Micky Willmott

Effectiveness of hand hygiene interventions in reducing illness absence among children in educational settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective To undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis to establish the effectiveness of handwashing in reducing absence and/or the spread of respiratory tract (RT) and/or gastrointestinal (GI) infection among school-aged children and/or staff in educational settings. Design Randomised-controlled trials (RCTs). Setting Schools and other settings with a formal educational component in any country. Patients Children aged 3–11 years, and/or staff working with them. Intervention Interventions with a hand hygiene component. Main outcome measures Incidence of RT or GI infections or symptoms related to such infections; absenteeism; laboratory results of RT and/or GI infections. Results Eighteen cluster RCTs were identified; 13 school-based, 5 in child day care facilities or preschools. Studies were heterogeneous and had significant quality issues including small numbers of clusters and participants and inadequate randomisation. Individual study results suggest interventions may reduce childrens absence, RT infection incidence and symptoms, and laboratory confirmed influenza-like illness. Evidence of impact on GI infection or symptoms was equivocal. Conclusions Studies are generally not well executed or reported. Despite updating existing systematic reviews and identifying new studies, evidence of the effect of hand hygiene interventions on infection incidence in educational settings is mostly equivocal but they may decrease RT infection among children. These results update and add to knowledge about this crucial public health issue in key settings with a vulnerable population. More robust, well reported cluster RCTs which learn from existing studies, are required.

Making the case for investment in public health: experiences of Directors of Public Health in English local government

Background Amid local government budget cuts, there is concern that the ring-fenced public health grant is being appropriated, and Directors of Public Health (DsPH) find it difficult to make the case for investment in public health activity. This paper describes what DsPH are making the case for, the components of their case and how they present the case for public health. Methods Thirteen semi-structured telephone interviews and a group discussion were carried out with DsPH (November 2013 to May 2014) in the Southern region of England. Results DsPH make the case for control of the public health grant and investing in action on wider determinants of health. The cases they present incorporate arguments about need, solutions and their effectiveness, health outcomes, cost and economic impact but also normative, political arguments. Many types of evidence were used to substantiate the cases; evidence was carefully framed to be accessible and persuasive. Conclusions DsPH are responding to a new environment; economic arguments and evidence of impact are key components of the case for public health, although multiple factors influence local government (LG) decisions around health improvement. Further evidence of economic impact would be helpful in making the case for public health in LG.

NHS Managers: From Administrators to Entrepreneurs?

Health service managers have long been involved in organizational restructuring, notably in the apparent ‘transition’ narrative from public administration to ‘new public management’ (NPM). More recently, debates have focused on entrepreneurialism.