Reducing health inequalities in priority public health conditions: using rapid review to develop proposals for evidence-based policy
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review
Standard Standard
In: Journal of Public Health, Vol. 32, No. 4, 12.2010, p. 496-505.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review
HarvardHarvard
APA
CBE
MLA
VancouverVancouver
Author
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Reducing health inequalities in priority public health conditions
T2 - using rapid review to develop proposals for evidence-based policy
AU - Bambra, Clare
AU - Joyce, Kerry E
AU - Bellis, Mark A
AU - Greatley, Angela
AU - Greengross, Sally
AU - Hughes, Sara
AU - Lincoln, Paul
AU - Lobstein, Tim
AU - Naylor, Chris
AU - Salay, Rebecca
AU - Wiseman, Martin
AU - Maryon-Davis, Alan
PY - 2010/12
Y1 - 2010/12
N2 - BACKGROUND: In November 2008, the Secretary of State for Health (England) commissioned an independent review to propose effective strategies for reducing health inequalities. Review task groups were given just 3 months to make preliminary evidence-based recommendations. In this paper, we describe the methodology used, and the recommendations made, by the group tasked with inequalities in priority public health conditions.METHODS: A series of rapid literature reviews of the policy-relevant international evidence base was undertaken. Quantitative studies of any design, which looked at the effects on health inequalities, the social gradient or overall population health effects, of interventions designed to address the social determinants of selected public health priority conditions were examined. Recommendations were distilled using a Delphi approach.RESULTS: Five key policy proposals were made: reduce smoking in the most deprived groups; improve availability of and access to healthier food choices amongst low income groups; improve the early detection and treatment of diseases; introduce a minimum price per unit for alcohol and improve the links between physical and mental health care.CONCLUSION: The combination of rapid review and Delphi distillation produced a shortlist of evidence-based recommendations within the allocated time frame. There was a dearth of robust evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the interventions we examined: our proposals had to be based on extrapolation from general population health effects. Extensive, specific and robust evidence is urgently needed to guide policy and programmes. In the meantime, our methodology provides a reasonably sound and pragmatic basis for evidence-based policy-making.
AB - BACKGROUND: In November 2008, the Secretary of State for Health (England) commissioned an independent review to propose effective strategies for reducing health inequalities. Review task groups were given just 3 months to make preliminary evidence-based recommendations. In this paper, we describe the methodology used, and the recommendations made, by the group tasked with inequalities in priority public health conditions.METHODS: A series of rapid literature reviews of the policy-relevant international evidence base was undertaken. Quantitative studies of any design, which looked at the effects on health inequalities, the social gradient or overall population health effects, of interventions designed to address the social determinants of selected public health priority conditions were examined. Recommendations were distilled using a Delphi approach.RESULTS: Five key policy proposals were made: reduce smoking in the most deprived groups; improve availability of and access to healthier food choices amongst low income groups; improve the early detection and treatment of diseases; introduce a minimum price per unit for alcohol and improve the links between physical and mental health care.CONCLUSION: The combination of rapid review and Delphi distillation produced a shortlist of evidence-based recommendations within the allocated time frame. There was a dearth of robust evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the interventions we examined: our proposals had to be based on extrapolation from general population health effects. Extensive, specific and robust evidence is urgently needed to guide policy and programmes. In the meantime, our methodology provides a reasonably sound and pragmatic basis for evidence-based policy-making.
KW - Cardiovascular Diseases
KW - England
KW - Evidence-Based Medicine
KW - Health Planning Guidelines
KW - Health Policy
KW - Health Status Disparities
KW - Humans
KW - Mental Health
KW - Neoplasms
KW - Obesity
KW - Policy Making
KW - Public Health
KW - Review Literature as Topic
KW - Journal Article
KW - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
U2 - 10.1093/pubmed/fdq028
DO - 10.1093/pubmed/fdq028
M3 - Article
C2 - 20435581
VL - 32
SP - 496
EP - 505
JO - Journal of Public Health
JF - Journal of Public Health
SN - 1741-3842
IS - 4
ER -