Search

The article explores the challenges and risk for the potential development of a new public health system in England in 2011. It says that the decision to implement a radical change in the system is due to several indicators and facts such as the dependency of 1.6 million people on alcohol. It also mentions that the change is in line with the aim of government to address the problems regarding long-term poor mental health in the country. According to the author, the improved health system is expected to enhanced the lifestyle of families in the poorest areas.

This paper aims to illustrate the tension between public health and civil liberties through the case study of the UK government's emergency response to the Covid-19 pandemic. In the area of public health, this tension is predominantly approached by reference to two theories: liberalism and communitarianism. This paper studies these positions and how they are manifested in evidence-based policymaking by combining a study of public health policy with a study of public health ethics. The studies help demonstrate the UK government's framing of health policy relating to Covid-19 in terms of liberalism and communitarianism. The paper concludes that in the initial UK government response to Covid-19, the government discourse evoked communitarian values and framed its policies as being evidence-led and as prioritising public health. However, the policy measures themselves manifested liberal values: they had the underlying concern of not infringing excessively on civil liberties, and individuals were given autonomy of decision making within the measures that were taken. The article concluded that emergency times require a communitarian response based on preventative action. This article is the first to combine public health policy with public health ethics to demonstrate how values form a key part of decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: With the rapid growth of urbanization globally and in the UK, increasing attention is now being directed towards urban green spaces (UGS). The appeal of UGS to policymakers lies in their capacity to address multiple policy objectives, including improving physical and mental wellbeing, mitigating noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), combating climate change through carbon sequestration, providing climate adaptation measures, and enhancing biodiversity. Method: This narrative review gives an overview of the current literature and UK policy relating to urban green and blue spaces, with a particular focus on the use of UGS to increase physical activity levels. Results: UGS have a profound impact on public health, with evidence indicating their positive effect on both physical and psychological health. Thirty‐eight percent of adults in the UK do not live within 15 minutes of UGS, so policy makers at national and international level are aiming to address this gap. One reason for the health benefits of UGS is associated increased physical activity, a vital component needed to address the burden of non‐communicable disease. To effectively harness UGS to promote physical activity various factors must be considered; proximity and diversity of urban green spaces, and the presence of suitable infrastructure features. Tailoring UGS to meet the needs and preferences of different population demographics is essential, as is ensuring safety, and addressing barriers to access particularly for lower socio‐economic groups. The careful planning of UGS must avoid potential gentrification effects and displacement of vulnerable communities, whilst utilising the equigenic nature of UGS. Conclusions: To create a brighter future and capitalize on the potential of UGS, a collaborative approach is needed, involving communities, local governments, and national authorities. Primary‐care professionals, represented by organizations like the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP), can play a crucial role in advocating for UGS and physical activity, promoting their use, and providing guidance and support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: COVID-19 pandemic has had a major impact globally, with older people living in aged care homes suffering high death rates.Objectives: We aimed to compare the impact of initial government policies on this vulnerable older population between the UK and Australia during the first wave of attack.Methods: We searched websites of governments in the UK and Australia and media outlets. We examined the key policies including the national lockdown dates and the distribution of some important resources (personal protective equipment and testing) and the effects of these initial policies on the mortality rates in the aged care homes during the first wave of attack of COVID-19.Results: We found that both countries had prioritized resources to hospitals over aged care homes during the first wave of attack. Both countries had lower priority for aged care residents in hospitals (e.g. discharging without testing for COVID-19 or discouraging admissions). However, deaths in aged care homes were 270 times higher in the UK than in Australia as on 7 May 2020 (despite UK having a population only 2.5 times larger than Australia). The lower fatality rate in Australia may have been due to the earlier lockdown strategy when the total daily cases were low in Australia (118) compared to the UK (over 1000), as well as the better community viral testing regime in Australia.Conclusion: In conclusion, the public health policy in Australia aimed towards earlier intervention with earlier national lockdown and more viral testing to prevent new cases. This primary prevention could have resulted in more lives being saved. In contrast, the initial policy in the UK focussed mainly on protecting resources for hospitals, and there was a delay in national lockdown intervention and lower viral testing rate, resulting in more lives lost in the aged care sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports on the Private Finance Initiative (PFI), one of the types of public-private partnerships being run by the government in Great Britain. In a PFI development, a consortium of private sector companies would finance, design and build the hospital and then run a range of services including maintenance and estate management, within it. Such engagement in which private sector's managerial, commercial and creative skills can be brought to bear in the task of modernizing and strengthening public sector services, offers the prospect of better value for money. The responsibility to manage such arrangements has been given to some Great Britain National Health Service managers.