Strengthening partnerships to improve primary care in the Deep End

Posted by Dr Angela Wearn, Associate Member of Fuse and Advocacy and Engagement Lead for the Deep End Network North East and North Cumbria

In this blog, Angela reflects on what people living in some of the region’s most disadvantaged communities have told the Deep End Network about challenges they face when it comes to accessing primary care, including attending appointments, and what we can do to improve this.

The Deep End Network is a growing GP-led international movement that began in Glasgow in 2009 as a response to the ‘inverse care law’, which is that those who need care the most often struggle the most to access it.

The North East and North Cumbria Deep End Network was established in 2020, with support from Fuse, the Centre for Translational Research in Public Health, and the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration North East and North Cumbria, creating a space for practitioners working in areas of severe socioeconomic disadvantage to share experience, shape solutions, and influence how primary care can better meet the needs of the people it serves.

Funded by the North East and North Cumbria Integrated Care Board, the Deep End Network focuses on four core priorities:

• Workforce: Building and retaining a well‑supported workforce in high‑need communities.
• Education: Strengthening training at all levels so current and future health professionals understand health inequalities and access to opportunities
• Advocacy: Ensuring Deep End practices and communities shape local and regional decisions on funding, access and service design.
• Research: Evaluating Deep End initiatives to understand what works, why it works, and how effective approaches can be scaled to improve outcomes.

Since 2023, I’ve been working as Advocacy and Engagement Lead to build and strengthen partnerships between Deep End communities, practitioners and researchers, ensuring the experiences and perspectives of underserved patients and communities inform both our research portfolio and the wider support and initiatives we offer practices.

Over this time, additional funding and support from across NIHR infrastructure, including the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration North East and North Cumbria, NIHR Three Schools and NIHR Research Delivery Network, has further supported targeted involvement and engagement work with those living in Deep End neighbourhoods, the majority of whom have had no previous experience of involvement in research or service development.

Support through the NIHR Three Schools collaboration was made possible through membership of Fuse, which is part of the NIHR School for Public Health Research, one of the three NIHR schools within the collaboration.

What we’re hearing from Deep End communities

Many Deep End patients face multiple, overlapping challenges including low income, insecure housing, poor mental or physical health, caring responsibilities, trauma, or homelessness. These pressures make it harder to engage with primary care, even when people want to.

Through conversations, workshops, and community-led sessions, people have shared why engagement can feel difficult:

• Personal pressures: the emotional and practical effort of attending can feel overwhelming and ‘too much’ on the day of the appointment.
• Feeling unheard or stigmatised: which makes reaching out feel pointless.
• Time and capacity: life can be busy, chaotic, and demanding, with health often taking a backseat.
• Overwhelming contact routes: getting through to the practice or accessing a suitable appointment can feel impossible.
• Negative past experiences: GP practices don’t always feel welcoming or safe.

Overall, I regularly hear that disengagement is rarely about disinterest, it’s about the collective barriers that build up and make staying connected to care difficult.

What communities say needs to change

Improving patient engagement in Deep End areas is complex. There is no single fix, and practices are working under significant resource constraints. But through our involvement work, communities have highlighted three priorities for investment and change that they feel would make a meaningful difference:

• Improve connection and communication
• Strengthen co‑design approaches
• Build sustainable, community‑based partnerships

These priorities align strongly with national ambitions around personalised care, prevention, and reducing inequalities, and they reflect what people say would help them feel more able to engage with primary care as the wider system shifts towards more integrated neighbourhood-level working.

Moving forward together

The NHS encourages practices to work closely with Patient Participation Groups (PPGs), but Deep End practices face additional challenges: limited resources, diverse patient needs, and complex barriers to involvement. From the community perspective, awareness of PPGs is low, confidence is often limited, and many people are unsure whether their voice will genuinely matter. To support better partnership working, the Deep End Public Advisory Group identified three simple involvement principles that are easy to remember and act upon, and clear enough to come back to when things get busy or complex:

• Make it easy
• Make it worthwhile
• Value patient experience

These principles are practical, community-informed and can be applied across a range of contexts to guide diverse involvement.

New one‑page resources for practices

To help bring these messages to life, we’ve co‑developed two infographics with Deep End patients, communities, and Nifty Fox. They distil community insights into quick, usable one-page resources that GP practices and other decision-makers can draw on to strengthen engagement and build more inclusive partnerships.

Supporting Patient Engagement in the Deep End: insights from the community
Working Better Together in the Deep End: patients and GP practices as partners

These resources will sit alongside a wider collection of materials, including a public‑facing animation and an illustrated impact report, which will be shared over the coming months. A celebration event is planned for early next year.

Why this matters

The Deep End Network exists because tackling health inequalities requires more than goodwill, it requires meaningful partnerships and system‑level commitment. These new resources are an important step in supporting practices and others to work alongside communities in ways that feel respectful, realistic, and rooted in the experiences of people who face the greatest barriers to accessing and influencing the care they receive.

We hope they support teams across the North East and North Cumbria and beyond to strengthen relationships, reduce barriers, and create primary care environments that are more responsive to the needs of communities most affected by health inequalities.

If you would like to know more about partnership working, co-production or our involvement work in the Deep End please contact Dr Angela Wearn (angela.wearn@newcastle.ac.uk)

Find out more about the Deep End Network

About the author

Dr Angela Wearn is Advocacy and Engagement Lead for the Deep End Network North East and North Cumbria and a Research Fellow with the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration North East and North Cumbria. She is also an Associate Member of Fuse, the Centre for Translational Research in Public Health.

Training tomorrow’s Public Health leaders: impact, innovation and prevention

Posted by Liz Morgan, Head of School for Public Health North East, NHS England

The North East Public Health Postgraduate Specialty Training Programme holds an event annually to showcase the work that has been done by trainees over the previous year. This annual showcase highlights how public health trainees in the North East are delivering practical, high‑impact work across the health and care system, demonstrating the value of prevention-led leadership at a time of increasing system pressure. It not only celebrates the tremendous work our trainees have been doing but also provides an opportunity to share that work with public health colleagues in multiple settings During this time, our trainees will have been immersed in communities, health and health-related systems and research environments, identifying challenges, designing solutions and implementing projects that demonstrate innovation and impact. The projects presented at our last meeting ranged from heath protection and health improvement to policy development and healthcare public health. Each one reflected the commitment, curiosity and compassion that defines our public health workforce.

Tackling air pollution through NHS leadership

Most NHS Trusts in the North East employ at least one public health consultant, valuing the broad benefits that this can bring, but also providing greater capacity for public health training. Dr Laura Keast had been undertaking a placement in Northumbria NHS Trust, implementing the Clean Air Hospital Framework and demonstrated the value of collaboration between public health and sustainability teams. Air pollution remains the single greatest environmental threat to public health in the UK, contributing to an estimated 30,000 deaths annually and worsening health inequalities. By making air pollution a tangible and locally relevant issue through accessible monitoring of nitrogen dioxide levels and clear health messaging, the initiative has generated engagement and momentum for action. Importantly, the project highlighted that public health leadership, data expertise, powerful health messaging and alignment with national policy levers are critical in overcoming uncertainty and organisational resistance to change.

Reducing missed outpatient appointments for children

Dr Mark Riley presented a service evaluation undertaken at South Tees NHS Trust exploring why children are not brought to outpatient appointments, an issue with significant implications for health outcomes and system efficiency. Using surveys and follow-up telephone calls, the evaluation identified five key themes:

• appointment timing
• forgotten appointments and reminders
• administrative barriers
• health literacy
• cost of attendance.

Forgotten appointments were the most common reason for non-attendance, with parents strongly favouring clearer and more frequent text reminders. Difficulties rearranging appointments, confusing letters and limited awareness of travel cost reimbursement schemes further contributed to missed care. The findings underscore how relatively small, system-level changes, such as health-literate communications in multiple languages and flexible appointment scheduling to include evenings, can reduce inequalities and improve service use. Finding a champion in the organisation to enable change was also critical.

How leaders make difficult priority-setting decisions

As pressures on the NHS intensify, difficult decisions about how to allocate limited resources are unavoidable. Dr Tom Seasman explored how senior health leaders justified priority-setting decisions. Qualitative in‑depth interviews with leaders across the English health system show broad support for prevention and reducing health inequalities. However, when faced with real-world trade-offs, decisions often favour short-term frontline clinical care over long-term preventative investment and leaders differ in their responses. Clinical leaders often prioritise immediate need and the “rule of rescue”, while those approaching the same problem from a public health perspective place greater emphasis on maximising population health gains through prevention. Political constraints, emotional proximity to patients and fragmented funding structures frequently limit leaders’ ability to shift resources from acute care to prevention, despite widespread recognition that long-term sustainability depends on doing so. These findings raise important questions about how the health system can better support leaders to make transparent and ethical trade-offs.

Policing and public health: prevention in action

Prevention also featured strongly in work exploring collaboration between policing and public health. This is important because of shared commitments to improve lives, reduce harm, reduce unnecessary demand on services, reduce vulnerability, improve equity and maintain public trust. Since the publication of a national consensus statement in 2018, prevention has become more explicitly embedded within policing policy and inspection frameworks. A 2025 review concluded that, while the original vision remained relevant, a refreshed consensus was needed to reflect current challenges and language. Kylie Murrell led on this national project, chairing the policing and public health collaborative, leading on the re-drafting of the document and sign off and associated ministerial briefing. The work highlights both the appetite within policing to engage more fully in prevention and the ongoing need for public health professionals to support cross-sector partners to identify upstream opportunities to reduce harm, vulnerability and demand. It's also an excellent example of how our trainees have led on national initiatives.

Supporting wellbeing within the public health workforce

Alongside the ongoing system-level challenges, attention to the wellbeing of the public health workforce itself is increasingly recognised as essential. Vineeta O’Key reflected on the work the trainees had been doing to support their own wellbeing and on how a Wellbeing Away Day could demonstrate how evidence-based wellbeing approaches could be embedded within training and professional development. Grounded in the “Five Ways to Wellbeing”, the day prioritised connection, learning, physical activity and engagement with nature through volunteering with Durham Wildlife Trust. Feedback highlighted the value of protected time for relationship-building, reflection and compassionate leadership, reinforcing the role of wellbeing as both a personal and professional competency in public health practice.

Julie Lowe presented her experience of travelling to Canada and the Netherlands on a Churchill Foundation fellowship. The Foundation funds approximately 100 Fellows each year to travel overseas to explore an issue of societal importance. This project focused on community interventions to improve the health and wellbeing of unpaid caregivers, who, as a population, experience poorer mental and physical health outcomes known informally as the ‘carer burden’. She shared reflections from her own experience as a young carer and motivation for choosing a career in public health. Findings from her experience included the importance of listening to diverse groups of carers to understand their needs and preferences, and the need for interventions that reduce carer burden rather than responding to health needs as they arise.

Taken together, these projects reflect a common theme: public health impact is maximised through leadership, collaboration and a commitment to prevention, even in constrained systems. Our trainees are already having an impact in their placements and communities by shaping national priorities, supporting workforce wellbeing and building partnerships beyond health. Creating spaces like this conference where recent projects and ideas can be shared, and challenges are explored are vital and demonstrates how public health continues to be pivotal in navigating complexity and working towards more equitable and sustainable futures. I would strongly encourage all of our public educators and senior public health colleagues to attend this event. As Public Health influencers, the task of considering, adapting and altering these ideas and interventions for the benefit of the populations we serve rests with us.

More than quit rates - our smoking research was about complexity, trust, and real voices

Posted by Angela Rodrigues, Associate Professor at Northumbria University, and co-lead of the Fuse Behaviour Change Cluster, and Team

By the time we wrapped up our final interviews, we felt a mix of pride, exhaustion, and curiosity. Pride because we’d managed to complete a complex mixed-methods evaluation across four pilot sites. Exhaustion because, well, public health research never seems to run smoothly, and we had a few recruitment bumps along the way. And curiosity because we still weren’t sure how all the pieces would fit together. This was a mixed-methods evaluation of a 20-week smoking cessation service in the North East & North Cumbria.

The context: why this service mattered

When we first got involved, the idea was simple: evaluate an enhanced stop smoking service designed specifically for people living with severe mental illness (SMI). People with SMI experience stark health inequalities. On average, they die 15-20 years earlier than the general population, largely due to chronic physical health conditions rather than psychiatric causes. Smoking is a major reason for this health gap, and it is something that can be changed. Yet many tobacco dependence services do not adequately meet their needs.

The service offered more support than the standard provided by the local council, combining behavioural support with medication-assisted treatment over 20 weeks. It followed a ‘cut down to quit’ model, and aimed to be person-centred, flexible, and responsive.

Our approach: mixed methods and lived experience

We used a mixed-methods approach, including quantitative analysis of recruitment and outcomes, surveys with service providers, qualitative interviews with both staff and service users, and a review of Smokefree Taskforce documents. We started with a well-defined plan, but the process taught us to embrace flexibility. Recruitment was slow. Referral pathways shifted. Data systems didn’t always talk to each other. And finding service users willing to be interviewed was harder than we expected.

One of the most rewarding aspects was working with our Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP). They helped shape our protocol, refine our interview questions, and interpret findings. Their input reminded us why we do this work. It’s easy to get lost in methodological frameworks, but the real insight often comes from lived experience. One LEAP member words stuck with us:

“You need to understand what it’s like to be told to quit smoking when smoking is the only thing that gets you through the day.”

What we found: complexity at every level

The Behaviour Change Wheel framework (figure 1) helped us make sense of what was happening on the ground. Service providers used a range of strategies, including medication, leaflets, nicotine e-cigarettes, planning, and social support. Most felt capable and motivated to deliver the service, but some found it more harder than expected. Complexity was a recurring theme, as illustrated in one advisor words:

“It’s not just about smoking, it’s about everything else going on in their lives.”

Figure 1: Visual map of key themes identified in our study

We also saw how broader systems shaped delivery. Some sites had strong links with primary care; others struggled. Data recording was patchy. Staff wanted more training, not just in smoking cessation, but in understanding mental health complexity more broadly. And while the service was designed to be flexible, that flexibility sometimes created confusion. Who was eligible? How long should support last? What counted as a successful quit?

For service users, the benefits were clear: 

• better physical and mental health
• financial savings
• fewer unpleasant smells
• and fewer side effects than expected.

But staying engaged was tough. Motivation fluctuated. Life got in the way. Participants reminded us regularly that behaviour change doesn’t happen in a vacuum:

“I wanted to quit, but then my meds changed and everything fell apart.”

The challenge and value of qualitative work

Personally, we found the qualitative interviews both the most challenging and the most illuminating part of the process. Some participants were open and reflective; others were more reserved and required extra support and reassurance to feel comfortable speaking openly, particularly service users. We learned to be flexible in our approach, arranging a casual phone call with service users to build a rapport prior to the interview.

Despite the difficulties recruiting service users, once they were engaged in the interviews, all were eager and willing to share their experiences. We learned that it is important to develop a level of trust with service users, and that patience and empathy can encourage openness and in-depth understanding.

There were challenges too. We had hoped for more interviews with service users, more consistent data, and deeper engagement with those delivering the service. In particular, connecting with service deliverers proved difficult, largely due to the time lag between service implementation and the research evaluation. By the time we began our research, staff had moved on, memories had faded, and priorities had shifted, making it harder to capture a full and accurate picture of delivery. But public health research rarely hands you a neatly packaged story. What it does offer is insight into systems, into people, and into the messy, unpredictable reality of trying to improve lives.

Why it worked: partnership and collaboration

Looking back, we think the study worked because it was grounded in genuine partnership. The Smokefree NHS strategic team were incredible, collaborative, responsive, and deeply committed to making the service work.

We built relationships with service providers who shared their experiences openly, with LEAP members who challenged our assumptions, and with service users who trusted us enough to talk. Within our research team, we supported each other through the inevitable ups and downs. That collective effort, across roles, organisations, and lived experiences, is what made the project feel meaningful.

This experience has already shaped how we’re approaching future projects. Next time, we’ll go in with clearer expectations, more flexible timelines, and a deeper appreciation for the emotional labour involved, not just for us as researchers, but for the people we’re working with.

Researching smoking cessation in people living with severe mental illness isn’t just about measuring quit rates or evaluating service models. It’s about recognising the complexity of their lives, earning trust, and ensuring their voices shape the research process. More than anything, this project reminded us that we, as researchers, must be more attuned, more patient, and more willing to adapt.

---

About the authors:

Dr Angela Rodrigues, Associate Professor, Northumbria University, and co-lead of the Fuse Behaviour Change Cluster

Dr Lauren Hoult, Associate Lecturer, Researcher in Behaviour Change & Public Health, Northumbria University

Prof Katie Haighton, Professor in Public Health and Wellbeing, Northumbria University

Bringing dietetics into Public Health

Posted by Alex O'Connor-Sherlock, MSc Dietetic student, Teesside University.

Introduction by Steph Sloan, Senior Lecturer in Dietetics and Course Leader MSc Dietetics at Teesside University.

Practice-based learning (PBL) is a key part of dietetic training, with students required to complete 1,000 hours of hands-on experience in a practice setting. Traditionally, this has mostly taken place in NHS settings, with students working one-on-one with supervisors. However, as healthcare demands grow, diversifying placement opportunities is becoming increasingly important - not just to support student learning, but also to strengthen public health initiatives.

Suited and booted to present to a factory workforce

The Allied Health Professions (AHP) Strategy for England highlights the role of AHPs in disease prevention and health promotion, helping to reduce the burden on already stretched health and social care services. Diet-related diseases remain a major public health challenge, yet dietetic care is still largely focused on treatment rather than prevention. If the profession is to play a greater role in supporting population health, then equipping students with strong public health knowledge and skills is crucial.

To support this, Teesside University’s MSc Dietetics programme now includes public health placements alongside traditional NHS clinical placements. Here, Alex shares her experience of working in a Public Health practice-based learning setting. A must read in National Careers Week for anyone considering a future career as a dietitian!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I worked on

During my placement, I was involved in three projects focused on health improvement and disease prevention. My work involved meeting with stakeholders, conducting research, presenting findings, and engaging with the public. The projects covered a wide range of population groups, including expectant mothers, school-age children, local workforces, and food bank users.

1. Supporting parents with child nutrition

A key part of my placement involved reviewing the nutrition education available to parents of children aged six months to four years.

What I did:

• Conducted a literature and policy review
• Spoke to parents, NHS staff, and school representatives
• Attended a breastfeeding class to hear directly from parents
• Presented my findings to several teams, including the Director of Public Health

Why it matters:

The insights from this work will help shape future research and improve nutrition support for families in the local area.

2. Linking oral health and nutrition

There is a strong connection between what we eat and oral health, but not everyone has access to clear, easy-to-understand information about this link.

What I created:

• Infographics and presentations to educate local workforces
• Materials designed in an easy-read format, avoiding jargon

Why it matters: 

My presentation was really well received, and I was even asked to record it for wider distribution, so it could be shared with professionals working with children and people with additional needs.

 

Infographics to educate local workforces

3. Reducing food waste in a local food pantry

Many food pantry users rely on short-dated products, and without clear guidance, a lot of good food can go to waste.

What I did:

• Designed simple, visual signs with food storage and cooking tips (e.g. "Chop me then freeze me")
• Introduced a ‘Freeze me’ sign for bread and monitored its impact

What happened?

Twice as much bread was sold the day after the sign was put up compared to the previous two weeks combined!

Signs made to reduce food waste

What I learned

• Public health plays a key role in patient care - I saw first-hand how wider social factors impact people’s ability to manage their health and access services.
• Being proactive is crucial - I reached out to stakeholders independently, which helped me build confidence and leadership skills.
• Flexibility is a great learning experience - managing my own projects and working in a less structured environment improved my time management and adaptability.
• Self-care matters - the flexibility of this placement meant I could work in different settings, including from the park on sunny days!

Final thoughts

Introducing dietetic placements into public health settings is a win-win. It helps students gain a broader skillset, supports NHS capacity, and brings dietetic expertise into community settings.

Of course, doing things differently comes with challenges. Expanding placements into public health settings has required commitment from everyone involved - academics, placement providers, and students. But we’re constantly learning and improving, and we’re proud to be making a real impact on the health of our local communities.

Supporting people with Severe Mental Illness who face food insecurity to access a nourishing meal

Sally Smith, Peer Lead for Research, Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust (TEWV)

I have met many wonderful and interesting people on the inside of a psychiatric ward. The immediacy and depth of connection between peers in there was an unexpected comfort in the most challenging of environments.

Illustration by Sally Smith

I remember lots of the stories shared in the smoking corners of gardens. We often reflected on how misunderstood we felt in the ward and in the world.

One young woman was desperate to stay on the ward as she knew that was the only way she was certain of ongoing access to food. Her cupboards empty, her benefits paused, she was terrified about discharge. I was unsure how much Dialectical Behavioural Therapy or anti-depressants would help: wouldn’t anyone feel miserable with no food or money?

I remember physical health checks on the ward being introduced. Being weighed and measured, compared to the graphs…. and yet being given medication that makes you want to eat sugar out of the bag, being locked on a ward with no way to exercise, offered beige food four times a day and feeling so damn lousy and desperate that motivation to even clean your teeth was a challenge.

It felt cruel and shaming. It certainly never helped me to change anything.

In my mind it is no surprise that the mortality gap for people with severe mental illness (SMI) continues to rise, the challenges and barriers around nutrition that people living with SMI face continue to go unseen. No amount of lessons on what makes a healthy plate will make avocado cost less than crisps, and no knowledge of a healthy Body Mass Index (BMI) will reduce the intense effects of psychiatric medication.

And perhaps this is more of an issue than ever with austerity and the cost-of-living crisis exacerbating people’s struggles.

Increasing accessibility of affordable healthy food to adults living with SMI in Middlesbrough

With this perspective in mind, I was delighted to join the team working on this National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Communities study as a peer researcher. With co-production and the voice of lived experience running throughout the project, we are seeking to develop practical solutions for people living with SMI who face food insecurity in Middlesbrough.

The project is a collaboration, bringing together lived experience with the best bits of Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust (TEWV), Teesside University and Middlesbrough Environmental City, a charity dedicated to promoting healthy and sustainable living.

Over a period of 16 weeks, we plan to co-design and co-develop a nutritious meal with surplus fresh ingredients from local Eco shops (social supermarkets) that would otherwise go to waste.

With the support of the food scientists at Teesside University, this will then be turned into a healthy ready meal and distributed back to Eco shops in Middlesbrough. Aiming to be an appetising, nourishing and accessible meal for local people battling severe mental illness, who for whatever reason may struggle to cook the fresh ingredients themselves.

Through the design and delivery group we are hopeful that there may be additional benefits for all participants and the collaborating organisations, for example:

• The opportunity to learn some cooking skills and explore recipes that are good to cook on a budget.
• The opportunity to develop peer relationships amongst the delivery group that support connection and foster hope for change.
• The opportunity for organisations to learn from one another’s strengths and take a fully bio-psycho-social lens on mental health difficulties.

We are currently in the recruitment phase for participants and a collaboration of this type has not been without substantial challenge. It is has not been easy to marry NHS language and expectations and academic protocols with how a community organisation runs. It has not always been easy to find middle ground between the clinical expertise and lived experience expertise. However, I look forward to sharing the progress we make as the delivery team becomes established.

 

Research published by the project team

This study published today explores food insecurity prevalence and the experiences of adults with Severe Mental Illness (SMI) living in Northern England.

This systematic review paper found that people with SMI are more likely to experience food insecurity.

Another recently published paper identified strategies to tackle food insecurity centred on making food banks more accessible and improving the quality of available food available.

A new social contract for Public Health

By David Hunter, Newcastle University; Peter Littlejohns, King’s College London; Albert Weale, University College London; Jacqueline Johnson, public health and management consultant; and Toslima Khatun, King’s College London

Air pollution is widely recognised as a serious health hazard while Covid-19 shone a spotlight on the weaknesses of the UK’s public health system

The UK is in the grip of a public health crisis. With depressing regularity, new research shows the growing deterioration of the public’s health. Improvements in life expectancy have stalled, health inequalities have widened, obesity and alcohol misuse are placing an increasing strain on health services, and air pollution is now widely recognised as a serious health hazard. While Covid-19 shone a spotlight on the weaknesses of the UK’s public health system, they had existed for some time. Indeed, as Michael Marmot has argued, most of the deterioration in health stems from 2010 and the Coalition government’s austerity policy. This resulted in cuts to public spending with local government, which is responsible for public health, suffering some of the deepest.

Despite the wealth of evidence testifying to the parlous state of public health and with many studies offering solutions that are both cost-effective and for which there is robust evidence, there remain significant political and organisational barriers to the realisation of an effective public health system. Unless these are confronted, the chances of progress are slim.

A new social contract for public health

We support the case for a new social contract in which health policy is truly public. Public health policies are often criticised by those of a neoliberal persuasion for restricting individual choice and for ‘nanny statism’. We refer to this form of liberalism as ‘vulgar individualism’. Big government and state overreach are viewed as problems which stifle personal freedom and hinder private sector growth on which the economy depends.

In fact, a much bigger problem is state underreach and a failure to take up and apply policies and policy instruments that are known to be effective in order to improve health. But as long as governments continue to subscribe to the view that the health of individuals is a matter of personal responsibility then action of the kind needed will not be forthcoming. Over the past 13 years or so, successive governments have subscribed to this view ignoring all the evidence which demonstrates the flaw at the heart of such thinking, namely, a belief that that government is best which governs least.

In place of such a stunted political ideology we propose a new social contract for public health incorporating the principles of what might be termed ‘social individualism’, that is, a commitment to using the instruments of collective political authority to create the conditions for individual choice and fulfilment.

What are the elements of the new social contract for public health?

First, and importantly, a social contract for public health would focus on prevention, reflecting the significant body of evidence demonstrating how a wide range of public health measures would prevent more serious conditions developing. But while it is easy to state all this, as indeed numerous academics and analysts have done over many years, unless political leadership is in place to confront the challenges the prospect of change happening is slim.

A particular challenge is the tension arising from the urgent driving out the important. With an NHS under extreme pressure in respect of growing waiting lists and staff shortages, for electoral and other reasons, politicians are most likely to prioritise addressing these to the exclusion of longer-term public health measures. Yet, as the Hewitt Review of Integrated Care Systems points out, ‘we have mistaken NHS policy for healthcare policy’.

Second, a new social contract requires a precautionary state, paying attention not only to known hazards but also to remote and uncertain ones. If the pandemic taught us anything, it was the need to be prepared and have sufficient resources in place to enable swift and effective action to be taken. Sadly, for a government emerging from the debacle over Brexit and trapped in a mindset of short-termism with a focus on campaigning rather than governing, adopting a policy of precaution does not come naturally.

Third, social solidarity is required in the face of health inequalities. Social individualism recognises that policies for the most vulnerable are not policies for a particular group in society, but policies for all of us when in need. What is required from public policy is the support to resilience over the life cycle.

Fourth, a new social contract requires a different approach to government and governance. In particular, addressing the short-termism that pervades our politics has to be challenged and replaced by a more sober acknowledgement of how governments need to function. A populist politics that wishes away the need for planning and relies on easy, facile slogans to attain and retain office – ‘the unbearable lightness of politics’ as the historian, Tony Judt, put it – undercuts the seriousness that is needed for effective government.

Above all, a new social contract sees a central role for an active state. To this end, we set out a manifesto to frame the approach to public health that is needed in the hope that it might inform the political debate as preparations get underway for a general election due over the next year.

A manifesto

Much that needs to be done already exists and is supported by a sound evidence base as well as by the main UK public health bodies. The Hewitt Review’s plea for priority to be given to population health matched by new investment is also worth acting on. Some measures could be swiftly adopted by a new government if it so chose. Others will take longer but making a start by implementing what be done quickly would make most sense in tackling the crisis facing public health.

Above all, regardless of the particular topic demanding attention, at the heart of public health policy is the need to work in a cross-organisational and cross-sectoral way. This will not happen without strong political leadership, but to embed a cross-government commitment to public health requires new legislation to place a duty on all government departments to respect in their policies the claims of public health. To monitor how policy is taken forward and implemented, there is a strong case for making the publication of health impact statements obligatory.

If the winds of change blowing through the country offer a turning point in the public’s health, then the incoming government has no time to lose in seizing the opportunity.

For an extended discussion of the issues raised go to our new book: Littlejohns P, Hunter DJ, Weale A, Johnson J and Khatun T (2024) Making Health Public: A Manifesto for a New Social Contract. Bristol: Policy Press

Bristol University Press | Making Health Public - A Manifesto for a New Social Contract, By Peter Littlejohns, David J. Hunter, Albert Weale, Jacqueline Johnson and Toslima Khatun

Authors

David J Hunter, Emeritus Professor of Health Policy and Management, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University

Peter Littlejohns, Emeritus Professor of Public Health, Centre for Implementation Sciences, Institute for Psychiatry, Psychology and Neurosciences, King’s College London

Albert Weale, Emeritus Professor of Political Theory and Public Policy, University College London

Jacqueline Johnson, pubic health and management consultant

Toslima Khatun, teaching fellow, King’s College London



References

The answer starts with austerity, The Guardian, 10 August

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/10/england-worst-covid-figures-austerity-inequality

Hewitt P (2023) The Hewitt Review: An independent review of integrated care systems, GOV.UK https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1148568/the-hewitt-review.pdf

Judt T (2010) Ill Fares the Land. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books 

https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/178939/ill-fares-the-land-by-judt-tony/9780718191412 

The views and opinions expressed by the authors are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Fuse, the Centre for Translational Research in Public Health.

Image:

Image by Jacques GAIMARD from Pixabay.

Treats: a helpful reward, or to be approached with care?

Posted by Anita Attala, Lead Adult Weight Management Dietitian from Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, and research team from Teesside University

We all like to have a ‘treat’ and to give ‘treats’ to others. Indeed, the use of food, and in particular what we in public health call ‘high fat, sugar, and salt’ containing foods or ‘HFSS’, are often chosen as rewards. The notion of food cultures is certainly a social anthropological (study of humans) concept, with an example being the use of food in positive reinforcement; using ‘treat’/HFSS foods to reward children in particular. Taken at ‘face-value’ such treats may appear harmless, however repeated use of HFSS in this way has been shown to physiologically influence the human food reward system, and impact on our ability to regulate how much food we eat. This, together with other detrimental impacts, has led to advice not to regularly use food as a reward. Research has also shown that using food rewards in adults can hinder healthy weight management, especially from a psychological perspective.

But what exactly is a ‘treat’? Why do we feel the need to ‘treat’ someone? Are ‘treats’ always a positive experience or can they be used in a detrimental or harmful way?

While working in a forensic service I saw patients gain weight, and often gain this weight very rapidly. I also noted that some staff seemed frustrated and concerned about the weight gain some patients experienced. However, I also noticed that HFSS food was frequently used as part of patient care. This sparked my interest in wanting to understand this apparent conflict.

Forensic services provide care for people with a severe mental illness or learning disability, who have committed a crime but are too vulnerable to be in prison. For example, they are high risk either to themselves or the public, and therefore are unable to live in the community. People in these environments are often here for a long time and are reported to die 15-20 years prematurely, often from avoidable diseases. There are often restrictions imposed on the person and their environment. These restrictions will depend on the level of security required and the risk posed by the patient, and can be directed by the Ministry of Justice. An example of a restriction might be the person is not able to leave the ward.

Limited research seems to have been undertaken around the use of HFSS food ‘treats’ for adults, let alone adults who are in hospital. Yet, it is something many of us seem primed to do – bring (HFSS) food to someone when they’re ill.

The word ‘treat’ conjures up a particular thought of food – which is often high in calories, high fat and high in sugar. What you view as a ‘treat’ and how to ‘treat’ can often have been learnt in childhood and can differ from person to person. But, while it is entirely possible to have a non-food ‘treat’, it’s often harder to think of one and can be more difficult to provide while in hospital (particularly one with restrictions such as forensic wards).

You could argue that ‘treats’, by definition, can only be a ‘treat’ if you don’t consume them on a regular basis. As research shows, regular behaviours of any kind, can soon develop into habits.

Wanting to learn more about the use of ‘treats’ to show care and kindness, particularly in a hospital setting, I applied for research funding from my Trust (Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust). Also, in 2020, I was successful in obtaining a clinical academic internship with Health Education England (HEE) and the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). Both awards enabled me to research the use of treats in forensic inpatient care settings.

Using this funding, I decided to focus on whether ‘treats’ were being used to prompt a particular behaviour from a person, while in inpatient care settings; whether these ‘treats’ impacted on a person’s weight and physical health; and why treats were chosen and if it was related to ideas of care and kindness. Certainly, from my observations this is what seemed to be happening - often perhaps unconsciously – but this research allowed us to evidence what may be happening.

What we found

Our research into treats in the health care sector has now been published. It found that treats were used for a number of reasons including:

• Being an affordable way to reward someone
• An incentive to encourage patients to participate in activities, and
• A way to express love/care for someone.

Of course, food as a bonding mechanism is not a new phenomenon, and the idea of certain foods providing comfort is well-established.

It’s entirely possible to have ‘treats’ as part of a healthy balanced diet, and that the origin of using HFSS as treats may be from a place of nurture, but the advice is that food treats should be infrequent and limited in quantity. While it would appear ‘easy’ to say that those working in institutions, like in NHS care services, need to be mindful of how food is being used, our research findings suggest that it may take a much bigger system/cultural change to reduce the use of HFSS as treats in services. I think the idea of a ‘positive food culture’ is useful here. One where the focus is on preserving and nurturing good health and wellbeing through the use of healthy, positive, food behaviours, attitudes and values.

Authors:

Anita Attala, Lead Adult Weight Management Dietitian from Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne & Wear NHS Foundation Trust, and postgraduate student from Teesside University.

Jo Smith, Consultant Dietitian (Clinical Academic) from Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust, and PhD student from Teesside University

Amelia Lake, Fuse Associate Director and Professor of Public Health Nutrition from Teesside University

Dr Emma Giles, co deputy-lead of the Fuse Behaviour Change Theme and Associate Professor Public Health from Teessside University

References:

1. Alonso-Alonso M, Woods SC, Pelchat M, Grigson PS, Stice E, Farooqi S, Khoo CS, Mattes RD, Beauchamp GK. Food reward system: current perspectives and future research needs. . Nutr Rev 2015;73(5):296-307. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4477694/
2. Roberts L, Marx JM, Musher-Eizenman DR. Using food as a reward: An examination of parental reward practices. Appetite 2018;120:318-326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.09.024
3. Hsu A BA. Designing for Psychological Change: Individuals’ Reward and Cost Valuations in Weight Management. J Med Internet Res 2014;16(6). https://www.jmir.org/2014/6/e138
4. Attala A, Smith J, Lake AA, Giles E. Investigating ‘treat culture’ in a secure care service: a study of inpatient NHS staff on their views and opinions on weight gain and treat giving for patients in a forensic secure care service. J Hum Nutr Diet 2023; 1-13. http://doi.org/10.1111/jhn.13129
5. Human Relations Area File. Craving comfort: bonding with food across cultures. 2023; Available at: https://hraf.yale.edu/craving-comfort-bonding-with-food-across-cultures/
6. Mingay E, Hart M, Yoong S, Hure A. Why We Eat the Way We Do: A Call to Consider Food Culture in Public Health Initiatives. International journal of environmental research and public health 2021; 18(22) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8623951/

Public Health at a crossroads again: meeting the challenge of a reformed system in England

Posted by David Hunter, Newcastle University, Peter Littlejohns, King’s College London, and Albert Weale, University College London



With health policy understandably preoccupied with the pressures on, and changes occurring in, the NHS arising from the impact of COVID-19, implementation of the Health and Care Act 2022, and various strikes among the workforce, it is imperative not to overlook the public health system reforms in England.

Public Health England’s (PHE) sudden demise in August 2020 followed mounting criticisms of its performance during the early stages of the pandemic and general unpreparedness.1 Rather than consider how PHE might be reformed, the government rushed to replace it with two new bodies: UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), and Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID). Like PHE, the UKHSA is an executive agency with close ministerial oversight while still permitting ‘independence in the delivery of policy advice’. It will act as a ‘system leader’ for health security with responsibility for pandemic preparedness and external threats across the UK while bearing in mind that health is a devolved responsibility.

PHE’s remaining functions in respect of the wider public health, including health improvement and population health, lie with OHID. Located within the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and jointly accountable to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the Chief Medical Officer for England, it enjoys even less independence than the UKHSA. Building on the work of PHE, OHID’s priorities include tackling obesity, improving mental health, promoting physical activity and other population health issues, notably inequalities.

There is merit in taking stock to identify any lessons which might be gleaned from the mixed life of PHE and whether the new bodies offer hope to do things better.2

Learning the lessons

The findings from a research project to explore the circumstances surrounding the rise and fall of PHE may assist with the learning process.3 Five broad underlying issues were identified in the research which contributed to PHE’s demise.

• 

  PHE did not possess the capacity to undertake a testing regime
   of the size and complexity required by the pandemic

  Severe funding cuts in public health spending, nationally and locally, since 2010 meant that PHE functioned with reduced capacity when the pandemic struck
• PHE did not possess the capacity to undertake a testing regime of the size and complexity required by the pandemic, the absence of which was the basis of the case against the organisation
• The governance of PHE as an executive agency meant it lacked independence
• While decisions made by PHE at the start of the pandemic were later considered mistakes (and judged outside the law by a judicial review) at the time there was little information about the nature and possible effects of the virus and limited capacity in the health system which required tough prioritisation decision to be made
• The sudden closure of PHE without any consultation was widely reported to be due to blame-avoidance behaviour on the part of key actors, principally Dominic Cummins (as former Chief Advisor to the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson) and Matt Hancock (as former Secretary of State for Health and Social Care). There was also a view that the decision was based on policy favouring use of the private sector and contracting out functions like test and trace.

Key lessons from these findings centre on two major areas of concern: the respective remits of the new bodies, and their governance.

Remits

The respective remits of UKHSA and OHID need to be clearer and more transparent if the risk of fragmentation is to be avoided. A welcome feature of PHE was its attempt to bring together the key public health functions that had previously operated in separate silos. As things now stand, separating communicable diseases (CDs) from non-communicable diseases (NCDs) is a retrograde move since, as the pandemic highlighted in stark terms, close links exist between them when it comes to those groups and communities which suffered most in terms of illness and death. A syndemic understanding of diseases and their underlying social factors is pivotal in preventing disease in the future and avoiding fragmentation.4

Governance

Governance of the new public health bodies requires careful attention. As an executive agency, PHE was criticised for its lack of independence from government which restricted its ability to ‘speak truth to power’. Given UKHSA enjoys the same status, it remains unclear how it intends to avoid a similar fate. The problem is a deep-seated and pervasive one within government. The idea that OHID being housed in the DHSC will allow it to exercise greater influence and have a closer collaboration with ministers could be a good move, or, more likely if history is any guide, it may be overly optimistic. There is a risk that OHID may disappear into Whitehall and become invisible, lacking even the limited degree of independence PHE had. To succeed, OHID has to be visible and have allies inside government.

A further issue concerning the governance and working style of both agencies, especially OHID, centres on their ability to operate effectively across government. Public health comprises numerous ‘wicked issues’, that is, multi-faceted problems that are complex and for which there are no simple or single solutions. Confronting them will be especially challenging for a government which, for all its rhetoric about ‘levelling up‘, remains topic- and department-focused, operating in silos rather than concerned with cross-government issues.5

OHID has a steep hill to climb if it wants to lead a transformational agenda across the wider determinants of health which demands a whole-of-government approach. The hill just got steeper following government delays in tackling child obesity and its failure to implement a national food strategy. In keeping with the prevailing political ethos, there is a renewed focus on individual behaviour change and lifestyle choices rather than tackling the influence on health of commercial interests via taxation and regulation.6,7 If significant inroads into the population health agenda are to be made, then confronting powerful vested interests in, and lobbying from, the food and drinks industry and their ’friends’ in government engaged in what has been termed ’institutional corruption’ cannot be avoided.8 Whether OHID has either the backing from government or competences for such a struggle remains doubtful in the extreme.

Conclusion

Public health once again finds itself at a crossroads. It can either continue to ‘muddle through’ with a broken political and public policy system that is not fit for purpose.9 Or there is an opportunity to construct a strong and confident public health system that is well-placed to confront the challenges facing it. The aftermath of COVID-19 should make the choice of options self-evident. However, as things stand, it is unlikely that the UK’s broken political system with its focus on short-term fixes is up to the challenge. Without major systemic change aimed at overhauling the UK’s political system, a risk of further deterioration in the state of the public’s health may be unavoidable.

References:

1. Calvert J, Arbuthnott G. Failures of state: the inside story of Britain’s battle with coronavirus. London: Mudlark, 2021. https://harpercollins.co.uk/products/failures-of-state-the-inside-story-of-britains-battle-with-coronavirus-jonathan-calvertgeorge-arbuthnott?variant=39528280391758
2. Vize R. Controversial from creation to disbanding, via e-cigarettes and alcohol: an obituary of Public Health England. British Medical Journal 2020; 371:m4476 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m4476
3. Littlejohns P, Khatun T, Knight A, Hunter DJ, Markham S, Coultas C, Kelly MP, Ahuja S. (2022) Lessons from the demise of Public Health England: where next for UK public health? London: NIHR ARC South London. https://arc-sl.nihr.ac.uk/sites/default/files/uploads/files/public-health-report-sept-2022-final.pdf
4. Horton R. Offline: COVID-19 is not a pandemic. The Lancet 2020; 396: 874. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32000-6
5. Pope T, Shearer E, Hourston P. What levelling up policies will drive economic change? The need for a long-term focus on skills and cities. London: Institute for Government, 2022. https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publications/levelling-up-policies?
6. British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). Junk food: obesity strategy falling apart, Jamie Oliver says. 15 May 2022 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61449921
7. Ralston R, Smith K, O’Connor CH, Brown A. Levelling up the UK: is the government serious about reducing regional inequalities in health? British Medical Journal 2022; 377:e070589 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-070589
8. Draca M. Institutional corruption? The revolving door in American and British politics. SMF-CAGE global perspectives series: 1. 2014. http://www.smf.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Social-Market-FoundationInstitutional-Corruption-the-revolving-door-in-American-and-British-politics.pdf
9. Ricketts P. Hard choices: the making and unmaking of global Britain. London: Atlantic Books, 2022. https://atlantic-books.co.uk/book/hard-choices

David J Hunter, Emeritus Professor of Health Policy and Management, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University

Peter Littlejohns, Emeritus Professor of Public Health, Centre for Implementation Science, Institute for Psychiatry, Psychology and Neurosciences, King’s College London

Albert Weale, Emeritus Professor of Political Theory and Pubic Policy, University College London

The views and opinions expressed by the authors are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Newcastle University, King’s College London, University College London, or Fuse, the Centre for Translational Research in Public Health.

Walking football for people with chronic breathlessness – has it got legs?

Posted by Callum Bradford, Research Associate, Teesside University

Following on from the recent success of the England Women’s football team, and with the Men’s World Cup final just around the corner, now seems like a good opportunity to talk about our walking football project, designed exclusively for people with chronic breathlessness. What is walking football you ask? Well it's football, without running (you don’t say?!), and the physical contact is a bit more restricted. Thankfully, FIFA hasn't got its hands on walking football just yet, with the World Cup being an example of why we perhaps should avoid such a thing.

 

Chronic Breathlessness is predominantly caused by pulmonary conditions, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), impacting 75 million people globally. With Covid-19 and an ageing population this number is expected to rise, increasing the burden on families, carers, and health and social care services. For individuals, breathlessness is associated with a lower quality of life, decreased capacity to do exercise, and higher levels of anxiety and depression

Pulmonary rehabilitation is recommended for everyone with breathlessness. Consisting of both exercise and education, its benefits on health are unequivocal, however, any benefits gained by patients are often reduced three months after completion. This is primarily because patients go back to doing less physical activity once the programme has finished and support from healthcare professionals is removed. With this in mind, we wanted to develop an intervention that could step-in when patients finish their rehabilitation, offering a form of exercise maintenance and continued social support. Given the nation's love of football (most of the time), we believed walking football might have potential.

To develop the intervention, we initially consulted pulmonary physiotherapists, and a local walking football team. The physios were initially very sceptical, raising concerns that the pace would be too fast, and highlighting the number of people with breathlessness who required oxygen or walking-aids. Walking-aids?! Oxygen?! I hadn't even considered that. I was starting to worry that this idea might be a complete non-starter.

So next stop was to see some walking football for myself at Middlesbrough’s Herlingshaw Centre. I left the session with mixed feelings. They played three-touch, meaning everyone got the opportunity to play, forcing that one player who thinks they're Allan Saint-Maximin to pass the ball. It was also proactively refereed to the benefit of everyone, with players encouraged to talk to the ref if they felt the pace of the game was too fast. However, after giving it a go myself, the pace was still surprisingly quick, despite what Father Ted might have you believe, bringing back concerns as to whether it would be too high an intensity. What I really needed to know was what patients themselves thought of walking football.

So we linked up with Breathe Easy Darlington, a local support group for people with lung conditions. Describing the input from Breathe Easy members as invaluable to our research over the last few years would be a massive understatement. So much so that, as a small thank you, we held a fundraiser for them last month on World COPD Day, raising £1120.76.

Their opinions would be vital to walking football’s success... however, they were also dubious of the idea. Again, concerns were raised about the speed, the walking-aids, and the balance required to play. So I asked, under what circumstances – if any – would they consider giving walking football a go? They stated that if the football was exclusive to people with breathlessness like themselves, they would give it a try, as they would be able to dictate the pace of the game and not feel too self-conscious of their footballing abilities. Our original plan involved asking patients to join onto sessions at the Herlingshaw. Luckily, by consulting with Breathe Easy members, I now understand how that plan – to mix people with and without breathlessness - would have likely ended in disaster, demonstrating the importance of including end-users when designing research studies.

Twelve Breathe Easy members agreed to play and the stage was set for our walking football taster sessions, and as you can see from our video, I don't think it could have gone much better.

The players embraced the competitive aspect of football, stating that “On the pitch you forget about breathlessness”; and the concern for walking-aids was turned on its head after we agreed that hitting the ball with a walking-stick is a perfectly fine way to score a goal. Our coach, Monty Towers, was key to its success, mixing up the session with fun games, while allowing everyone to play football at their own pace. In our follow-up conversations, members also suggested implementing a buddy system, where more experienced participants take responsibility for introducing new patients to the group so they feel more welcome – a brilliant idea that we intend to implement in the future.

Throughout 2023 we will be assessing the feasibility of walking football following pulmonary rehabilitation in collaboration with both North Tees & Hartlepool and South Tees NHS Foundation Trusts, plus the North Riding FA; and I’m confident if it’s anything like our sessions with Breathe Easy members, it will be a great success.

And if you’re still upset about the World Cup, don’t worry, I’m sure our walking football team will bring it home next year.

The views and opinions expressed by the author are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Teesside University or Fuse, the Centre for Translational Research in Public Health.

Does antibiotic prescribing penalise communities in most need?

Posted by Adam Todd, Reader in Pharmaceutical Public Health in the School of Pharmacy, Newcastle University

Since the discovery of penicillin by Alexander Fleming in the 1920s, there have been over 150 antibacterial drugs developed and marketed for human or veterinary use. The effect these drugs have had on infectious diseases and population health is remarkable. A once considered serious bacterial infection can now be successfully managed using antibiotics prescribed from the doctor. This was not always the case, as our grandparents may testify: bacterial infections were often fatal and the choices available to manage such infections were limited. Bloodletting for pneumonia, mercury for syphilis, and honey for wound infections were all commonly used approaches before the discovery of antibiotics.

This "golden age" of discovery may, however, soon come to an end, as more and more bacteria are becoming resistant to the antibiotics available to us. It is for this reason that healthcare organisations across the world have been focusing on developing 'stewardship policies' to promote the appropriate use of antibiotics. In England, the situation is no different, and the Department of Health and Social Care has developed an antimicrobial resistance strategy. As part of the plan, doctors have been urged to reduce the amount of antibiotics they prescribe when it is safe and appropriate to do so. As the majority of antibiotic prescribing occurs in primary care settings, such as GP surgeries, healthcare providers working in this setting are set specific prescribing targets.

It is important to establish if the polices are working from an antibiotic stewardship perspective, but also that these polices are fair, and do not penalise communities in the most need of care. Our work aimed to address these questions. To do this, we used antibiotic prescribing data from the NHS, as well as working out the characteristics of the local areas in England using nationally available data sources.

Overall, we found that, in England, the plan to reduce antibiotic prescribing appears to be working: since 2014, antibiotic prescribing has reduced by around 14 per cent. We also found that the prescribing of 'broad spectrum' antibiotics, used to treat a wide range of infections, have also reduced.

When we considered local factors in our analysis, we showed that the most deprived areas of England had the highest levels of antibiotic prescribing. And even when we factored in two long-term conditions – diabetes and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease – both of which are associated with increased antibiotic use, we still found higher levels of prescribing in the most deprived areas of the country. We also showed that geography was an important factor too: compared to London, all other areas of England had higher levels of antibiotic prescribing – with the East of England, and the North East of England having the highest levels.

You might ask why this is important? Well, that's a good question. Our work shows that in addition to a national strategy to reduce antibiotic prescribing, it is important to consider local needs too. People living in more deprived areas might, for example, have greater health need for antibiotics compared to people living in more affluent areas. National one-sized-fits all targets might not necessarily account for this. If there is greater antibiotic need in deprived areas, doctors working in these areas might be unfairly penalised for prescribing them. This is not fair on the doctors working in primary care, but may also impact on patients too.

The antibiotic stewardship polices appear to be reducing overall antibiotic prescribing, which is a positive thing, although there is still significant variation in prescribing across England. It would be appropriate for future prescribing targets to account for local factors to ensure the most deprived communities are not inappropriately penalised.

The bottom line is if someone is in medical need of an antibiotic, they should be prescribed it, regardless of the characteristics of their local area or where they live.

Adam leads a programme of research that explores how pharmaceutical interventions, including medication, immunisation and screening approaches, can be used safely, appropriately and equitably at a population level.

Image: 

"England Map silhouette" by Natasha Sinegina through Creazilla: https://creazilla.com/nodes/2538-england-map-silhouette. You may obtain a copy of the License at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (CC BY 4.0).