Article available under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-ND licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) eprints@whiterose.ac.uk https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Reuse Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version -refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher's website. TakedownIf you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing eprints@whiterose.ac.uk including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. The return of public health to local government in England: changing the parameters of the public health prioritisation debate? Abstract ObjectivesTo explore the influence of values and context in public health priority-setting in local government in England. Study designQualitative interview study. MethodsDecision-makers' views were identified through semi-structured interviews and prioritisation tools relevant for public health were reviewed. Interviews (29) were carried out with Health and Wellbeing Board members and other key stakeholders across three local authorities in England, following an introductory workshop. ResultsThere were four main influences on priorities for public health investment in our case study sites: an organisational context where health was less likely to be associated with health care and where accountability was to a local electorate; a commissioning and priority-setting context (plan, do, study, act) located within broader local authority priority-setting processes; different views of what counts as evidence and, in particular, the role of local knowledge; and debates over what constitutes a public health intervention, triggered by the transfer of a public health budget from the NHS to local authorities in England. ConclusionsThe relocation of public health into local authorities exposes questions over prioritising public health investment, including the balance across lifestyle interventions and broader action on social determinants of health and the extent to which the public health evidence base influences local democratic decision-making. Action on wider social determinants reinforces not only the art and science but also the values and politics of public health.

The findings have implications for emerging clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) in the English NHS. Specifically, the research highlights the need for a system-wide approach to improving commissioning, including appropriately aligned policy and objectives underpinned by a co-ordinated and supportive organizational culture.

No abstract

ObjectiveWe explored what constitutes successful commissioning for transition and what challenges are associated with this. We aimed: (1) to identify explicit and implicit organisational structures, processes and relationships that drive commissioning around transition; (2) to identify challenges faced by commissioners; and (3) to develop a conceptual model.DesignA qualitative interview study.SettingCommissioning and provider organisations across primary and secondary care and third sector in England, UK.ParticipantsRepresentatives (n=14) from clinical commissioning groups, health and well-being boards and local authorities that commission national health services (NHS) for transition from children’s to adults’ services in England; NHS directors, general practitioners and senior clinicians (n=9); and frontline NHS and third sector providers (n=6).ResultsBoth commissioners and providers thought successful transition is personalised, coordinated and collaborative with a focus on broad life outcomes and actualised through building pathways and universal services. A multitude of challenges were described, including inconsistent national guidance, fragmented resources, incompatible local processes, lack of clear outcomes and professional roles and relationships. No single specific process of commissioning for transition emerged—instead complex, multi-layered, interactive processes were described.ConclusionsThe findings indicate a need to consider more explicitly the impact of national policies and funding streams on commissioning for transition. Commissioners need to require care pathways that enable integrated provision for this population and seek ways to ensure that generalist community providers engage with children with long-term conditions from early on. Future research is needed to identify a core set of specific, meaningful transition outcomes that can be commissioned, measured and monitored.

No abstract