Search

This review seeks to explore and explain what health policy research is and why it matters, through pooling the evidence and providing case examples. Alongside examining the types of research involved, and their rationale the paper identifies the challenges taking part in this sort of research may create. Finally the paper suggests how to make clinical research more accessible to policy makers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To examine the availability of paediatricians in Kenya and plans for their development.Design: Review of policies and data from multiple sources combined with local expert insight.Setting: Kenya with a focus on the public, non-tertiary care sector as an example of a low-income and middle-income country aiming to improve the survival and long-term health of newborns, children and adolescents.Results: There are 305 practising paediatricians, 1.33 per 100 000 individuals of the population aged <19 years which in total numbers approximately 25 million. Only 94 are in public sector, non-tertiary county hospitals. There is either no paediatrician at all or only one paediatrician in 21/47 Kenyan counties that are home to over a quarter of a million under 19 years of age. Government policy is to achieve employment of 1416 paediatricians in the public sector by 2030, however this remains aspirational as there is no comprehensive training or financing plan to reach this target and health workforce recruitment, financing and management is now devolved to 47 counties. The vast majority of paediatric care is therefore provided by non-specialist healthcare workers.Discussion: The scale of the paediatric workforce challenge seriously undermines the ability of the Kenyan health system to deliver on the emerging survive, thrive and transform agenda that encompasses more complex health needs. Addressing this challenge may require innovative workforce solutions such as task-sharing, these may in turn require the role of paediatricians to be redefined. Professional paediatric communities in countries like Kenya could play a leadership role in developing such solutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Evaluating effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 'Families for Health V2' (FFH) compared with usual care (UC).Design: Multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) (investigators blinded, families unblinded) and economic evaluation. Stratified randomisation by family; target of 120 families.Setting: Three National Health Service Primary Care Trusts in West Midlands, England.Participants: Overweight or obese (≥91st or ≥98th centile body mass index (BMI)) children aged 6-11 years and their parents/carers, recruited March 2012-February 2014.Interventions: FFH; a 10-week community-based family programme addressing parenting, lifestyle change and social and emotional development. UC; usual support for childhood obesity at each site.Main Outcome Measures: Primary outcomes were 12-months change in children's BMI z-score and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained (QALY). Secondary outcomes included changes in children's physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption and quality of life, parents' BMI and mental well-being, family eating/activity, parent-child relationships and parenting style.Results: 115 families (128 children) were randomised to FFH (n=56) or UC (n=59). There was no significant difference in BMI z-score 12-months change (0.114, 95% CI -0.001 to 0.229, p=0.053; p=0.026 in favour of UC with missing value multiple imputation). One secondary outcome, change in children's waist z-score, was significantly different between groups in favour of UC (0.15, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.29). Economic evaluation showed that mean costs were significantly higher for FFH than UC (£998 vs £548, p<0.001). Mean incremental cost-effectiveness of FFH was estimated at £552 175 per QALY.Conclusions: FFH was neither effective nor cost-effective for the management of obesity compared with UC.Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN45032201. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]