The impact of the world's first regulatory, multi-setting intervention on sedentary behaviour among children and adolescents (ENERGISE): a natural experiment evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Regulatory actions are increasingly used to tackle issues such as excessive alcohol or sugar intake, but such actions to reduce sedentary behaviour remain scarce. World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines on sedentary behaviour call for system-wide policies. The Chinese government introduced the world's first nation-wide multi-setting regulation on multiple types of sedentary behaviour in children and adolescents in July 2021. This regulation restricts when (and for how long) online gaming businesses can provide access to pupils; the amount of homework teachers can assign to pupils according to their year groups; and when tutoring businesses can provide lessons to pupils. We evaluated the effect of this regulation on sedentary behaviour safeguarding pupils. METHODS: With a natural experiment evaluation design, we used representative surveillance data from 9- to 18-year-old pupils before and after the introduction of the regulation, for longitudinal (n = 7,054, matched individuals, primary analysis) and repeated cross-sectional (n = 99,947, exploratory analysis) analyses. We analysed pre-post differences for self-reported sedentary behaviour outcomes (total sedentary behaviour time, screen viewing time, electronic device use time, homework time, and out-of-campus learning time) using multilevel models, and explored differences by sex, education stage, residency, and baseline weight status. RESULTS: Longitudinal analyses indicated that pupils had reduced their mean total daily sedentary behaviour time by 13.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: -15.9 to -11.7%, approximately 46 min) and were 1.20 times as likely to meet international daily screen time recommendations (95% CI: 1.01 to 1.32) one month after the introduction of the regulation compared to the reference group (before its introduction). They were on average 2.79 times as likely to meet the regulatory requirement on homework time (95% CI: 2.47 to 3.14) than the reference group and reduced their daily total screen-viewing time by 6.4% (95% CI: -9.6 to -3.3%, approximately 10 min). The positive effects were more pronounced among high-risk groups (secondary school and urban pupils who generally spend more time in sedentary behaviour) than in low-risk groups (primary school and rural pupils who generally spend less time in sedentary behaviour). The exploratory analyses showed comparable findings. CONCLUSIONS: This regulatory intervention has been effective in reducing total and specific types of sedentary behaviour among Chinese children and adolescents, with the potential to reduce health inequalities. International researchers and policy makers may explore the feasibility and acceptability of implementing regulatory interventions on sedentary behaviour elsewhere.

Developing a combined framework for priority setting in integrated health and social care systems.

BACKGROUND: There is an international move towards greater integration of health and social care to cope with the increasing demand on services.. In Scotland, legislation was passed in 2014 to integrate adult health and social care services resulting in the formation of 31 Health and Social Care Partnerships (HSCPs). Greater integration does not eliminate resource scarcity and the requirement to make (resource) allocation decisions to meet the needs of local populations. There are different perspectives on how to facilitate and improve priority setting in health and social care organisations with limited resources, but structured processes at the local level are still not widely implemented. This paper reports on work with new HSCPs in Scotland to develop a combined multi-disciplinary priority setting and resource allocation framework. METHODS: To develop the combined framework, a scoping review of the literature was conducted to determine the key principles and approaches to priority setting from economics, decision-analysis, ethics and law, and attempts to combine such approaches. Co-production of the combined framework involved a multi-disciplinary workshop including local, and national-level stakeholders and academics to discuss and gather their views. RESULTS: The key findings from the literature review and the stakeholder workshop were taken to produce a final combined framework for priority setting and resource allocation. This is underpinned by principles from economics (opportunity cost), decision science (good decisions), ethics (justice) and law (fair procedures). It outlines key stages in the priority setting process, including: framing the question, looking at current use of resources, defining options and criteria, evaluating options and criteria, and reviewing each stage. Each of these has further sub-stages and includes a focus on how the combined framework interacts with the consultation and involvement of patients, public and the wider staff. CONCLUSIONS: The integration agenda for health and social care is an opportunity to develop and implement a combined framework for setting priorities and allocating resources fairly to meet the needs of the population. A key aim of both integration and the combined framework is to facilitate the shifting of resources from acute services to the community.

The SPECTRUM Consortium: a new UK Prevention Research Partnership consortium focussed on the commercial determinants of health, the prevention of non-communicable diseases, and the reduction of health inequalities.

The main causes of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), health inequalities and health inequity include consumption of unhealthy commodities such as tobacco, alcohol and/or foods high in fat, salt and/or sugar. These exposures are preventable, but the commodities involved are highly profitable. The economic interests of 'Unhealthy Commodity Producers' (UCPs) often conflict with health goals but their role in determining health has received insufficient attention. In order to address this gap, a new research consortium has been established. This open letter introduces the SPECTRUM ( S haping  Public h Ealth poli Cies  To  Reduce ineq Ualities and har M)Consortium: a multi-disciplinary group comprising researchers from 10 United Kingdom (UK) universities and overseas, and partner organisations including three national public health agencies in Great Britain (GB), five multi-agency alliances and two companies providing data and analytic support. Through eight integrated work packages, the Consortium seeks to provide an understanding of the nature of the complex systems underlying the consumption of unhealthy commodities, the role of UCPs in shaping these systems and influencing health and policy, the role of systems-level interventions, and the effectiveness of existing and emerging policies. Co-production is central to the Consortium's approach to advance research and achieve meaningful impact and we will involve the public in the design and delivery of our research. We will also establish and sustain mutually beneficial relationships with policy makers, alongside our partners, to increase the visibility, credibility and impact of our evidence. The Consortium's ultimate aim is to achieve meaningful health benefits for the UK population by reducing harm and inequalities from the consumption of unhealthy commodities over the next five years and beyond.

Evolving the Right to Health: Rethinking the Normative Response to Problems of Judicialization.

Judicial readings of the right to health-and related rights-frequently possess something of an "all or nothing" quality, exhibiting either straightforward deference to allocative choices or conceptualizing the right as absolute, with consequent disruption to health systems, as witnessed in Latin America. This article seeks to identify pathways through which a normatively intermediate approach might be developed that would accord weight to rights claims without overlooking the scarcity of health resources. It is argued that such development is most likely both to accompany and support a role for courts as institutions functioning within a society that is characterized by a deliberative conception of democracy.

Doing 'Upstream' Priority-Setting for Global Health with Justice: Moving from Vision to Practice?

The vision of global health with justice which Larry Gostin articulates in his book Global Health Law envisages a switch to 'upstream' priority-setting for expenditure on health, with a focus upon social determinants and a goal of redressing health inequalities. This article explores what is meant by this proposal and offers a critical evaluation of it. It is argued that difficulties arise in respect of the ethical and evidential bases for such an approach to the setting of priorities, while significant challenges may also arise in the necessary modification of structures of governance.

Comment on Jennings, 'Right Relation and Right Recognition in Public Health Ethics: Thinking through the Republic of Health'.

This paper offers a brief comment on Jennings' preceding paper, focusing on the capacity of a republican approach to public health ethics to facilitate reconceptualization of the right to health in situations of limited resources through a relational reading.

Expanded HTA, Legitimacy and Independence Comment on "Expanded HTA: Enhancing Fairness and Legitimacy".

This brief commentary seeks to develop the analysis of Daniels, Porteny and Urrutia of the implications of expansion of the scope of health technology assessment (HTA) beyond issues of safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness. Drawing in particular on experience in the United Kingdom, it suggests that such expansion can be understood not only as a response to the problem of insufficiency of evidence, but also to that of legitimacy. However, as expansion of HTA also renders it more visibly political in character, it is plausible that its legitimacy may be undermined, rather than enhanced by, independence from the policy process.

Health technology appraisal and the courts: accountability for reasonableness and the judicial model of procedural justice.

Recommendations issued by agencies undertaking appraisals of health technologies at the national level may impact upon the availability of certain treatments and services in some publicly funded health systems, and, as such, have regularly been subject to challenge, including by way of litigation. In addition to expertise in the evaluation of evidence, fairness of procedures has been identified as a necessary component of a claim to legitimacy in such circumstances. This article analyses the assessment of courts in three jurisdictions of the fairness of decision-making by such agencies and evaluates the judicial reading of procedural justice developed in this particular context against the conditions of 'accountability for reasonableness'.

Mixing private and public treatment in the UK's National Health Service: a challenge to core constitutional principles?

The question of whether those patients who privately purchase treatments which are not available on the National Health Service should, as a consequence, lose entitlement to free care for their condition has proved highly controversial in the United Kingdom. This article considers the debate upon this issue. It focuses in particular upon the degree to which the solution adopted conflicts with the foundational principles of the National Health Service which have recently been enshrined in the NHS Constitution.

A technocratic fix to the "legitimacy problem"? The Blair government and health care rationing in the United Kingdom.

The work of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, an agency which has recently been created by Tony Blair's Labour government to provide guidance on best clinical practice to the National Health Service, has generated considerable controversy in the United Kingdom. It has been argued that the role which the institute plays in appraising cost effectiveness, especially of expensive new health technologies, constitutes explicit, national rationing. Although the employment of scientific and evidence-based criteria as the basis of decisions might have been expected to secure legitimacy for the institute--even when its recommendations have the effect of denying access to a particular treatment--the reaction to much of its work so far indicates that this goal has not been fully achieved. While alterations to structure and procedure may be considered as possible means of addressing the agency's difficulties, such proposals are not without problems. Consequently, in the final analysis, the British example may serve as a demonstration that the inherently political nature of priority-setting in health care precludes any easy technocratic solution.