Search

Introduction: Co‐production with communities is increasingly seen as best practice that can improve the quality, relevance and effectiveness of research and service delivery. Despite this promising position, there remains uncertainty around definitions of co‐production and how to operationalize it. The current paper describes the development of a co‐production strategy to guide the work of the ActEarly multistakeholder preventative research programme to improve children's health in Bradford and Tower Hamlets, UK. Methods: The strategy used Appreciative Inquiry (AI), an approach following a five‐step iterative process: to define (Step 1) scope and guide progress; to discover (Step 2) key issues through seven focus groups (N = 36) and eight in‐depth interviews with key stakeholders representing community groups, and the voluntary and statutory sectors; to dream (Step 3) best practice through two workshops with AI participants to review findings; to design (Step 4) a co‐production strategy building on AI findings and to deliver (Step 5) the practical guidance in the strategy. Results: Nine principles for how to do co‐production well were identified: power should be shared; embrace a wide range of perspectives and skills; respect and value the lived experience; benefits should be for all involved parties; go to communities and do not expect them to come to you; work flexibly; avoid jargon and ensure availability of the right information; relationships should be built for the long‐term; co‐production activities should be adequately resourced. These principles were based on three underlying values of equality, reciprocity and agency. Conclusion: The empirical insights of the paper highlight the crucial importance of adequate resources and infrastructure to deliver effective co‐production. This documentation of one approach to operationalizing co‐production serves to avert any misappropriations of the term 'co‐production' by listening to service users, stakeholders and other relevant groups, to develop trust and long‐term relationships, and build on the learning that already exists amongst such groups. Patient or Public Contribution: The work was overseen by a steering group (N = 17) of individuals, both professional and members of the public with experience in undertaking co‐production, and/or with some knowledge of the context of the two ActEarly field sites, who provided regular oversight and feedback on the AI process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The UK low‐risk drinking guidelines were revised in 2016. Drinkers were primarily informed about the guidelines via news media, but little is known about this coverage. This study investigated the scale and content of print and online textual news media coverage of drinking guidelines in England from February 2014 to October 2017. Methods: We searched the Nexis database and two leading broadcasters' websites (BBC and Sky) for articles mentioning the guidelines. We randomly selected 500 articles to code for reporting date, accuracy, tone, context and purpose of mentioning the guidelines, and among these, thematically analysed 200 randomly selected articles. Results: Articles mentioned the guidelines regularly. Reporting peaked when the guidelines revision was announced (7.4% of articles). The most common type of mention was within health‐ or alcohol‐related articles and neutral in tone (70.8%). The second most common was in articles discussing the guidelines' strengths and weaknesses, which were typically negative (14.8%). Critics discredited the guidelines' scientific basis by highlighting conflicting evidence and arguing that guideline developers acted politically. They also questioned the ethics of limiting personal autonomy to improve public health. Criticisms were partially facilitated by announcing the guidelines alongside a 'no safe level of drinking' message, and wider discourse misrepresenting the guidelines as rules, and highlighting apparent inconsistencies with standalone scientific papers and international guidelines. Discussion and Conclusions: News media generally covered drinking guidelines in a neutral and accurate manner, but in‐depth coverage was often negative and sought to discredit the guidelines using scientific and ethical arguments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper critically explores how survey and routinely collected data could aid in assessing the generalisability of public health evidence. We propose developing approaches that could be employed in understanding the relevance of public health evidence, and investigate ways of producing meta‐analytic estimates tailored to reflect local circumstances, based on analyses of secondary data. Currently, public health decision makers face challenges in interpreting global review evidence to assess its meaning in local contexts. A lack of clarity on the definition and scope of generalisability, and the absence of consensus on its measurement, has stunted methodological progress. The consequence of failing to tackle generalisability means that systematic review evidence often fails to fulfil its potential contribution in public health decision making. Three approaches to address these problems are considered and emerging challenges discussed: (1) purposeful exploration after a review has been conducted, and we present a framework of potential avenues of enquiry and a worked example; (2) recalibration of the results to weight studies differentially based on their similarity to conditions in an inference population, and we provide a worked example using UK Census data to understand potential differences in the effectiveness of community engagement interventions among sites in England and Wales; (3) purposeful exploration before starting a review to ensure that the findings are relevant to an inference population. The paper aims to demonstrate how a more nuanced treatment of context in reviews of public health interventions could be achieved through greater engagement with existing large sources of secondary data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Youth alcohol consumption has declined significantly during the past 15 years in many high‐income countries, which may have significant public health benefits. However, if the reductions in drinking occur mainly among lighter drinkers who are at lower risk, then rates of alcohol‐related harm among young people today and adults in future may not fall in line with consumption. There is conflicting evidence from Swedish school studies, with some suggesting that all young people are drinking less, while others suggest that alcohol consumption among heavier drinkers may be stable or rising while average consumption declines. This paper extends the geographical focus of previous research and examines whether the decline in youth drinking is consistent across the consumption distribution in England. Design Quantile regression of 15 waves of repeat cross‐sectional survey data. Setting: England, 2001–16. Participants: A total of 31 882 schoolchildren (50.7% male) aged 11–15 who responded to the Smoking Drinking and Drug Use among Young People surveys. Measurements Past‐week alcohol consumption in UK units at each fifth percentile of the consumption distribution. Findings Reductions in alcohol consumption occurred at all percentiles of the consumption distribution analysed between 2001 and 2016, but the magnitude of the decline differed across percentiles. The decline in consumption at the 90th percentile [β = −0.21, confidence interval (CI) = −0.24, −0.18] was significantly larger than among either lighter drinkers at the 50th percentile (β = −0.02, CI = −0.02, −0.01) or heavier drinkers at the 95th percentile (β = −0.16, CI = −0.18, −0.13). Conclusions: Alcohol consumption among young people in England appears to be declining across the consumption distribution, and peaks among heavy drinkers. The magnitude of this decline differs significantly between percentiles of the consumption distribution, with consumption falling proportionally less among the lightest, moderate and very heaviest youth drinkers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]