BROWN Helen, ADBALLAH Saamah, TOWNSELY Ruth
This report presents a new Local Wellbeing Indicator set for local authorities, public health leaders and Health and Wellbeing boards to help local decision-makers better understand the wellbeing of their local populations, and how they can act to improve it. The set is the product of a six-month scoping project co-commissioned by the Office for National Statistics (ON) and Public Health England (PHE), in collaboration with the What Works Centre for Wellbeing and Happy City. The report outlines the rationale for the selection of indicators, details the methodology used, and presents the indicators. The final framework consists of an ‘ideal’ set and a ‘currently available’ set of Local Wellbeing indicators, recognising that some of the indicators proposed in the ideal set are not yet available at the local authority level. The ‘ideal’ set is based on a core of 26 indicators of individual wellbeing and its determinants. The ‘currently available’ set contains 23 indicators. Both the ‘ideal’ and ‘currently available’ sets are built around seven domains: personal wellbeing, economy, education and childhood, equality, health, place and social relationships. The report also includes recommendations for additional ‘deeper dive’ support indicators that provide more detailed insight in specific areas and contexts. The indicators aim to meet the need for a practical local translation of the Measuring National Wellbeing programme Office, introduced by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in 2011.
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.