination. We focus on the introduction of 'Sustainability and Transformation Plans' (STPs): positioned to support improvements in care and relieve financial pressures within the health and social care system. STP implementation requires collaboration between organizations within 44 bounded territories that must reach 'local' consensus about service redesign under conditions of unprecedented financial constraint. Emphasising the continued influence of previous reorganizations, we argue that such spatialized practices elude neat containment within coherent territorial geographies. Rather than a technical process financially and spatially 'fixing' health and care systems, STPs exemplify post-politics-closing down the political dimensions of policy-making by associating 'place' with 'local' empowerment to undertake highly resource-constrained management of health systems, distancing responsibility from national political processes. Relational understandings of place thus provide value in understanding health policies and systems, and help to identify where and how STPs might experience difficulties.

The effectiveness of clinical networks in improving quality of care and patient outcomes: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies.

BACKGROUND: Reorganisation of healthcare services into networks of clinical experts is increasing as a strategy to promote the uptake of evidence based practice and to improve patient care. This is reflected in significant financial investment in clinical networks. However, there is still some question as to whether clinical networks are effective vehicles for quality improvement. The aim of this systematic review was to ascertain the effectiveness of clinical networks and identify how successful networks improve quality of care and patient outcomes. METHODS: A systematic search was undertaken in accordance with the PRISMA approach in Medline, Embase, CINAHL and PubMed for relevant papers between 1 January 1996 and 30 September 2014. Established protocols were used separately to examine and assess the evidence from quantitative and qualitative primary studies and then integrate findings. RESULTS: A total of 22 eligible studies (9 quantitative; 13 qualitative) were included. Of the quantitative studies, seven focused on improving quality of care and two focused on improving patient outcomes. Quantitative studies were limited by a lack of rigorous experimental design. The evidence indicates that clinical networks can be effective vehicles for quality improvement in service delivery and patient outcomes across a range of clinical disciplines. However, there was variability in the networks' ability to make meaningful network- or system-wide change in more complex processes such as those requiring intensive professional education or more comprehensive redesign of care pathways. Findings from qualitative studies indicated networks that had a positive impact on quality of care and patients outcomes were those that had adequate resources, credible leadership and efficient management coupled with effective communication strategies and collaborative trusting relationships. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that clinical networks can improve the delivery of healthcare though there are few high quality quantitative studies of their effectiveness. Our findings can provide policymakers with some insight into how to successfully plan and implement clinical networks by ensuring strong clinical leadership, an inclusive organisational culture, adequate resourcing and localised decision-making authority.

"It's a complex mesh"- how large-scale health system reorganisation affected the delivery of the immunisation programme in England: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The English health system experienced a large-scale reorganisation in April 2013. A national tri-partite delivery framework involving the Department of Health, NHS England and Public Health England was agreed and a new local operational model applied. Evidence about how health system re-organisations affect constituent public health programmes is sparse and focused on low and middle income countries. We conducted an in-depth analysis of how the English immunisation programme adapted to the April 2013 health system reorganisation, and what facilitated or hindered the delivery of immunisation services in this context. METHODS: A qualitative case study methodology involving interviews and observations at national and local level was applied. Three sites were selected to represent different localities, varying levels of immunisation coverage and a range of changes in governance. Study participants included 19 national decision-makers and 56 local implementers. Two rounds of interviews and observations (immunisation board/committee meetings) occurred between December 2014 and June 2015, and September and December 2015. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim and written accounts of observed events compiled. Data was imported into NVIVO 10 and analysed thematically. RESULTS: The new immunisation programme in the new health system was described as fragmented, and significant effort was expended to regroup. National tripartite arrangements required joint working and accountability; a shift from the simpler hierarchical pre-reform structure, typical of many public health programmes. New local inter-organisational arrangements resulted in ambiguity about organisational responsibilities and hindered data-sharing. Whilst making immunisation managers responsible for larger areas supported equitable resource distribution and strengthened service commissioning, it also reduced their ability to apply clinical expertise, support and evaluate immunisation providers' performance. Partnership working helped staff adapt, but the complexity of the health system hindered the development of consistent approaches for training and service evaluation. CONCLUSION: The April 2013 health system reorganisation in England resulted in significant fragmentation in the way the immunisation programme was delivered. Some of this was a temporary by-product of organisational change, other more persistent challenges were intrinsic to the complex architecture of the new health system. Partnership working helped immunisation leaders and implementers reconnect and now the challenge is to assess how inter-agency collaboration can be strengthened.

Taking knowledge users' knowledge needs into account in health: an evidence synthesis framework.

The increased demand for evidence-based practice in health policy in recent years has provoked a parallel increase in diverse evidence-based outputs designed to translate knowledge from researchers to policy makers and practitioners. Such knowledge translation ideally creates user-friendly outputs, tailored to meet information needs in a particular context for a particular audience. Yet matching users' knowledge needs to the most suitable output can be challenging. We have developed an evidence synthesis framework to help knowledge users, brokers, commissioners and producers decide which type of output offers the best 'fit' between 'need' and 'response'. We conducted a four-strand literature search for characteristics and methods of evidence synthesis outputs using databases of peer reviewed literature, specific journals, grey literature and references in relevant documents. Eight experts in synthesis designed to get research into policy and practice were also consulted to hone issues for consideration and ascertain key studies. In all, 24 documents were included in the literature review. From these we identified essential characteristics to consider when planning an output-Readability, Relevance, Rigour and Resources-which we then used to develop a process for matching users' knowledge needs with an appropriate evidence synthesis output. We also identified 10 distinct evidence synthesis outputs, classifying them in the evidence synthesis framework under four domains: key features, utility, technical characteristics and resources, and in relation to six primary audience groups-professionals, practitioners, researchers, academics, advocates and policy makers. Users' knowledge needs vary and meeting them successfully requires collaborative planning. The Framework should facilitate a more systematic assessment of the balance of essential characteristics required to select the best output for the purpose.

Health information on alcoholic beverage containers: has the alcohol industry's pledge in England to improve labelling been met?

AIMS: In the United Kingdom, alcohol warning labels are the subject of a voluntary agreement between industry and government. In 2011, as part of the Public Health Responsibility Deal in England, the industry pledged to ensure that 80% of products would have clear, legible health warning labelling, although an analysis commissioned by Portman found that only 57.1% met best practice. We assessed what proportion of alcohol products now contain the required health warning information, and its clarity and placement. DESIGN: Survey of alcohol labelling data. SETTING: United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: Analysis of the United Kingdom's 100 top-selling alcohol brands (n = 156 individual products). MEASUREMENTS: We assessed the product labels in relation to the presence of five labelling elements: information on alcohol units, government consumption guidelines, pregnancy warnings, reference to the Drinkaware website and a responsibility statement. We also assessed the size, colour and placement of text, and the size and colouring of the pregnancy warning logo. FINDINGS: The first three (required) elements were present on 77.6% of products examined. The mean font size of the Chief Medical Officer's (CMO) unit guidelines (usually on the back of the product) was 8.17-point. The mean size of pregnancy logos was 5.95 mm. The pregnancy logo was on average smaller on wine containers. CONCLUSIONS: The UK Public Health Responsibility Deal alcohol labelling pledge has not been fully met. Labelling information frequently falls short of best practice, with font and logos smaller than would be accepted on other products with health effects.

An evaluation of the Public Health Responsibility Deal: Informants' experiences and views of the development, implementation and achievements of a pledge-based, public-private partnership to improve population health in England.

OBJECTIVES: The Coalition Government's Public Health Responsibility Deal (RD) was launched in England in 2011 as a public-private partnership designed to improve public health in the areas of food, alcohol, health at work and physical activity. As part of a larger evaluation, we explored informants' experiences and views about the RD's development, implementation and achievements. METHODS: We conducted 44 semi-structured interviews with 50 interviewees, purposively sampled from: RD partners (businesses, public sector and non-governmental organisations); individuals with formal roles in implementing the RD; and non-partners and former partners. Data were analysed thematically: NVivo (10) software was employed to manage the data. RESULTS: Key motivations underpinning participation were corporate social responsibility and reputational enhancement. Being a partner often involved making pledges related to work already underway or planned before joining the RD, suggesting limited 'added value' from the RD, although some pledge achievements (e.g., food reformulation) were described. Benefits included access to government, while drawbacks included resource implications and the risk of an 'uneven playing field' between partners and non-partners. CONCLUSIONS: To ensure that voluntary agreements like the RD produce gains to public health that would not otherwise have occurred, government needs to: increase participation and compliance through incentives and sanctions, including those affecting organisational reputation; create greater visibility of voluntary agreements; and increase scrutiny and monitoring of partners' pledge activities.

Comparing end-of-life practices in different policy contexts: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: End-of-life policy reforms are being debated in many countries. Research evidence is used to support different assumptions about the effects of public policies on end-of-life practices. It is however unclear whether reliable international practice comparisons can be conducted between different policy contexts. Our aim was to assess the feasibility of comparing similar end-of-life practices in different policy contexts. METHODS: This is a scoping review of empirical studies on medical end-of-life practices. We developed a descriptive classification of end-of-life practices that distinguishes practices according to their legal status. We focused on the intentional use of lethal drugs by physicians because of international variations in the legal status of this practice. Bibliographic database searches were supplemented by expert consultation and hand searching of reference lists. The sensitivity of the search strategy was tested using a set of 77 articles meeting our inclusion criteria. Two researchers extracted end-of-life practice definitions, study methods and available comparisons across policy contexts. Canadian decision-makers were involved to increase the policy relevance of the review. RESULTS: In sum, 329 empirical studies on the intentional use of lethal drugs by doctors were identified, including studies from 19 countries. The bibliographic search captured 98.7% of studies initially identified as meeting the inclusion criteria. Studies on the intentional use of lethal drugs were conducted in jurisdictions with permissive (62%) and restrictive policies (43%). The most common study objectives related to the frequency of end-of-life practices, determinants of practices, and doctors' adherence to regulatory standards. Large variations in definitions and research methods were noted across studies. The use of a descriptive classification was useful to translate end-of-life practice definitions across countries. A few studies compared end-of-life practice in countries with different policies, using consistent research methods. We identified no comprehensive review of end-of-life practices across different policy contexts. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to compare end-of-life practices in different policy contexts. A systematic review of international evidence is needed to inform public deliberations on end-of-life policies and practice.

Determinants of the choice of GP practice registration in England: evidence from a discrete choice experiment.

There have been growing concerns that general practitioner (GP) services in England, which are based on registration with a single practice located near the patient's home, are not sufficiently convenient for patients. To inform the decision as to whether to change registration rules allowing patients to register 'out-of-area' and to estimate the demand for this wider choice, we undertook a discrete choice experiment with 1706 respondents. Latent class models were used to analyse preferences for GP practice registration comparing preferences for neighbourhood and non-neighbourhood practices. We find that there is some appetite for registering outside the neighbourhood, but this preference is not uniformly shared across the population. Specifically individuals who are less mobile (e.g. older people and those with caring responsibilities), or satisfied with their local practice are less likely to be interested in registering at a practice outside their neighbourhood. Overall, people feel most strongly about obtaining an appointment with a GP as quickly as possible. Respondents regarded weekend opening as less important than other factors, and particularly less important than extended practice opening hours from Monday to Friday. Assuming a constant demand for GP services, a policy encouraging GP practices to extend their opening hours during the week is likely to decrease the average patient waiting time for an appointment and is likely to be preferred by patients.

Potential impact of removing general practice boundaries in England: a policy analysis.

In 2015, the UK government plans to widen patient choice of general practitioner (GP) to improve access through the voluntary removal of practice boundaries in the English NHS. This follows a 12-month pilot in four areas where volunteer GP practices accepted patients from outside their boundaries. Using evidence from the pilot evaluation, we discuss the likely impact of this policy change on patient experience, responsiveness and equity of access. Patients reported positive experiences but in a brief pilot in four areas, it was not possible to assess potential demand, the impact on quality of care or health outcomes. In the rollout, policymakers and commissioners will need to balance the access needs of local residents against the demands of those coming into the area. The rollout should include full information for prospective patients; monitoring and understanding patterns of patient movement between practices and impact on practice capacity; and ensuring the timely transfer of clinical information between providers. This policy has the potential to improve choice and convenience for a sub-group of the population at lower marginal costs than new provision. However, there are simpler, less costly, ways of improving convenience, such as extending opening hours or offering alternatives to face-to-face consultation.