BackgroundThe use of research evidence to underpin public health policy is strongly promoted. However, its implementation has not been straightforward. The objectives of this systematic review were to synthesise empirical evidence on the use of research evidence by public health decision makers in settings with universal health care systems.MethodsTo locate eligible studies, 13 bibliographic databases were screened, organisational websites were scanned, key informants were contacted and bibliographies of included studies were scrutinised. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Data were synthesised as a narrative review.Findings18 studies were included: 15 qualitative studies, and three surveys. Their methodological quality was mixed. They were set in a range of country and decision making settings. Study participants included 1063 public health decision makers, 72 researchers, and 174 with overlapping roles. Decision making processes varied widely between settings, and were viewed differently by key players. A range of research evidence was accessed. However, there was no reliable evidence on the extent of its use. Its impact was often indirect, competing with other influences. Barriers to the use of research evidence included: decision makers' perceptions of research evidence; the gulf between researchers and decision makers; the culture of decision making; competing influences on decision making; and practical constraints. Suggested (but largely untested) ways of overcoming these barriers included: research targeted at the needs of decision makers; research clearly highlighting key messages; and capacity building. There was little evidence on the role of research evidence in decision making to reduce inequalities.ConclusionsTo more effectively implement research informed public health policy, action is required by decision makers and researchers to address the barriers identified in this systematic review. There is an urgent need for evidence to support the use of research evidence to inform public health decision making to reduce inequalities.

BackgroundInterventions to promote healthy eating make a potentially powerful contribution to the primary prevention of non communicable diseases. It is not known whether healthy eating interventions are equally effective among all sections of the population, nor whether they narrow or widen the health gap between rich and poor.We undertook a systematic review of interventions to promote healthy eating to identify whether impacts differ by socioeconomic position (SEP).MethodsWe searched five bibliographic databases using a pre-piloted search strategy. Retrieved articles were screened independently by two reviewers. Healthier diets were defined as the reduced intake of salt, sugar, trans-fats, saturated fat, total fat, or total calories, or increased consumption of fruit, vegetables and wholegrain. Studies were only included if quantitative results were presented by a measure of SEP.Extracted data were categorised with a modified version of the “4Ps” marketing mix, expanded to 6 “Ps”: “Price, Place, Product, Prescriptive, Promotion, and Person”.ResultsOur search identified 31,887 articles. Following screening, 36 studies were included: 18 “Price” interventions, 6 “Place” interventions, 1 “Product” intervention, zero “Prescriptive” interventions, 4 “Promotion” interventions, and 18 “Person” interventions.“Price” interventions were most effective in groups with lower SEP, and may therefore appear likely to reduce inequalities. All interventions that combined taxes and subsidies consistently decreased inequalities. Conversely, interventions categorised as “Person” had a greater impact with increasing SEP, and may therefore appear likely to reduce inequalities. All four dietary counselling interventions appear likely to widen inequalities.We did not find any “Prescriptive” interventions and only one “Product” intervention that presented differential results and had no impact by SEP. More “Place” interventions were identified and none of these interventions were judged as likely to widen inequalities.ConclusionsInterventions categorised by a “6 Ps” framework show differential effects on healthy eating outcomes by SEP. “Upstream” interventions categorised as “Price” appeared to decrease inequalities, and “downstream” “Person” interventions, especially dietary counselling seemed to increase inequalities.However the vast majority of studies identified did not explore differential effects by SEP. Interventions aimed at improving population health should be routinely evaluated for differential socioeconomic impact.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-015-1781-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundNon-communicable disease (NCD) prevention strategies now prioritise four major risk factors: food, tobacco, alcohol and physical activity. Dietary salt intake remains much higher than recommended, increasing blood pressure, cardiovascular disease and stomach cancer. Substantial reductions in salt intake are therefore urgently needed. However, the debate continues about the most effective approaches. To inform future prevention programmes, we systematically reviewed the evidence on the effectiveness of possible salt reduction interventions. We further compared “downstream, agentic” approaches targeting individuals with “upstream, structural” policy-based population strategies.MethodsWe searched six electronic databases (CDSR, CRD, MEDLINE, SCI, SCOPUS and the Campbell Library) using a pre-piloted search strategy focussing on the effectiveness of population interventions to reduce salt intake. Retrieved papers were independently screened, appraised and graded for quality by two researchers. To facilitate comparisons between the interventions, the extracted data were categorised using nine stages along the agentic/structural continuum, from “downstream”: dietary counselling (for individuals, worksites or communities), through media campaigns, nutrition labelling, voluntary and mandatory reformulation, to the most “upstream” regulatory and fiscal interventions, and comprehensive strategies involving multiple components.ResultsAfter screening 2,526 candidate papers, 70 were included in this systematic review (49 empirical studies and 21 modelling studies). Some papers described several interventions. Quality was variable. Multi-component strategies involving both upstream and downstream interventions, generally achieved the biggest reductions in salt consumption across an entire population, most notably 4g/day in Finland and Japan, 3g/day in Turkey and 1.3g/day recently in the UK. Mandatory reformulation alone could achieve a reduction of approximately 1.45g/day (three separate studies), followed by voluntary reformulation (-0.8g/day), school interventions (-0.7g/day), short term dietary advice (-0.6g/day) and nutrition labelling (-0.4g/day), but each with a wide range. Tax and community based counselling could, each typically reduce salt intake by 0.3g/day, whilst even smaller population benefits were derived from health education media campaigns (-0.1g/day). Worksite interventions achieved an increase in intake (+0.5g/day), however, with a very wide range. Long term dietary advice could achieve a -2g/day reduction under optimal research trial conditions; however, smaller reductions might be anticipated in unselected individuals.ConclusionsComprehensive strategies involving multiple components (reformulation, food labelling and media campaigns) and “upstream” population-wide policies such as mandatory reformulation generally appear to achieve larger reductions in population-wide salt consumption than “downstream”, individually focussed interventions. This ‘effectiveness hierarchy’ might deserve greater emph...

We conducted the first synthesis of theories on causal associations and pathways connecting degree of control in the living environment to socio-economic inequalities in health-related outcomes. We identified the main theories about how differences in 'control over destiny' could lead to socio-economic inequalities in health, and conceptualised these at three distinct explanatory levels: micro/personal; meso/community; and macro/societal. These levels are interrelated but have rarely been considered together in the disparate literatures in which they are located. This synthesis of theories provides new conceptual frameworks to contribute to the design and conduct of theory-led evaluations of actions to tackle inequalities in health.

No abstract