There is a growing consensus that gambling is a public health issue and that preventing gambling related harms requires a broad response. Although many policy decisions regarding gambling are made at a national level in the UK, there are clear opportunities to take action at local and regional levels to prevent the negative impacts on individuals, families and local communities. This response goes beyond the statutory roles of licencing authorities to include amongst others the National Health Service (NHS), the third sector, mental health services, homelessness and housing services, financial inclusion support. As evidence continues to emerge to strengthen the link between gambling and a wide range of risk factors and negative consequences, there is also a strong correlation with health inequalities. Because the North of England experiences increasing health inequalities, it offers an opportunity as a specific case study to share learning on reducing gambling-related harms within a geographic area. This article describes an approach to gambling as a public health issue identifying it as needing a cross-cutting, systemwide multisectoral approach to be taken at local and regional levels. Challenges at national and local levels require policy makers to adopt a 'health in all policy' approach and use the best evidence in their future decisions to prevent harm. A whole systems approach which aims to reduce poverty and health inequalities needs to incorporate gambling harm within place-based planning and draws on the innovative opportunities that exist to engage local stakeholders, builds local leadership and takes a collaborative approach to tackling gambling-related harms. This whole systems approach includes the following: (1) understanding the prevalence of gambling related harms with insights into the consequences and how individuals, their family and friends and wider community are affected; (2) ensuring tackling gambling harms is a key public health commitment at all levels by including it in strategic plans, with meaningful outcome measures, and communicating this to partners; (3) understanding the assets and resources available in the public, private and voluntary sectors and identifying what actions are underway; (4) raising awareness and sharing data, developing a compelling narrative and involving people who have been harmed and are willing to share their experience; (5) ensuring all regulatory authorities help tackle gambling-related harms under a 'whole council' approach.

No abstract

Background Given the underinvestment in global mental health to-date, it is important to consider how best to maximize the impact of existing investments. Theory of Change (ToC) is increasingly attracting the interest of funders seeking to evaluate their own impact. This is one of four papers investigating Grand Challenges Canada’s (GCC’s) first global mental health research funding portfolio (2012–2016) using a ToC-driven approach. Methods A portfolio-level ToC map was developed through a collaborative process involving GCC grantees and other key stakeholders. Proposed ToC indicators were harmonised with GCC’s pre-existing Results-based Management and Accountability Framework to produce a “Core Metrics Framework” of 23 indicators linked to 17 outcomes of the ToC map. For each indicator relevant to their project, the grantee was asked to set a target prior to the start of implementation, then report results at six-month intervals. We used the latest available dataset from all 56 projects in GCC’s global mental health funding portfolio to produce a descriptive analysis of projects’ characteristics and outcomes related to delivery. Results 12,999 people were trained to provide services, the majority of whom were lay or other non-specialist health workers. Most projects exceeded their training targets for capacity-building, except for those training lay health workers. Of the 321,933 people screened by GCC-funded projects, 162,915 received treatment. Most projects focused on more than one disorder and exceeded all their targets for screening, diagnosis and treatment. Fewer people than intended were screened for common mental disorders and epilepsy (60% and 54%, respectively), but many more were diagnosed and treated than originally proposed (148% and 174%, respectively). In contrast, the three projects that focused on perinatal depression exceeded screening and diagnosis targets, but only treated 43% of their intended target. Conclusions Under- or over-achievement of targets may reflect operational challenges such as high staff turnover, or challenges in setting appropriate targets, for example due to insufficient epidemiological evidence. Differences in delivery outcomes when disaggregated by disorder suggest that these challenges are not universal. We caution implementers, funders and evaluators from taking a one-size-fits all approach and make several recommendations for how to facilitate more in-depth, multi-method evaluation of impact using portfolio-level ToC.