BackgroundPublic health provision in England is undergoing dramatic changes. Currently established partnerships are thus likely to be significantly disrupted by the radical reforms outlined in the Public Health White Paper. We therefore explored the process of partnership working in public health, in order to better understand the potential opportunities and threats associated with the proposed changes.Methodology/Principal Findings70 participants took part in an in-depth qualitative study involving 40 semi-structured interviews and three focus group discussions. Participants were senior and middle grade public health decision makers working in Primary Care Trusts, Local Authorities, Department of Health, academia, General Practice and Hospital Trusts and the third sector in England. Despite mature arrangements for partnership working in many areas, and much support for joint working in principle, many important barriers exist. These include cultural issues such as a lack of shared values and language, the inherent complexity of intersectoral collaboration for public health, and macro issues including political and resource constraints. There is particular uncertainty and anxiety about the future of joint working relating to the availability and distribution of scarce and diminishing financial resources. There is also the concern that existing effective collaborative networks may be completely disrupted as the proposed changes unfold. The extent to which the proposed reforms might mitigate or potentiate these issues remains unclear. However the threats currently remain more salient than opportunities.ConclusionsThe current re-organisation of public health offers real opportunity to address some of the barriers to partnership working identified in this study. However, significant threats exist. These include the breakup of established networks, and the risk of cost cutting on effective public health interventions.

BackgroundThe public health system in England is currently facing dramatic change. Renewed attention has recently been paid to the best approaches for tackling the health inequalities which remain entrenched within British society and across the globe. In order to consider the opportunities and challenges facing the new public health system in England, we explored the current experiences of those involved in decision making to reduce health inequalities, taking cardiovascular disease (CVD) as a case study.MethodsWe conducted an in-depth qualitative study employing 40 semi-structured interviews and three focus group discussions. Participants were public health policy makers and planners in CVD in the UK, including: Primary Care Trust and Local Authority staff (in various roles); General Practice commissioners; public health academics; consultant cardiologists; national guideline managers; members of guideline development groups, civil servants; and CVD third sector staff.ResultsThe short term target- and outcome-led culture of the NHS and the drive to achieve "more for less", combined with the need to address public demand for acute services often lead to investment in "downstream" public health intervention, rather than the "upstream" approaches that are most effective at reducing inequalities. Despite most public health decision makers wishing to redress this imbalance, they felt constrained due to difficulties in partnership working and the over-riding influence of other stakeholders in decision making processes. The proposed public health reforms in England present an opportunity for public health to move away from the medical paradigm of the NHS. However, they also reveal a reluctance of central government to contribute to shifting social norms.ConclusionsIt is vital that the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of all new and existing policies and services affecting public health are measured in terms of their impact on the social determinants of health and health inequalities. Researchers have a vital role to play in providing the complex evidence required to compare different models of prevention and service delivery. Those working in public health must develop leadership to raise the profile of health inequalities as an issue that merits attention, resources and workforce capacity; and advocate for central government to play a key role in shifting social norms.

BackgroundCountries across Europe have introduced a wide variety of policies to improve nutrition. However, the sheer diversity of interventions represents a potentially bewildering smorgasbord.We aimed to map existing public health nutrition policies, and examine their perceived effectiveness, in order to inform future evidence-based diet strategies.MethodsWe created a public health nutrition policy database for 30 European countries . National nutrition policies were classified and assigned using the marketing "4Ps" approach Product (reformulation, elimination, new healthier products); Price (taxes, subsidies); Promotion (advertising, food labelling, health education) and Place (schools, workplaces, etc.).We interviewed 71 senior policy-makers, public health nutrition policy experts and academics from 14 of the 30 countries, eliciting their views on diverse current and possible nutrition strategies.ResultsProduct Voluntary reformulation of foods is widespread but has variable and often modest impact. Twelve countries regulate maximum salt content in specific foods.Denmark, Austria, Iceland and Switzerland have effective trans fats bans.Price EU School Fruit Scheme subsidies are almost universal, but with variable implementation.Taxes are uncommon. However, Finland, France, Hungary and Latvia have implemented ‘sugar taxes’ on sugary foods and sugar-sweetened beverages. Finland, Hungary and Portugal also tax salty products.Promotion Dialogue, recommendations, nutrition guidelines, labelling, information and education campaigns are widespread. Restrictions on marketing to children are widespread but mostly voluntary.Place Interventions reducing the availability of unhealthy foods were most commonly found in schools and workplace canteens.Interviewees generally considered mandatory reformulation more effective than voluntary, and regulation and fiscal interventions much more effective than information strategies, but also politically more challenging.ConclusionsPublic health nutrition policies in Europe appear diverse, dynamic, complex and bewildering. The "4Ps" framework potentially offers a structured and comprehensive categorisation.Encouragingly, the majority of European countries are engaged in activities intended to increase consumption of healthy food and decrease the intake of "junk" food and sugary drinks. Leading countries include Finland, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Hungary, Portugal and perhaps the UK. However, all countries fall short of optimal activities. More needs to be done across Europe to implement the most potentially powerful fiscal and regulatory nutrition policies.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-1195) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Government nutritional welfare support from the English ‘Healthy Start’ scheme is targeted at low-income pregnant women and preschool children, but take-up of its free food vouchers is much better than its free vitamin vouchers. While universal implementation probably requires a more extensive scheme to be cost-effective, the everyday experience of different ways of receiving or facilitating Healthy Start, especially via children’s centres, also requires further evidence. This study therefore aimed to explore (in the context of low take-up levels) perceptions of mothers, health professionals, and commissioners about Healthy Start vitamin and food voucher take-up and compare experiences in a targeted and a universal implementation-area for those vitamins. Methods Informed by quantitative analysis of take-up data, qualitative analysis focused on 42 semi-structured interviews with potentially eligible mothers and healthcare staff (and commissioners), purposively sampled via children’s centres in a similarly deprived universal and a targeted implementation-area of North West England. Results While good food voucher take-up appeared to relate to clear presentation, messaging, practicality, and monetary (albeit low) value, poor vitamin take-up appeared to relate to overcomplicated procedures and overreliance on underfunded centres, organizational goodwill, and families’ resilience. Conclusion Higher ‘universal’ vitamin take-up may well have reflected fewer barriers when it became everyone’s business to be vitamin-aware. Substantive Healthy Start reform in England (not just cosmetic tinkering) is long overdue. Our study highlights that ‘policy, politics, and problem’ should be aligned to reach considerable unmet need.