Responses

other Versions

PDF

Return on investment of public health interventions: a systematic review
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Local versus Nationwide
    • Lisa McNally, Consultant in Public Health Bracknell Forest Council

    This is an excellent article which serves to highlight the value of Public Health work in economic terms. The findings need to be taken into account as future health and social care systems evolve. For example, in the UK, Sustainability & Transformation Plans (STPs) will only truly be sustainable if they get past paying lip service to Public Health programmes and actually invest in their implementation.

    One aspect of the paper that is less helpful, however, is the distinction between 'local' and 'national' Public Health programmes. Such a distinction is arguably unclear and invalid given the fact that many national programmes require effective local implementation in order to be effective. This local implementation includes local investment, local co-design of delivery and local promotion and engagement of stakeholders and residents. In the UK, this work is undertaken by Public Health teams in local authorities in partnership with Clinical Commissioning Groups, Primary Care teams, Pharmacists and the Voluntary Sector. Effective local implementation also relies to some degree on co-design with residents.

    To take an example from the list of 'National' interventions, family planning programmes in the UK are usually funded from the local Public Health budget and implemented according to a local strategy. For example, in some areas universal provision is supplemented by outreach services aimed at offering vulnerable women...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.