Behaviour change at population, community and individual levels: NICE Public Health Guidance 6

This guidance is aimed at those responsible for helping people to change their behaviour to improve their health. This includes policy makers and those working in local authorities and the community and voluntary sectors. It gives advice on how to plan and run relevant initiatives. The recommendations include the following advice: base interventions on a proper assessment of the target group, where they are located and the behaviour which is to be changed: careful planning is the cornerstone of success  work with other organisations and the community itself to decide on and develop initiatives build on the skills and knowledge that already exists in the community, for example, by encouraging networks of people who can support each other take account of and resolve problems that prevent people changing their behaviour (for example, the costs involved in taking part in exercise programmes or buying fresh fruit and vegetables, or lack of knowledge about how to make changes) base all interventions on evidence of what works train staff to help people change their behaviour evaluate all interventions.This resource was contributed by The National Documentation Centre on Drug Use.

Hiding the evidence: The State and spatial inequalities in health in Ireland

The Irish State has consistently reduced its production of publicly accessible disease / mortality maps over the last fifty years. State health statistics, and the small number of disease / mortality maps that have been produced in official publications, show a declining level of detail and are routinely out of date. Following a review of the production of disease / mortality maps in Ireland by the State and allied health agencies, two reasons are suggested for this decline. The first explanation relates to spatial inequalities in healthcare provision and to the absence of a health funding formulae in Ireland. The second explanation focuses on the potential politicisation of spatial inequalities in health status. Researchers in these fields are urged to disseminate information widely on spatial inequalities in healthcare provision, healthcare access and health status, both within and outside of the academic literature. Researchers in these fields are also urged to adopt an advocacy role on these issues, or to develop strategic alliances with such advocates.����

Caring for Seniors With Alzheimer's Disease: Canadian Institute for Health Information

Caring for Seniors In 2007-2008, one in five seniors (20%) in Canada receiving long-term home care had a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease or other dementia. Nearly one in six (17%) of these clients with dementia were suffering from moderate to severe impairment in cognition and daily functioning yet still managed to remain at home.This study from the Canadian Institute for Health Information also found that one in six (17%) seniors with dementia living in residential care facilities (such as nursing or long-term care homes) in 2008-2009 had relatively low levels of impairment or could still perform basic functions quite well on their own. The odds of a senior with low impairment being placed in residential care were seven times more likely if the senior had a tendency to wander. Marital status was also a factor in determining whether a senior with low impairment was newly admitted to a care facility rather than at home with home care. 

Inequality in Healthy Life Expectancy at Birth by National Deciles of Area Deprivation: England, 2010-12

This release from the Office for National Statistics contains a reference table providing Healthy Life Expectancy (HLE) and Life Expectancy (LE) at birth for national deciles of area deprivation in England. It also provides two measures of inequality, the range and Slope Index of Inequality (SII), for the period 2010-12.Key findingsMales in the most deprived areas have a life expectancy 9.1 years shorter (when measured by the range) than males in the least deprived areas; they also spend a smaller proportion of their shorter lives in ‘Good’ health (70.8% compared to 85.0%).Females in the most deprived areas have a life expectancy 6.8 years shorter (when measured by the range) than females in the least deprived areas; they also expect to spend 17.2% less of their life in ‘Good’ health (66.1% compared to 83.2%).Males in the most advantaged areas can expect to live 19.4 years longer in ‘Good’ health than those in the least advantaged areas as measured by the Slope Index of Inequality (SII). For females this was 19.8 years.Read the release here.��

Eating disorders: Core interventions in the treatment and management of anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa and related eating disorders

Core interventions in the treatment and management of anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa and related eating disorders - NICE Guidance

Tackling Health Inequalities

This briefing paper provides an introduction to health inequalities. It is part of a series produced using learning gleaned from health action zones across the East and West Midlands. ISBN: 1842794337

Practical lessons for dealing with inequalities in health impact assessment

This publication is a companion to Addressing inequalities through health impact assessment (Taylor et al., 2003a), which described what a focus on inequalities could achieve, offered case study examples, and outlined promising practice. This bulletin discusses recent publications and presents a further two case studies that attempt to address health inequalities through the use of HIA. .

Health equity audit - learning from practice briefing

This briefing provides a summary of learning from three workshops on HEA, and examples of completed or near-completed HEAs to illustrate these learning points. It is recognised that this experience is evolving.

Strategic review of health inequalities in England post 2010 (Marmot review consultation paper)

In November 2008, Professor Sir Michael Marmot was asked to advise the Secretary of State for Health on the future development of a health inequalities strategy in England post-2010. The consultation relates to the first phase of the review and is based on submissions from nine task groups, who considered the evidence base across the social determinants of health. This document discusses issues raised during this first phase of the review and identifies key questions for respondents. The consultation document is set out in the following sections: Section 1 The Review Consultation: Aims and consultation questions Section 2 The Strategic Review of Health inequalities: The Background to the Review, the remit, structure, context and the social determinants approach to health inequalities. Section 3 Key Strategic Themes: A summary of a thematic analysis of proposals made by the Review task groups. Each task group was asked to assess national and international evidence about interventions and policies from within their policy area, which would likely lead to reductions in health inequalities. Section 4 Cross-Cutting Challenges for the Review: A summary of challenges currently under consideration by the Review.

A new pathway for the regulation and governance of health research

The Academy's review, 'A new pathway for the regulation and governance of health research' was published in January 2011. The report was prepared by a working group, chaired by Professor Sir Michael Rawlins FMedSci, convened in response to an invitation from Government to review the regulation and governance of UK health research involving human participants, their tissue or their data.The report proposes four key principles that should underpin the regulation and governance framework around health research in the UK, and makes recommendations to:Create a new Health Research Agency (HRA) to rationalise the regulation and governance of all health research. Include within the HRA a new National Research Governance Service to facilitate timely approval of research studies by NHS Trusts. Improve the UK environment for clinical trials.Provide access to patient data that protects individual interests and allows approved research to proceed effectively. Embed a culture that values research within the NHS.