The NIHR Public Health Research Review Programme (2019-2025).

Abstract

Background: The Public Health Review Team, University of Sheffield, was commissioned to deliver a programme of public health evidence synthesis projects. The review programme (2019-25) provided a unique opportunity to develop effective and efficient processes to maximise the value and impact of evidence synthesis for public health practitioners, policy-makers, commissioners and research funders.

Objectives: The overall purpose of the programme was to deliver evidence reviews that could inform the commissioning of further primary research and directly inform public health policy and practice. This synopsis summarises the programme content and reflects on lessons learnt.

Methods: Diverse appropriate methods were used for individual reviews to ensure the timely and efficient production of evidence synthesis products that were as useful as possible to the relevant stakeholders and decision-makers. These included an umbrella review (review of reviews), mapping reviews, systematic reviews, rapid reviews and evidence briefings. The majority of reviews were informed by both public and practitioner involvement, from defining the review questions and identification of relevant evidence to interpreting and disseminating the findings. Both established public panels and topic-specific groups with relevant lived experience recruited for individual projects were involved in the review process. This synopsis was produced by collating and synthesising information from across all 11 commissioned review topics. The review team informally reflected on the learning and generated a number of recommendations for future review programmes.

Data sources: All review projects across the programme used online database searches to identify relevant peer-reviewed journal articles. For many topics, relevant data were identified from grey literature identified by topic experts and other stakeholders and from website searches.

Results: Evidence synthesis outputs were generated across 11 different topics prioritised by the Public Health Research Programme Prioritisation Committee: gambling-related harm, working in later life, working from home, access to services for ethnic minority populations, parenting programmes, warmer homes, student mental health, housing insecurity, alcohol licensing, local interventions to reduce air pollution, health impact assessment to inform spatial planning. Individual project outputs were used to inform both primary research commissioning calls and public health policy development. Research reports, research summaries and other outputs, such as animations, webinars, posters and presentations, were widely shared with both public and professional audiences. The programme benefited from high levels of engagement from public panels and professional involvement as well as close engagement with topic experts and policy-makers.

Future work: Experience from this programme is informing commissioning of further national evidence synthesis teams, and we continue to build on the learning to develop efficient approaches to the delivery of timely, high-quality reviews which are of maximum value to decision-makers.

Limitations: This synopsis can only summarise some key aspects of the programme. Further work is underway to disseminate learning on the value of stakeholder engagement and other methodological aspects of public health evidence synthesis.

Conclusion: Commissioning flexible evidence synthesis teams and ensuring effective engagement with stakeholders are efficient approaches to the delivery of timely, high-quality reviews that can optimise impact on population health and health inequalities.

Funding: This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme as award number NIHR127659.