NIHR Public Health Review Team

We are a team of experts commissioned by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) to conduct public health evidence reviews. We will work with the NIHR Public Health Research Programme (PHR) to identify gaps in the current knowledge that can be addressed through future research. This will help the NIHR PHR to develop their research and funding priorities.

Our review team includes experts from the Universities of Exeter, Cardiff and Birmingham with different specialisms and skills. We have an outstanding track record of leading and delivering complex systematic reviews in collaboration with a range of policy, practice and patient partners.

The Review Team will serve from 2024 until 2028 (60 months).

The team

G.J. Melendez-Torres
Rhiannon Evans
Joht Chandan
Jo Thompson-Coon
Ruth Garside
Sophie Robinson
Joelle Kirby
Rabeea’h Aslam
Sean Harrison
Claire Tatton
Daniel Mutanda
Tom Arthur

Current Projects‌

First Episode Psychosis (FEP) is a term used to describe the first time a person experiences symptoms like hallucinations or delusions severe enough to affect how they think, see reality, and cope with everyday life.

Although FEP is most common in late adolescence and early adulthood, it can occur at any age. Despite advances in detection and early intervention, the evidence base for prevention remains fragmented. As it stands, most reviews have focused on clinical high-risk samples only, with interventions aimed at youth who already show early warning signs prior to the onset of FEP.

Longitudinal research (studies that follow participants over time) has identified multiple modifiable factors, including trauma, substance use, discrimination, and social disadvantage. however, these have not been brought together systematically.

We will address these evidence gaps by examining preventive interventions and modifiable risk factors (things that can be changed via interventions such as substance misuse) for FEP.

Review questions

Review question Why focus on this question
1. How can interventions aimed at preventing FEP be organised by ecological level of implementation and by model stage? This will help to determine how well different prevention approaches work across the individual, group, school/community, and universal level, and at which stage of progression of FEP. 

2. What is the effectiveness of these interventions by ecological level and stage, and what is the impact on health inequalities?

This will help identify which prevention approaches work best and whether they help reduce differences in risk between different groups of people.

3. What is the evidence from longitudinal studies for modifiable risk factors linked to FEP?

This will help identify risk factors that can be changed or reduced to lower the chances of someone developing FEP.

The protocol for this work is available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261309356

Past Projects

Background

The UK has low breastfeeding rates with substantial variation both regionally and socio-demographically. Whilst some women make an informed decision not to breastfeed, many stop before they intended. 

Pain and latching problems are key reasons, but there are other factors. These include mothers’ psychological adjustment as well as personal and systemic barriers.

Breastfeeding support offered in the community can potentially help women navigate these. This includes support delivered by women with similar social or cultural backgrounds (peer support) as well as non-hospital-based healthcare professionals, for example health visitors.

However, existing evidence suggests that some women may benefit more from this type of support than others.

For this project we looked at research evidence to help understand how peer and community support services could be delivered to make sure that more women have a positive breastfeeding experience and are encouraged and supported to breastfeed if they want to.

What we did

We conducted two reviews:

1. Peer support and community interventions targeting breastfeeding in the UK: systematic review and equity synthesis of qualitative evidence

This drew together qualitative evidence from the UK to understand how the characteristics of mothers shaped their experiences of peer and community support.

2. Equity-focused peer support and community interventions for breastfeeding in high-income countries: Systematic review and intervention component analysis

This looked at studies of peer and community support in higher-income countries to understand what activities (components) are delivered during breastfeeding peer support, and if they prevent inequities in breastfeeding rates.

What we found

Peer support and community interventions targeting breastfeeding in the UK: systematic review and equity synthesis of qualitative evidence

Fifty-five studies were included in this review. Mothers from lower socio-economic backgrounds and black and minority ethnic communities tend to have poorer experiences of support.

There were different experiences across the different phases of receiving support, which may lead to inequities in breastfeeding rates, these include:

  • Inadequate consideration of mothers’ social, economic and cultural background, and how this might shape their needs (e.g. not comfortable breastfeeding in public spaces).
  • Lack of consideration of different physical characteristics (e.g. body type, disability).
  • Structural barriers (e.g. lack of community acceptance, unsupportive workplace policies) that might discourage breastfeeding
Equity-focused peer support and community interventions for breastfeeding in high-income countries: Systematic review and intervention component analysis

Thirty-one studies were included in this review. It found that peer and community support tend to use four different types of principles when working with underserved communities to prevent inequities:

  • Crosscutting principles: Support underpinned by principle of continued availability throughout key parenting transitions, while keeping a holistic focus on mothers’ health and wellbeing.
  • Contextual fit: Support providers with similar cultural, social and economic background to mothers; support to be delivered in a suitable place (e.g. home), through appropriate mode (e.g. face-to-face or video call); and include people from the target population in intervention design.
  • Delivery: Information and materials accessible to varying cultural and language needs; support providers build relationships with mothers; and offer practical breastfeeding resources (e.g. practical devices such as nipple shields, breast pump, nipple cream, nursing bras).
  • Wayfinding: Support for mothers throughout the breastfeeding journey by strengthening support in existing social network (e.g. family involvement and support); creating new networks of breastfeeding support through a community asset approach; offering activities and resources to support breastfeeding in conjunction with returning to work or education (e.g. addressing concerns about breastfeeding in public).

Whilst mothers who received interventions were around 10% less likely to stop breastfeeding up to one year, there was no conclusive evidence that any intervention components were more effective than others in targeting breastfeeding rates among underserved communities.

Sharing our findings

The academic papers are available at: