Results for 'evidence-based practice'
BUCKLAND Leonora, FIENNES Caroline
To investigate what may need to happen to help mental health charities make more evidence-informed decisions, this report examines how UK charities delivering mental health services currently produce, synthesise, disseminate and use evidence within their organisation. Semi-structured qualitative interviews with 12 mental health service delivery charities of varying sizes and qualitative interviews with four mental health sector experts were carried out. The project used an inclusive definition of evidence comprising: evaluation evidence, user feedback; practitioner evidence and contextual evidence (e.g., research into the prevalence or type of need). In relation to the production of evidence, the report found that mental health charities have focused primarily on producing practitioner and stakeholder evidence. Although larger charities are beginning to carry out more evaluation research, lack of resources remain a problem. It also identified little evidence produced by the charities interviewed being routinely synthesised or included in systematic reviews; weak dissemination channels; and little use of third-party evidence when making decisions. Although the number of charities interviewed was small, the report identifies some important gaps including: the need for more rigorous evaluation research about the effectiveness of charities’ interventions; the potential to make more use of existing the academic literature; and, for more evidence to be actively disseminated within the sector to enable greater learning. Recommendations to improve evidence systems are also included.
KORJONEN Helena, et al
This study uses a mixed methods approach, comprising a literature review, a content analysis of a sample of case studies and a small number of qualitative interviews on the use and usefulness of case studies, to define, explore and make recommendations around the nature and use of case studies in public health. It suggests that case studies capture local knowledge of programmes and services, and illustrate processes and outcomes that cannot be captured in other ways, and that this is what makes them valuable. The report argues that case studies would benefit from guidelines and templates to improve the format, replicability and assessment and that they would benefit from a higher rating in evidence hierarchies as they often describe complex interventions, implementation and different contexts.
PUBLIC HEALTH ENGLAND
Strategic document setting out Public Health England's priorities for the next five years. The report provides a brief overview of the state of health in England today, the key health drivers, prevention plans, and future trends. It identifies and examines seven priorities for PHE working with local and central government, clinical commissioning groups and the wider NHS, universities, industry, employers, and the voluntary and community sector. These are: tackling obesity; reducing smoking; reducing harmful drinking; ensuring every child has the best start in life; reducing dementia risk; tackling antimicrobial resistance; and reducing tuberculosis.
WYE Lesley, et al
The aim of this study was to explore how commissioners obtained, modified and used information to inform their decisions, focusing in particular in the knowledge obtained from external organisations such as management consultancies, Public Health and commissioning support units. In eight case studies, researchers interviewed 92 external consultants and their clients, observed 25 meetings and training sessions, and analysed documents such as meeting minutes and reports. Data were analysed within each case study and then across all case studies. Commissioners used many types of information from multiple sources to try to build a cohesive, persuasive case. They obtained information through five channels: interpersonal relationships people placement (e.g. embedding external staff within client teams); governance (e.g. national directives); copy, adapt and paste (e.g. best practice guidance); and product deployment (e.g. software tools). Furthermore, commissioners constantly interpreted (and reinterpreted) the knowledge to fit local circumstances (contextualisation) and involved others in this refinement process (engagement). External organisations that drew on these multiple channels and facilitated contextualisation and engagement were more likely to meet clients’ expectations. Sometimes there was little impact on commissioning decisions because the work of external organisations targeted and benefited the commissioning decision-makers less than the health-care analysts. The long-standing split between health-care analysts and commissioners sometimes limited the impact of external organisations. The paper concludes that to capitalise on the expertise of external providers, wherever possible, contracts should include explicit skills development and knowledge transfer components.
KNAPP Martin, et al
This study provides economic evidence to support the case for investing in effective, recovery-focused services for people with schizophrenia and psychosis. Drawing on a wide range of data, it sets out the evidence for the cost-effectiveness for a range of interventions and service. Those discussed are: Early Detection (ED) services; Early Intervention (EI) teams; Individual Placement and Support (IPS); Family therapy; Criminal justice liaison and diversion; Physical health promotion, including health behaviours; Supported housing; Crisis Resolution and Home Treatment (CRHT) teams; Crisis houses; Peer support; Self-management; Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT); Anti-stigma and discrimination campaigns; Personal Budgets (PBs); and Welfare advice. For each intervention the report provides information on the context, the nature of the intervention, the evidence on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and the policy and practice implications. The report finds evidence to suggest that all of the interventions contribute to recovery outcomes, reduced costs and/or better value for money. Examples of the savings incurred through particular interventions are also included. The study was undertaken by a team from the Personal Social Services Research Unit (PSSRU), at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), the Centre for Mental Health, and the Centre for the Economics of Mental and Physical Health (CEMPH) at King’s College London.
ALLEN Kerry, GLASBY Jon
With ageing populations, social changes and rising public expectations, many countries are exploring ways of developing a more preventative approach within their health and social care services. In England, this has become a growing priority over time—made even more significant by recent economic change and by the urgent need to reduce public sector spending. However, a key dilemma for policy makers and managers is the patchy nature of the evidence base—with a lack of certainty over how to reform services or prioritise spending in order to develop a more genuinely preventative approach. Against this background, this commentary reviews national and international evidence around ten policy measures and interventions, highlighting some of the most promising approaches as well as the fragmented and contested nature of the evidence base.