Search results

Mental well-being is associated with positive outcomes throughout the life course. This study aims to examine interventions delivered by allied health professionals (AHPs) to alleviate community stressors adversely impacting public mental health and well-being.

Review inclusion criteria comprised experimental and qualitative process evaluations of public mental health interventions delivered by AHPs. Electronic searches in Cinahl, Embase, Medline, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library, were combined with grey literature searches of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence public health guidance. A narrative synthesis and the Effective Public Health Practice Project appraisal tool were used to evaluate the evidence.

A total of 45-articles were included in the review describing AHP-delivered interventions addressing social disadvantage, trauma, bullying, loneliness, work-related stress, transitional stress, intersectionality, pain and bereavement. No articles were identified evaluating interventions delivered by operating department practitioners or orthoptists. A conceptual map was developed summarising the stressors, and a typology of public mental health interventions defined including: place-based interventions, discrete/one-off interventions, multi-component lifestyle and social connector interventions and interventions targeting groups at risk of mental health conditions.

Many mental health conditions begin in childhood, and a strength of the review is the life course perspective. A further strength is compiling a compendium of public mental health outcome measures used by AHPs to inform future research. The authors excluded many articles focussed on clinical interventions/populations, which did not meet review inclusion criteria. While playing a key role in delivering public mental health interventions, clinical psychologists are not defined as AHPs and were excluded from the review, and this may be construed a limitation. Given heterogeneity of study designs and interventions evaluated numerical analyses of pooled findings was not appropriate.

The review highlights the breadth of community stressors on which AHPs can intervene and contribute in public mental health contexts, stressors which correspond to those identified in UK Government guidance as currently important and relevant to address. The findings can inform developing community public mental health pathways that align with the UK National Health Service (NHS) Long Term Plan, on prevention and early intervention to protect community mental health and well-being. Further can inform the NHS strategic direction for AHPs including informing ways of increasing utilisation of core AHP skills to optimise contributions in public mental health agendas.

It is surprising there were not more AHP delivered evaluations of interventions for other stressors important to address in public mental health settings, for example gambling, domestic violence or that used digital technology, and these are areas for future research. Future research should identify the most active/effective dimensions of multi-component interventions which could be informed by frameworks to guide complex intervention development. The relative paucity of research identified, highlights the predominant focus of research to date on interventions for clinical mental health conditions and populations. The lack of preventative approaches is evident, and an important area for future research to align with UK health and social care priorities.

The review highlights AHP-delivered interventions impacting diverse community stressors across the life course. The findings can inform developing public mental health pathways aligned with government health service priorities to protect mental health and well-being, prioritise prevention and early intervention and increase utilisation of AHP skills across public mental health settings.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss contemporary approaches to workplace health and well‐being, articulating key differences in the intervention architecture between public and workplace health contexts and implications for intervention design.

Contemporary practice is discussed in light of calls for a paradigm shift in occupational health from a treatment orientation to an holistic approach focused on mitigation of the causes of ill health and the promotion of well‐being. In practice, relatively few organizations have or seem able to engage with a broader perspective that encompasses challenges to health and well‐being associated with contextual organizational drivers, e.g. job design/role, workload, systems of reward, leadership style and the underpinning climate. Drawing upon insights from public health and the workplace safety tradition, the scope for broadening the perspective on intervention (in terms of vectors of harm addressed, theory of change and intervention logic) is discussed.

There are important differences in scope and options for intervention between public health and workplace health contexts. While there is scope to emulate public health practice, this should not constrain thinking over intervention opinions. Increased awareness of these key differences within work organizations, and an evidence‐based epidemiological approach to learning has the potential to strengthen and broaden the approach to workplace health and well‐being management.

The authors argue that approaches to workplace well‐being interventions that selectively cross‐fertilise and adapt elements of public health interventions offer promise for realising a broader change agenda and for building inherently healthy workplaces.

As the investment in social and health protection remained poor in India, the most vulnerable citizens lack access to existing health related government initiatives with transformational benefits due mostly to the lack of “accurate information”. The purpose of this paper is to explore and demonstrate the impact of participation of the community through a structured intervention that promotes awareness, enables the community to ensure entitlements, and enhances the utilization of government initiatives.

Through a baseline–endline study using a quasi-experimental design, this research provides empirical evidence of such intervention on awareness and utilization of health, nutrition and developmental initiatives. It involved survey of 400 households from the four study locations before and after the interventions. The pre-post estimation in the “proportion of respondents who were fully aware” was analyzed to measure changes in knowledge. Mc-Nemar test was applied to measure the statistical significance of these changes.

The results indicate that the intervention of “empowerment centers” has increased knowledge and utilization of the various government schemes, services and facilities that are routine and offer benefits all household members, in general, and women as well as children, in particular. The intervention was found to be successful in improving the local governance systems; empowering communities, linking communities and local level government systems across all sectors, as well as bringing in inter-sectoral linkages across governments systems.

Although there have been many interventions of community participation for reducing inequities across the globe, there is a dearth of documentation and evidence generation. More efforts are required to evaluate such interventions, identify which interventions work and how they can be adapted to different contexts. This also requires exploration of the social processes and contextual realities underlying these interventions.

To the best knowledge of the authors, this research is one-of-its-kind that assessed an intervention targeting cross-cutting schemes and services, beyond just health interventions. The evidence points to the success of grassroots level inter-sectoral community actions, in the form of empowerment centers, to improve awareness and utilization of government interventions through participatory governance, and points to the expanding scope of learning and adapting such interventions to different contexts and scopes.

To assist in achieving cost effective health care allocations in a collective choice setting, the purpose of this paper is to illustrate the use of a tool not common in the public budgeting literature but is common in the health economics literature.

Through a meta-analysis of the health care spending literature that computed the value of quality-adjusted life years, the authors provide an alternative approach for budgeters and policymakers.

The authors provide an alternative approach for budgeters and policymakers for weighing the benefits of alternative health care spending allocations.

The authors introduce an alternative approach for weighing the benefits of alternative health care spending allocations. As a tool for budgeting professionals, cost per QALY allows for the opportunity to raise cost-effectiveness of public health expenditures as a tool for governments to allocate resources based on outcomes, rather than inputs.

The purpose of publishing this viewpoint is to critically analyze the relationship between public health interventions and individual liberties, during recent and potential future pandemics. By exploring the interplay of the right to health, privacy, and autonomy, this viewpoint seeks to highlight the complexities and challenges faced by decision-makers in balancing collective well-being with the protection of individual rights. Through detailed discussions on lockdowns, contact tracing, and international border closures, this paper aims to foster a deeper understanding of how these measures impact fundamental human rights and proposes ways to achieve harmony in future pandemics and crises.

The viewpoint has a qualitative approach, using critical analysis and examination of legal frameworks, scholarly literature, and real-world examples to explore the interplay between public health interventions and individual liberties during pandemics. It draws upon diverse sources, including international declarations, legal instruments, and empirical studies to elucidate the complexities of balancing collective well-being with the protection of fundamental human rights. Through in-depth discussions on lockdowns, contact tracing, and international border closures, this paper aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities in harmonizing public health with individual liberties.

The findings of the viewpoint highlight the relationship between public health interventions and individual liberties during pandemics. It underscores the importance of balancing collective well-being with the protection of fundamental human rights, particularly the right to health, privacy, and autonomy. The analysis reveals the shortcomings of certain measures, such as restrictive lockdowns, border closure, and unchecked contact tracing in respecting individual rights. However, it also identifies opportunities for adopting an altruistic approach that upholds both public health imperatives and individual freedoms. Ultimately, the findings emphasize the need for a nuanced understanding and inclusive approach to crisis management.

This analysis predominantly addresses the COVID-19 pandemic, potentially limiting the generalizability of findings to other public health crises. It is limited by its focus primarily on legal frameworks and theoretical analysis, which may not fully capture the practical complexities and nuances of implementing public health measures. Furthermore, while proposing ways to achieve harmony between public health and individual liberties, practical challenges and potential trade-offs in implementation are not extensively explored. Future research could benefit from empirical studies and case analyses to better understand the real-world implications of balancing public health imperatives with individual rights.

The viewpoint underscores the importance of adopting an altruistic approach that respects both public health imperatives and individual rights during pandemics. Practical implications include the need for policymakers to prioritize transparency, accountability, and citizen engagement in implementing public health measures. By fostering trust, ensuring data privacy, and promoting active participation, authorities can mitigate concerns about infringements on individual liberties while effectively managing public health threats. Furthermore, the analysis highlights the importance of considering diverse perspectives and potential trade-offs in decision-making processes to achieve a balanced and inclusive approach to crisis management.

The viewpoint’s social implications lie in building a society where public health measures are implemented with respect for individual rights, fostering trust, and promoting community engagement. By prioritizing transparency, accountability and inclusivity, authorities can mitigate social tensions and promote collective resilience during pandemics. Moreover, upholding principles of equity and fairness in crisis management can help address disparities and ensure that vulnerable populations are not disproportionately affected. Overall, the viewpoint advocates for a societal framework that values both public health and individual liberties, thereby contributing to the development of a more cohesive and resilient society in the face of future health crises.

The originality and value of this viewpoint lie in its comprehensive exploration of the interplay between public health interventions and individual liberties during pandemics. By synthesizing legal frameworks, scholarly literature, and real-world examples, it offers unique insights into the complexities and challenges faced by decision-makers in balancing collective well-being with the protection of fundamental human rights. Additionally, the viewpoint’s proposal of an altruistic approach that respects both public health imperatives and individual freedoms contributes to the discourse on ethical crisis management. Overall, it provides valuable perspectives and recommendations for achieving harmony between public health and individual liberties in future pandemics.

Mental health champions (MHCs) and young health ambassadors (YHAs) are two innovative public health interventions. MHCs are practitioners who work in schools and other youth settings and aim to be the “go to” person for mental health in these settings. YHAs are a linked parallel network of young people, who champion mental health and advocate for youth involvement, which was co-produced with young people across all stages of development implementation. This paper aims to identify the potential benefits, barriers and facilitators of these interventions.

Semi-structured qualitative interviews (n = 19) were undertaken with a purposive sample of n = 13 MHCs, and n = 6 YHAs, between June 2021 and March 2022. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymised and then analysed following a thematic approach. Ethical approval was granted by Newcastle University’s Faculty of Medical Sciences Ethics Committee.

The findings are organised under five key themes: motivating factors and rewards for MHCs and YHAs; outcomes for children and young people (CYP) and others; impact on youth settings and culture; facilitators of successful implementation; and implementation challenges and opportunities.

These findings are intended to be of relevance to practice and policy, particularly to those exploring the design, commissioning or implementation of similar novel and low-cost interventions, which aim to improve mental health outcomes for CYP, within the context of youth settings.

The interventions reported on in the present paper are novel and innovative. Little research has previously been undertaken to explore similar approaches, and the individual experiences of those involved in the delivery of these types of interventions.

This paper examines the contested value of healthy life and wellbeing in a context of severe austerity, exploring how the value of “Public Health” is constructed through and with material-discursive practices and accounting representations. It seeks to explore the political and ethical implications of constructing the valuable through a shared consensus over the “facts” when addressing complex, multi-agency problems with long time horizons and outcomes that are not always easily quantifiable.

The theorisation, drawing on science and technology studies (STS) scholars and Karen Barad's (2007) agential realism, opens up the analysis to the performativity of both material and discursive practices in the period following a major re-organisation of activity. The study investigates two case authorities in England and the national regulator through interviews, observations and documentary analysis.

The paper demonstrates the deeply ethical and political entanglements of accounting representations as objectivity, consensus and collective action are constructed and resisted in practice. It goes on to demonstrate the practical challenges of constructing “alternative accounts” and “intelligent accountabilities” through times of austerity towards a shared sense of public value and suggests austerity measures make such aims both more challenging and all the more essential.

Few studies in the accounting literature have explored the full complexity of valuation practices in non-market settings, particularly in a public sector context; this paper, therefore, extends familiar conceptual vocabulary of STS inspired research to further explore how value(s), ethics and identity all play a crucial role in making things valuable.

As the provision of public services in many advanced welfare states has increasingly come to be marked by competition, social enterprises have actively been encouraged by governments to become involved in the delivery of public services. While the evaluation of complex public health interventions has arguably become increasingly more sophisticated, this has not been the case where social enterprise is concerned: evaluation of the actual impacts of social enterprises remains significantly underdeveloped by comparison. This study aims to support the establishment of a robust evidence base for the use of social enterprise as a policy instrument.

This paper assesses the potential of three methodological approaches common in the evaluation of complex public health interventions and applies them to the complex realm of community-led social enterprise.

Only through the involvement of different comparator groups, based on the research questions addressed, would it be possible to disentangle the embedded characteristics of organisations such as social enterprises. Each of the methods adopted in this research is time-consuming and resource-intensive and requires the researcher to possess advanced skills. Public officials should recognise the complexity and resource-intensive nature of such evaluation and resource it accordingly. If the aim of policymakers is to understand the added value of social enterprise organisations, an integrative research approach combining different research methods and design should be implemented to improve generalisability.

This study applies a range of favoured approaches to evaluate “complex” public health interventions include systematic reviews, realist evaluation and quasi-experimental investigation. However, such evaluation approaches have rarely been applied before in the context of social enterprise.

This paper seeks to describe the public health guidance development activity of the new National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).

The paper outlines the origins of the public health guidance development work, the types of guidance in public health which NICE will produce, the methodological approach which will be used, the advisory body structure, the health economics which will inform judgements about cost‐effectiveness, the audiences for the guidance and the approach to health inequalities which will be taken.

The future recommendations which NICE will make in public health are signalled.

The paper provides a summary of the key processes which will be used in the production of public health guidance.

Population, community, and public health notions are addressed separately in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), have different foci and stakeholders, build on different frameworks to achieve their aims, and apply different measures to determine the long-term impact of interventions. This paper attempts to clarify each concept and proposes a method of evaluating each of these sets of health-related activities based on the benefits that accrue to the respective stakeholders.

In addition to indicating how to affect change and improvements in health, the ecological model of health also provides insight into how the benefits from health-related activities may or may not flow back to the entities sponsoring health interventions. By clearly defining each of the concepts and examining the methods and metrics being used to select activities and measure benefits, a valuation model is developed that measures the financial impact on the targeted population as well as the sponsoring institution.

Defining, measuring, and evaluating are important to bring clarity to how individual organizations can contribute to the overall health of the population, as well as the limits of any single organization in doing so. Collective and upstream action will be required to improve the population’s health, but identifying and justifying the role of each participating organization is a challenge that still lacks an overarching vision that can be explained and measured to the satisfaction of all stakeholders.

Decision makers must justify how resources are committed in an era of scarcity and limited financial means. Moreover, methods must be in place to measure the impact of potential collaborations. The proposed valuation framework lays out the natural incentives, the responses to those incentives, and how to select initiatives that maximize value from the perspective of the various stakeholders.