Search

Contemporary efforts to promote population health improvement and to reduce inequalities in the UK are characterised by their complexity as they engage with a multiplicity of agencies and sectors. Additionally, the emphasis on promoting evidence-based practice has challenged evaluators tasked with collecting and interpreting evidence of impact in complex local health economies. National policy makers, local implementers and other stakeholders will have varying perspectives on impact and the Labour Government's centralising tendencies have acted to 'crowd out' local voices from the policy process. Drawing on the national evaluation of Health Action Zones (HAZ) this article 'gives voice' to local stakeholders and their perceptions of impact. Informed by a Theories of Change perspective, we explore HAZ interventions to articulate the nature of impact and its limits. We analyse the claims made by local HAZs with reference to the evidence base and examine their significance in the context of overall HAZ objectives. We conclude that local implementer perspectives are no less sophisticated than those at the policy centre of central government, but that they are informed by three important factors: the local context, a need to be pragmatic and the limited potency of evidence in the public policy system.

Background: Between 1997 and 2010, the English government pursued an ambitious programme to reduce health inequalities, the explicit and sustained commitment of which was historically and internationally unique. Previous evaluations have produced mixed results. None of these evaluations have, however, compared the trends in health inequalities within England with those in other European countries. We carried out an innovative analysis to assess whether changes in trends in health inequalities observed in England after the implementation of its programme, have been more favourable than those in other countries without such a programme.Methods: Data were obtained from nationally representative surveys carried out in England, Finland, the Netherlands and Italy for years around 1990, 2000 and 2010. A modified difference-in-difference approach was used to assess whether trends in health inequalities in 2000-2010 were more favourable as compared to the period 1990-2000 in England, and the changes in trends in inequalities after 2000 in England were then compared to those in the three comparison countries. Health outcomes were self-assessed health, long-standing health problems, smoking status and obesity. Education was used as indicator of socioeconomic position.Results: After the implementation of the English strategy, more favourable trends in some health indicators were observed among low-educated people, but trends in health inequalities in 2000-2010 in England were not more favourable than those observed in the period 1990-2000. For most health indicators, changes in trends of health inequalities after 2000 in England were also not significantly different from those seen in the other countries.Conclusions: In this rigorous analysis comparing trends in health inequalities in England both over time and between countries, we could not detect a favourable effect of the English strategy. Our analysis illustrates the usefulness of a modified difference-in-difference approach for assessing the impact of policies on population-level health inequalities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Health policy in the United Kingdom is devolved to the four home countries. Nevertheless, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales share a common commitment to reducing health inequalities and have set explicit targets in areas such as life expectancy, cancer mortality, long-standing illness, and smoking prevalence. However, many of the targets leave much to be desired in terms of their limited conceptual scope and their selection of methods and approaches. At one level this might be regarded as relatively unimportant. The mere fact of having health inequalities targets is laudable. But because the United Kingdom has been in the vanguard of research and policy development to reduce health inequalities, a critical appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of the approaches adopted in the four home countries is timely. Following a description of the health inequalities targets, the article focuses on experiences in England and Scotland as examples of contrasting approaches to target setting and describes progress toward meeting targets in each country. The authors then outline key emerging issues in relation to developing targets and measuring progress, including conceptual dilemmas, biased reporting, implementation failure, and statistical fallacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A growing number of countries are beginning to move from acknowledging the existence of health inequalities to developing policies to reduce them. Many of these policies consist of complex interventions, operating at a number of levels, which aim to make a positive contribution to health improvement in deprived communities. Evaluating the efficacy of such initiatives poses particular challenges for evaluation. This paper argues that there is real potential in applying a theory-based approach to the evaluation of complex community-based initiatives. Using practical examples from the national evaluation of Health Action Zones in England, the paper outlines the key components of such an approach and argues that theory-based evaluation can strengthen programme design and implementation, as well as promote policy and practice learning about the most effective interventions for health improvement. We conclude that sophisticated theory building social change mechanisms in community settings is essential if real learning is to be generated from concerted efforts to achieve social change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal (NSNR) is a central component of British policy to reduce health disparities. This program seeks to improve local socioeconomic and physical environments through the intensive regeneration of disadvantaged communities. We describe the challenges facing evaluators tasked with assessing the impacts of 1 component of the NSNR--the New Deal for Communities initiative--and explore techniques that may be adopted in the evaluation process. (Am J Public Health. 2005;95:626-628.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Focuses on the influence of health policy on the improvement and length of the quality of life in Great Britain. Proposition on the improvement of the structure of the National Health Service; Argument on health policy; Impact of health policy on the differences between the health status among social groups.