The NIHR Public Health Research Programme: responding to local authority research needs in the United Kingdom

Supporting and enabling health research in a local authority (SERLA): an exploratory study

BACKGROUND

The use of research evidence to underpin public health practice and policy decisions in local government is strongly promoted but its implementation has not been straightforward. This study aimed to explore the factors, relationships and processes that contribute towards accessing, using, and generating research evidence that is relevant to local authority public health and social care and shapes its practice.

METHODS

Semi-structured individual interviews with elected councillors, officers directly involved with public health and social care and with community members from one urban unitary authority in South England were conducted. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed.

RESULTS

Fourteen participants took part in the semi-structured interviews. Local knowledge and evidence are prioritised, and anecdotal evidence is valued. The Director of Public Health was the principal source of information and support. Academics were rarely mentioned as information sources, and their involvement was ad hoc. The use of research evidence varied between individuals and departments, with wider engagement among public health specialists. Key barriers to the use of research evidence included access (not reported among public health professionals), research timeliness, local applicability, competence in finding and interpreting evidence and the role of research evidence within a political context. Public health and adult social care teams are not currently research active or research ready. Major barriers exist due to financial constraints and the socio-political context of local authorities. COVID-19 disrupted siloed ways of working, strengthening and opening potential collaborations within the local authority. This changed perspectives about the value of research but is likely time-limited unless underpinned by sustainable funding.

CONCLUSION

Creating strategic level roles within local government to work with the Director of Public Health to champion the research agenda and embedding researchers within and across teams would build capacity for local authorities to sustainably co-create, undertake, and use evidence to better inform future actions.

Priority-setting in public health research funding organisations: an exploratory qualitative study among five high-profile funders

Background

Priority-driven funding streams for population and public health are an important part of the health research landscape and contribute to orienting future scholarship in the field. While research priorities are often made public through targeted calls for research, less is known about how research funding organisations arrive at said priorities. Our objective was to explore how public health research funding organisations develop priorities for strategic extramural research funding programmes.

Methods

Content analysis of published academic and grey literature and key informant interviews for five public and private funders of public health research in the United Kingdom, Australia, the United States and France were performed.

Results

We found important distinctions in how funding organisations processed potential research priorities through four non-sequential phases, namely idea generation, idea analysis, idea socialisation and idea selection. Funders generally involved the public health research community and public health decision-makers in idea generation and socialisation, but other groups of stakeholders (e.g. the public, advocacy organisations) were not as frequently included.

Conclusions

Priority-setting for strategic funding programmes in public health research involves consultation mainly with researchers in the early phase of the process. There is an opportunity for greater breadth of participation and more transparency in priority-setting mechanisms for strategic funding programmes in population and public health research.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-018-0335-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Novel Psychoactive Substances in the UK Project: empirical and conceptual review work to produce research recommendations

Background

Although illegal drug use has largely been declining in the UK over the past decade, this period has witnessed the emergence of a range of novel psychoactive substances (NPS) (‘legal highs’). These are new, mostly synthetic, substances that mimic the effects of existing drugs). Despite there being many causes for concern in relation to NPS, there has been little prior study of the burden associated with their use in public health terms. Clarity is lacking on research priorities in this rapidly developing literature.

Objectives

To inform the development of public health intervention research on NPS by reviewing existing data on their use, associated problems and potential responses to such problems.

Design

A scoping review and narrative synthesis of selected bodies of evidence was undertaken to summarise and evaluate what is known about NPS use and the related harms of, and responses to, such use. Relevant literature was identified from electronic databases (covering January 2006 to June 2016 inclusive), Google (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA), relevant websites and online drug forums and by contacting experts. Articles were included if they were primary studies, secondary studies involving the analysis and interpretation of primary research or discussion papers. A conceptual framework postulating an evidence-informed public health approach to NPS use in the UK was developed through a pragmatic literature review, the iterative development of concepts and finalisation in light of the results from the empirical review work. The process also involved feedback from various stakeholders. Research recommendations were developed from both strands of work.

Results

A total of 995 articles were included in the scoping review, the majority of which related to individual-level health-related adverse effects attributable to NPS use. The prevalence of lifetime NPS use varied widely between (e.g. with higher prevalence in young males) and within population subgroups. The most commonly reported adverse effects were psychiatric/other neurological, cardiovascular, renal and gastrointestinal manifestations, and there is limited evidence available on responses. In these and other respects, available evidence is at an early stage of development. Initial evidence challenges the view that NPS should be treated differently from other illicit drugs. The conceptual framework indicated that much of the evidence that would be useful to inform public health responses does not yet exist. We propose a systems-based prevention approach that develops existing responses, is multilevel and life course informed in character, and emphasises commonalities between NPS and other legal and illegal drug use. We make 20 recommendations for research, including nine key recommendations.

Limitations

Scoping reviews do not interrogate evidence in depth, and the disjunction between the scoping review and the conceptual framework findings is worthy of careful attention.

Conclusions

Key research recommendations build on those that have previously been made and offer more evidence-based justification and detail, as previous recommendations have not yet been acted on. The case for decision-making on commissioning new research based on these recommendations is both strong and urgent.

Future work

The validity of recommendations generated through this project could be enhanced via further work with research commissioners, policy-makers, researchers and the public.

Study registration

The systematic review element of this study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016026415.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research programme.

Building health research systems: WHO is generating global perspectives, and who's celebrating national successes?

In 2016, England’s National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) celebrated its tenth anniversary as an innovative national health research system with a focus on meeting patients’ needs. This provides a good opportunity to reflect on how the creation of the NIHR has greatly enhanced important work, started in 1991, to develop a health research system in England that is embedded in the National Health Service.

In 2004, WHO identified a range of functions that a national health research system should undertake to improve the health of populations. Health Research Policy and Systems (HRPS) has taken particular interest in the pioneering developments in the English health research system, where the comprehensive approach has covered most, if not all, of the functions identified by WHO. Furthermore, several significant recent developments in thinking about health research are relevant for the NIHR and have informed accounts of its achievements. These include recognition of the need to combat waste in health research, which had been identified as a global problem in successive papers in the Lancet, and an increasing emphasis on demonstrating impact. Here, pioneering evaluation of United Kingdom research, conducted through the impact case studies of the Research Excellence Framework, is particularly important. Analyses informed by these and other approaches identified many aspects of NIHR’s progress in combating waste, building and sustaining research capacity, creating centres of research excellence linked to leading healthcare institutions, developing research networks, involving patients and others in identifying research needs, and producing and adopting research findings that are improving health outcomes.

The NIHR’s overall success, and an analysis of the remaining problems, might have lessons for other systems, notwithstanding important advances in many countries, as described in papers in HRPS and elsewhere. WHO’s recently established Global Observatory for Health Research and Development provides an opportunity to promote some of these lessons. To inform its work, the Observatory is sponsoring a thematic series of papers in HRPS focusing on health research issues such as funding flows, priority setting, capacity building, utilisation and equity. While important papers on these have been published, this series is still open to new submissions.