Search

This repository contains supplementary information and PRISMA checklists for the systematic review: "Covariates of success in quitting smoking: a systematic review of studies from 2008 to 2021 conducted to inform the statistical analyses of quitting outcomes of a hospital-based tobacco dependence treatment service in the United Kingdom" The systematic review that aimed to identify data fields important to consider in statistical analysis of quitting outcomes when evaluating hospital-based stop smoking interventons.

Additional file 1.

Additional file 2.

The is a repository in which all related files are stored - to have them in one place. Some of the key documents are published elsewhere, in which case the citation for the document is given in the document or in the Wiki.

A survey for hospital patients and staff to explore factors associated with implementation and efficacy of the QUIT in-hospital stop smoking service

Additional file 1.

Unlocking Data to Inform Public Health Policy and Practice: Public Research Briefing We carried out a research study between May 2021 and February 2022 to find out what members of staff and the public thought about the sharing of data between councils and the NHS. We were interested in how data from everybody locally was put together and used to make decisions about local services, and how to make people’s lives as healthy as possible. We carried out two workshops to get input from members of the public. A total of 19 people came to the workshops. They were a mix of different ages and different backgrounds, living in different parts of England and Wales, and had different views about data sharing. This document provides a public research briefing in terms of important recommendations stemming from the Unlocking Data to Inform Public Health Policy and Practice project Full report DOI: https://doi.org/10.15131/shef.data.21221606

This report outlines findings from an evaluation of the Cancerwise Screening and Awareness Programme in Leeds funded by Yorkshire Cancer Research. The report contains initial findings from review of existing literature, qualitative workshops and cost effectiveness analysis. The research received ethical approval from the School of Health and Related Research ethics committeece Reference Number 031986.

Background In England, many services that are paid for using taxpayers’ money are decided on and funded by local commissioners such as Local Authorities (LAs) and Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs); although, CCGs are set to be replaced by Integrated Care Systems (ICSs) within 2022. LAs are responsible for publicly funded social care (e.g. home-based services) and some public health services (e.g. sexual health services). CCGs are responsible for funding most healthcare services in local areas. All local decision makers aim to fund services for public benefit; for example, promoting and protecting health and preventing ill-health, while ensuring ‘value for money’ for taxpayers. Such services and local decision makers often collect data to inform their processes. This data is used to support the services provided for individuals, but also for administrative reasons. This data could be used more often to help inform improvements to current services and funding of new services, but also to support research by universities. However, as this data could include potentially personal and sensitive information, it is important that it is protected and only shared in circumstances when there is a clear and legal reason that would benefit the public. What did we aim to achieve? We set out to understand: (1) what data is available to local decision makers; (2) how they currently use it; (3) how data can be used and potentially shared with parties who want to use it for public benefit. Furthermore, we aimed to explain how to best use and share data legally with clear reasons for its use. An example would be helping local decision makers calculate which services are considered ‘value for money’ or not, to allow local decision makers to best use money available to them. How did we do it? We first identified examples of when data has been used and legally shared to inform local decision making. We then produced a detailed list of what data these local decision makers have available. These examples and data were discussed with people who work within two LAs and a CCG, within three universities, and members of the public. This allowed us to further explore what is important to consider when using such data to inform local decision making or research purposes, and how the use of such information could be made more transparent and understandable for the public. Patient and the public involvement in the project A lay co-applicant (KS) helped with every aspect of the research project. We additionally set up a public advisory group to advise on the public workshops, interpretation of the findings, and co-design study outputs. What did we discover? Local commissioners are using and sharing data in various ways to benefit the public, such as identifying if certain people may be at-risk of a bad event; for example, older people at-risk of falling who would then require hospital and perhaps social care. However, local commissioners are not always clear in how they report the use of such data, who has control or is using such data, and if any public benefit was ever achieved from recording this data. We attempted to develop an understanding of what data was available for adult social care services. However, we were unable to achieve this aim because of issues to do with the amount of time, effort, and types of staff available within the relevant local commissioners to understand the data available. By discussing the need and use of data with LA and CCG staff, and members of the public, we identified a variety of areas to improve the responsible use of data. One thing discussed was the need for trust and understanding between everyone involved about how and when data is being used, what data is used (for example, if it reflects an individual or group), but also the public benefit of using such data. When analysing data, researchers and local commissioners need to communicate better and come to a joint understanding of how such data can be accessed and used for public benefit. This includes information about what services are considered value for money and who may be paying for what aspects associated with the services across CCGs and LAs, and if there is any chance spending may not remain within budget. Overall, there are ways to responsibly use data which protects the public and could provide public benefit such as treating or avoiding ill-health; however, clearer communication and building trust is needed. How will this research change health and social care? We believe our research could start to change and improve how researchers and local decision makers use locally available data to decide which services to fund to benefit communities. This includes suggested information to be made clearer to the public.

Supplementary Material 1

This report outlines further findings from an evaluation of the Cancer Screening and Awareness programme in Leeds. It includes qualitative data from workshops, report on routine data available, and cost effectiveness analysis. The project received approval from the School of Health and Related Research Reserach Ethics Committee reference number 031986.

This evidence briefing summarises the findings of a rapid review of literature on ways to increase influenza vaccination uptake amongst healthcare workers during seasonal and pandemic influenza. The full report of the work is available from the authors.

Additional file 1.

This systematic review examined evidence relating to system-wide or whole organisational interventions which aim to address the health and wellbeing of staff during times of increased demand on services.

A systematic review on the health effects of extending working lives. This research briefing summarises the findings of a systematic review which looked at the evidence regarding the health effects of working beyond typical retirement age.

Quality assessment results.

Medline search strategy.

Additional file 1. Copy of online survey.

National devolution enables countries to do some things differently. What does this mean for policy to support early child development?

Data extraction template.

The FITAR framework. The completed framework in full (DOCX 147 kb)

Examples of data from our review of integrated care initiatives. Further examples for each element of the framework drawn from the studies included in the exemplar review (DOCX 16 kb)

Logic model outlining the integrated care pathway of change. A logic model which formed one output of the exemplar review of integrated care initiatives (DOCX 41 kb)

The extraction form. The form used for extracting data during the review (DOCX 53 kb)

Appendix S1. Study protocol. Appendix S2. Completed PRISMA checklist. Appendix S3. Search strategy. Appendix S4. Studies excluded at full paper screening. Appendix S5. Completed quality appraisals. (DOCX 197 kb)

Table S1. Summary of studies and effect for each outcome (DOCX 335 kb)

Survey of views and awareness regarding the Red Flags Checklist. Questionnaire used in the study. (DOCX 115 kb)

The Red Flags Checklist. Motor Neurone Disease Association. Permission to use granted by J. Bedford. Checklist for use by GPs (PDF 109 kb)