The Well London program - a cluster randomized trial of community engagement for improving health behaviors and mental wellbeing: baseline survey results

Background The Well London programme used community engagement, complemented by changes to the physical and social neighbourhood environment, to improve physical activity levels, healthy eating and mental wellbeing in the most deprived communities in London. The effectiveness of Well London is being evaluated in a pair-matched cluster randomised trial (CRT). The baseline survey data are reported here. Methods The CRT involved 20 matched pairs of intervention and control communities (defined as UK census lower super output areas; ranked in the 11% most deprived LSOAs in London by Index of Multiple Deprivation) across 20 London boroughs. The primary trial outcomes, sociodemographic information and environmental neighbourhood characteristics were assessed in three quantitative components within the Well London CRT at baseline: a cross-sectional, interviewer-administered adult household survey; a self-completed, school-based adolescent questionnaire; a fieldworker completed neighbourhood environmental audit. Baseline data collection occurred in 2008. Physical activity, healthy eating and mental wellbeing were assessed using standardised, validated questionnaire tools. Multiple imputation was used to account for missing data in the outcomes and other variables in the adult and adolescent surveys. Results There were 4107 adults and 1214 adolescent respondents in the baseline surveys. The intervention and control areas were broadly comparable with respect to the primary outcomes and key sociodemographic characteristics. The environmental characteristics of the intervention and control neighbourhoods were broadly similar. There was greater between cluster variation in the primary outcomes in the adult population compared to the adolescent population. Levels of healthy eating, smoking and self-reported anxiety/depression were similar in the Well London population and the national Health Survey for England. Levels of physical activity were higher in the Well London population but this is likely to be due to the different measurement tools used in the two surveys. Conclusions Randomisation of social interventions such as Well London is acceptable and feasible and in this study the intervention and control arms are well balanced with respect to the primary outcomes and key sociodemographic characteristics. The matched design has improved the statistical efficiency of the study amongst adults but less so amongst adolescents. Follow-up data collection will be completed 2012.

Public-private partnerships and efficiency in public procurement of primary healthcare infrastructure: a qualitative research in the NHS UK

Aim There is growing interest in the contribution of public-private partnerships (PPPs) bridging the shortage of financial resources and management expertise in developing public healthcare infrastructure. However, few studies have evidenced PPPs’ ability in increasing efficiency in public procurement of primary healthcare infrastructure. The aim of this study was to assess to what extent PPPs would increase efficiency in public procurement of primary healthcare facilities. Subject and Methods A qualitative analysis, adopting a realistic research evaluation method, used data collected from a purposive sample of public (n=23) and private sector staff (n=2) directly involved in the UK National Health Service Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT). Results We find a positive association of LIFT helping to bridge public sector capital shortages for developing primary care surgeries. LIFT is negatively associated with inefficient procurement because it borrows finance from private banks, leaving public agencies paying high interest rates. The study shows that some contextual factors and mechanisms in LIFT play a major part in obstructing public staff from increasing procurement efficiency. Conclusion PPP’s ability to increase efficiency may be determined by contextual factors and mechanisms that restrict discretion over critical decisions by frontline public sector staff. Developing their capacity in monitoring PPP activities may make partnerships more efficient.