Title: Public Health Policy Research Unit (PH-PRU)
Funder: Department of Health and Social Care

Abstract: Our strategic plan is designed to deliver high-quality research that anticipates and meets government needs for robust evidence to inform policies to promote people s health and wellbeing, and address social inequalities. We will invest in developing new methods as well as extending, improving and applying existing methods (e.g. for evidence review, economic evaluation and enhancing evidence on PPI). We recognise that our primary customer is the DHSC and we will work closely with the PH-PRU Liaison Officer to develop and deliver the research programme. The delivery of our plan is underpinned by three key strengths of our team. 1. Expertise across the PH agenda We provide expertise on risk behaviours and their clustering (Adamson, Graham, Sowden, Stead, White); health inequalities and high-risk groups (Graham, Petticrew, Sculpher, Whitehead, White); wider determinants of health (Adamson, Petticrew, Sowden, Stead, Whitehead); policy evaluations (Petticrew, Whitehead, White); economic evaluation (Sculpher) and evidence synthesis (all applicants; lead, Sowden). Public, practitioner and policymaker involvement have enriched our projects. Beyond the CIs listed in our application, collaborators at our host institutions bring additional expertise in mental health and addictions (Gilbody, York), policy modelling (O Flaherty, Liverpool; Woodcock, Cambridge), inequalities (Bambra, Newcastle) and sexual and reproductive health (Wellings and the SIGMA group, LSHTM). In addition, NatCen is a collaborator, bringing additional expertise in ageing and social care (see History section), and dementia (Windle), with access to further expertise in ageing and dementia via White (Cambridge) and Adamson (Newcastle Institute for Ageing; and Professor Louise Robinson, primary care lead, NICE dementia health and social care guidelines group; lead primary care advisor, Prime Minister's National Dementia Challenge). Our substantive and methodological expertise includes: &bull; Evidence synthesis (including rapid, and scoping reviews, overviews ( umbrella ) qualitative and quantitative systematic reviews (including network meta-analysis). PHRC examples include reviews of multiple risk behaviours (Sowden), plain packaging of tobacco (Stead), and smoking in pregnancy (Graham). &bull; Secondary data analysis, including cross-sectional and longitudinal, and household-based, school-based and area-based analyses (e.g. Adamson, Graham, White, Whitehead) &bull; Development and evaluation of complex interventions using RCTs, mixed-method and quasi-experimental evaluations, (Adamson, Petticrew, White), and natural experiments (White, Whitehead); examples include: family-based interventions to reduce childhood obesity (Adamson); the Public Health Responsibility Deal evaluation (Petticrew); evaluation of dietary PH interventions, such as the Treasury Soft Drinks Industry Levy (White); evaluations of local PH interventions (Adamson, Petticrew, White); evaluation of the health impacts of the introduction of the national minimum wage (Whitehead) and benefits advice (White). This experience includes many policy evaluations, such as the evaluation of Smokefree England, the tobacco point-of-sale display ban, standardised packaging of tobacco, Minimum Unit Pricing of Alcohol in Scotland, and very many others. &bull; Qualitative research to understand individual experiences and to inform intervention development (e.g., Adamson, Stead, White, Whitehead);(1, 2) examples include the feasibility RCT of Jamie Oliver s Ministry of Food cooking classes, development of community based diabetes prevention interventions (White),(3-5) (6) and a new care pathway for pregnant smokers (White).(7) &bull; Simulation modelling of potential PH and economic impacts of policy interventions, with expertise accessed through host institutions (Liverpool, Cambridge (8-10)) &bull; Economic evaluation, with expertise in cost-effectiveness analysis of health and non-health sector programmes, decision analytic modelling, and risk/prognostic modelling for making intervention decisions and guiding policy (Sculpher). The latter also includes expertise in assessing the wider impacts of PH interventions across sectors, relevant to the contribution of PH to reducing the burden on health and social care services.(11) 2. Established team with extensive experience of working with DHSC We will build on the achievements of the Public Health Research Consortium (PHRC), established in 2005 to strengthen the evidence base for PH interventions. We have demonstrated our ability to combine high-quality research with the capacity to respond to short-term policy needs. We recognise the sensitivities around policy research, including the need to respond rapidly to multiple agendas. We have a proven track-record in identifying and addressing emerging policy priorities, including for example, research on the role of industry in influencing health behaviours (including evaluative studies on childhood and adult diet and obesity); behavioural risk clustering; and environmental change and lifestyle factors. We have the methodological skills and experience to address overarching DHSC research needs relating to trends in reductions in risk factors, and the drivers of, and means of reducing inequalities. Our programme will be developed in close consultation with policy-makers. Our experience shows that successful delivery requires: close and regular engagement between the Director and the DHSC Liaison Officer in the first instance; DHSC feedback on emerging/changing research priorities; the ability to anticipate future policy needs; the ability to provide a responsive capacity supported by streamlined project development/delivery processes; and efficient institutional administration across all member institutions. Feedback from policy colleagues suggests we have been successful in meeting policy needs in a timely way. The PH-PRU will maintain capacity for responsive projects, co-ordinated through the Director, based on our experience of how these are best resourced and managed. Previously, PHRC has delivered on all responsive-mode requests (25% of expenditure over 2010-17; increased to 30% for the proposed PH-PRU). Where required, we have collaborated with external institutions from our wider networks to bring additional specialist expertise (e.g. our responsive e-cigarettes research). 3. Links into other PH research programmes We are closely networked with other PRUs and PH research programmes, including: the Centre for Translational Research (Fuse, Adamson); MRC Epidemiology Unit and Centre for Diet and Activity Research (White); NIHR SPHR (Adamson [Director], Petticrew, White, Whitehead [members]) which has a focus on evaluating local PH initiatives, and liaising with local authorities to improve health and wellbeing; the PRU in Economic Evaluation of Health and Care Interventions (EEPRU, Sculpher); the DHSC Policy Reviews Facility (Sowden, Petticrew); Policy Innovation Research Unit (PIRU, Petticrew [co-lead for PH theme ]); and the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Gastrointestinal infections (Whitehead). We also note in the Aims and Goals section our aim to build links with other PRUs at an early stage (e.g. in our PPI activities), and describe some of our mechanisms to achieve this.

Lay abstract: Our strategic plan is designed to deliver high-quality research that anticipates and meets government needs for robust evidence to inform policies to promote people s health and wellbeing, and address social inequalities. We will invest in developing new methods as well as extending, improving and applying existing methods (e.g. for evidence review, economic evaluation and enhancing evidence on PPI). We recognise that our primary customer is the DHSC and we will work closely with the PH-PRU Liaison Officer to develop and deliver the research programme. The delivery of our plan is underpinned by three key strengths of our team. 1. Expertise across the PH agenda We provide expertise on risk behaviours and their clustering (Adamson, Graham, Sowden, Stead, White); health inequalities and high-risk groups (Graham, Petticrew, Sculpher, Whitehead, White); wider determinants of health (Adamson, Petticrew, Sowden, Stead, Whitehead); policy evaluations (Petticrew, Whitehead, White); economic evaluation (Sculpher) and evidence synthesis (all applicants; lead, Sowden). Public, practitioner and policymaker involvement have enriched our projects. Beyond the CIs listed in our application, collaborators at our host institutions bring additional expertise in mental health and addictions (Gilbody, York), policy modelling (O Flaherty, Liverpool; Woodcock, Cambridge), inequalities (Bambra, Newcastle) and sexual and reproductive health (Wellings and the SIGMA group, LSHTM). In addition, NatCen is a collaborator, bringing additional expertise in ageing and social care (see History section), and dementia (Windle), with access to further expertise in ageing and dementia via White (Cambridge) and Adamson (Newcastle Institute for Ageing; and Professor Louise Robinson, primary care lead, NICE dementia health and social care guidelines group; lead primary care advisor, Prime Minister's National Dementia Challenge). Our substantive and methodological expertise includes: &bull; Evidence synthesis (including rapid, and scoping reviews, overviews ( umbrella ) qualitative and quantitative systematic reviews (including network meta-analysis). PHRC examples include reviews of multiple risk behaviours (Sowden), plain packaging of tobacco (Stead), and smoking in pregnancy (Graham). &bull; Secondary data analysis, including cross-sectional and longitudinal, and household-based, school-based and area-based analyses (e.g. Adamson, Graham, White, Whitehead) &bull; Development and evaluation of complex interventions using RCTs, mixed-method and quasi-experimental evaluations, (Adamson, Petticrew, White), and natural experiments (White, Whitehead); examples include: family-based interventions to reduce childhood obesity (Adamson); the Public Health Responsibility Deal evaluation (Petticrew); evaluation of dietary PH interventions, such as the Treasury Soft Drinks Industry Levy (White); evaluations of local PH interventions (Adamson, Petticrew, White); evaluation of the health impacts of the introduction of the national minimum wage (Whitehead) and benefits advice (White). This experience includes many policy evaluations, such as the evaluation of Smokefree England, the tobacco point-of-sale display ban, standardised packaging of tobacco, Minimum Unit Pricing of Alcohol in Scotland, and very many others. &bull; Qualitative research to understand individual experiences and to inform intervention development (e.g., Adamson, Stead, White, Whitehead);(1, 2) examples include the feasibility RCT of Jamie Oliver s Ministry of Food cooking classes, development of community based diabetes prevention interventions (White),(3-5) (6) and a new care pathway for pregnant smokers (White).(7) &bull; Simulation modelling of potential PH and economic impacts of policy interventions, with expertise accessed through host institutions (Liverpool, Cambridge (8-10)) &bull; Economic evaluation, with expertise in cost-effectiveness analysis of health and non-health sector programmes, decision analytic modelling, and risk/prognostic modelling for making intervention decisions and guiding policy (Sculpher). The latter also includes expertise in assessing the wider impacts of PH interventions across sectors, relevant to the contribution of PH to reducing the burden on health and social care services.(11) 2. Established team with extensive experience of working with DHSC We will build on the achievements of the Public Health Research Consortium (PHRC), established in 2005 to strengthen the evidence base for PH interventions. We have demonstrated our ability to combine high-quality research with the capacity to respond to short-term policy needs. We recognise the sensitivities around policy research, including the need to respond rapidly to multiple agendas. We have a proven track-record in identifying and addressing emerging policy priorities, including for example, research on the role of industry in influencing health behaviours (including evaluative studies on childhood and adult diet and obesity); behavioural risk clustering; and environmental change and lifestyle factors. We have the methodological skills and experience to address overarching DHSC research needs relating to trends in reductions in risk factors, and the drivers of, and means of reducing inequalities. Our programme will be developed in close consultation with policy-makers. Our experience shows that successful delivery requires: close and regular engagement between the Director and the DHSC Liaison Officer in the first instance; DHSC feedback on emerging/changing research priorities; the ability to anticipate future policy needs; the ability to provide a responsive capacity supported by streamlined project development/delivery processes; and efficient institutional administration across all member institutions. Feedback from policy colleagues suggests we have been successful in meeting policy needs in a timely way. The PH-PRU will maintain capacity for responsive projects, co-ordinated through the Director, based on our experience of how these are best resourced and managed. Previously, PHRC has delivered on all responsive-mode requests (25% of expenditure over 2010-17; increased to 30% for the proposed PH-PRU). Where required, we have collaborated with external institutions from our wider networks to bring additional specialist expertise (e.g. our responsive e-cigarettes research). 3. Links into other PH research programmes We are closely networked with other PRUs and PH research programmes, including: the Centre for Translational Research (Fuse, Adamson); MRC Epidemiology Unit and Centre for Diet and Activity Research (White); NIHR SPHR (Adamson [Director], Petticrew, White, Whitehead [members]) which has a focus on evaluating local PH initiatives, and liaising with local authorities to improve health and wellbeing; the PRU in Economic Evaluation of Health and Care Interventions (EEPRU, Sculpher); the DHSC Policy Reviews Facility (Sowden, Petticrew); Policy Innovation Research Unit (PIRU, Petticrew [co-lead for PH theme ]); and the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Gastrointestinal infections (Whitehead). We also note in the Aims and Goals section our aim to build links with other PRUs at an early stage (e.g. in our PPI activities), and describe some of our mechanisms to achieve this.

Research activity codes: 2.6 RESOURCES AND INFRASTRUCTURE (AETIOLOGY);3.5 RESOURCES AND INFRASTRUCTURE (PREVENTION);8.5 RESOURCES AND INFRASTRUCTURE (HEALTH SERVICES)
Health categories: GENERIC HEALTH RELEVANCE