Explore the vast range of titles available.

Objectives. We examined the probability of an obese person attaining normal body weight. Methods. We drew a sample of individuals aged 20 years and older from the United Kingdom’s Clinical Practice Research Datalink from 2004 to 2014. We analyzed data for 76 704 obese men and 99 791 obese women. We excluded participants who received bariatric surgery. We estimated the probability of attaining normal weight or 5% reduction in body weight. Results. During a maximum of 9 years’ follow-up, 1283 men and 2245 women attained normal body weight. In simple obesity (body mass index = 30.0–34.9 kg/m 2 ), the annual probability of attaining normal weight was 1 in 210 for men and 1 in 124 for women, increasing to 1 in 1290 for men and 1 in 677 for women with morbid obesity (body mass index = 40.0–44.9 kg/m 2 ). The annual probability of achieving a 5% weight reduction was 1 in 8 for men and 1 in 7 for women with morbid obesity. Conclusions. The probability of attaining normal weight or maintaining weight loss is low. Obesity treatment frameworks grounded in community-based weight management programs may be ineffective.

The preceding papers in this Series have outlined how underuse and overuse of health-care services occur within a complex system of health-care production, with a multiplicity of causes. Because poor care is ubiquitous and has considerable consequences for the health and wellbeing of billions of people around the world, remedying this problem is a morally and politically urgent task. Universal health coverage is a key step towards achieving the right care. Therefore, full consideration of potential levers of change must include an upstream perspective—ie, an understanding of the system-level factors that drive overuse and underuse, as well as the various incentives at work during a clinical encounter. One example of a system-level factor is the allocation of resources (eg, hospital beds and clinicians) to meet the needs of a local population to minimise underuse or overuse. Another example is priority setting using tools such as health technology assessment to guide the optimum diffusion of safe, effective, and cost-effective health-care services. In this Series paper we investigate a range of levers for eliminating medical underuse and overuse. Some levers could operate effectively (and be politically viable) across many different health and political systems (eg, increase patient activation with decision support) whereas other levers must be tailored to local contexts (eg, basing coverage decisions on a particular cost-effectiveness ratio). Ideally, policies must move beyond the purely incremental; that is, policies that merely tinker at the policy edges after underuse or overuse arises. In this regard, efforts to increase public awareness, mobilisation, and empowerment hold promise as universal methods to reset all other contexts and thereby enhance all other efforts to promote the right care.

Following endorsement by WHO,1,2 the World Bank,3 and the UN's Sustainable Development Goals,4 the drive towards universal health coverage (UHC) is now one of the most prominent global health policies. As countries progress towards UHC, they are forced to make difficult choices about how to prioritise health issues and expenditure: which services to expand first, whom to include first, and how to shift from out-of-pocket payment towards prepayment.

Background The integration of preventative health services into England’s National Health Service is one of the cornerstones of current health policy. This integration is primarily envisaged through the removal of legislation that blocks collaborations between NHS organisations, local government, and community groups. Aims and objectives This paper aims to illustrate why these actions are insufficient through the case study of the PrEP judicial review. Methods Through an interview study with 15 HIV experts (commissioners, activists, clinicians, and national health body representatives), we explore the means by which the HIV prevention agenda was actively blocked, when NHS England denied responsibility for funding the clinically effective HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) drug in 2016, a case that led to judicial review. We draw on Wu et al.’s (Policy Soc 34:165–171, 2016) conceptual framing of ‘policy capacity’ in undertaking this analysis. Results The analyses highlight three main barriers to collaborating around evidence-based preventative health which indicate three main competence/capability issues in regard to policy capacity: latent stigma of ‘lifestyle conditions’ (individual-analytical capacity); the invisibility of prevention in the fragmented health and social care landscape related to issues of evidence generation and sharing, and public mobilisation (organizational-operational capacity); and institutional politics and distrust (systemic-political capacity). Discussion and conclusion We suggest that the findings hold implications for other ‘lifestyle’ conditions that are tackled through interventions funded by multiple healthcare bodies. We extend the discussion beyond the ‘policy capacity and capabilities’ approach to connect with a wider range of insights from the policy sciences, aimed at considering the range of actions needed for limiting the potential of commissioners to ‘pass the buck’ in regard to evidence-based preventative health.

Background Patient and public involvement (PPI) in health‐care commissioning decisions has always been a contentious issue. However, the current moves towards Sustainability and Transformation Partnerships (STPs) in England's NHS are viewed as posing the risk of reducing the impact of current structures for PPI. Objective To understand how different members in clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) understand PPI as currently functioning in their decision‐making practices, and the implications of the STPs for it. Design Thematic analysis of 18 semi‐structured interviews with CCG governing body voting members (e.g. clinicians and lay members), non‐voting governing body members (e.g. Healthwatch representatives) and CCG staff with roles focussed on PPI, recruited from CCGs in South London STPs. Results There are contestations amongst CCG members regarding not only what PPI is, but also the role that it currently plays and could play in commissioning decision making in the context of STPs. Three main themes were identified: PPI is ‘going out’ into the community; PPI as a disruptive power; and PPI as co‐production, a ‘utopian dream’? Conclusions Long‐standing issues distinctive to PPI in NHS prioritization decisions are resurfacing with the moves towards STPs, particularly in relation to contradictions between the rhetoric of ‘partnership’ and reorganizations that foster more top‐down control. The interviews reveal pervasive distrusts across a number of levels that are counterproductive to the collaborations upon which STPs rely. And it is argued that such distrust and contestations will continue until a formalized space for PPI in STP priority‐setting is created.

To explore the role of a four-item Global Rating Scale (GRS) that could be used in place of the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II). A mixed four-factor design was used (User Type, Evaluation Type, Clinical Topic, Guideline). Participants were asked to read and evaluate a guideline using both the AGREE II draft and GRS or GRS only and to complete a series of questions regarding overall guideline quality, adoption, utility, and acceptability. One GRS item varied as a function of User Type. Each item was a significant predictor of participants' outcome measures. All items were rated as useful by stakeholders. The GRS rating scores, outcome measures, and usefulness scores did not vary between the two Evaluation Type conditions. Correlations between the GRS and the outcome measures were stronger compared with those between the AGREE II draft and these measures. Although the GRS is less sensitive than the AGREE II in detecting differences in guideline quality as a function of User Type, its items did predict important outcome measures related to guideline adoption. The GRS may play a role in guideline evaluation, although further study is warranted.

IntroductionClinical commissioning groups (CCGs) in England are tasked with making difficult decisions on which healthcare services to provide against the background of limited budgets. The question is how to ensure that these decisions are fair and legitimate. Accounts of what constitutes fair and legitimate priority setting in healthcare include Daniels’ and Sabin's accountability for reasonableness (A4R) and Clark's and Weale's framework for the identification of social values. This study combines these accounts and asks whether the decisions of those CCGs that adhere to elements of such accounts are perceived as fairer and more legitimate by key stakeholders. The study addresses the empirical gap arising from a lack of research on whether frameworks such as A4R hold what they promise. It aims to understand the criteria that feature in CCG decision-making. Finally, it examines the usefulness of a decision-making audit tool (DMAT) in identifying the process and content criteria that CCGs apply when making decisions.Methods and analysisThe adherence of a sample of CCGs to criteria emerging from theories of fair priority setting will be examined using the DMAT developed by PL. The results will be triangulated with data from semistructured interviews with key stakeholders in the CCG sample to ascertain whether there is a correlation between those CCGs that performed well in the DMAT exercise and those whose decisions are perceived positively by interviewees. Descriptive statistical methods will be used to analyse the DMAT data. A combination of quantitative and qualitative content analysis methods will be used to analyse the interview transcripts.Ethics and disseminationFull ethics approval was received by the King's College London Biomedical Sciences, Dentistry, Medicine and Natural and Mathematical Sciences Research Ethics Subcommittee. The results of the study will be disseminated through publications in peer review journals.

3 I was surprised, however, to read that NICE had abandoned plans to publish four evidence reviews of safe staffing in other settings, including mental health and community nursing. 4 Apparently, the reason is to avoid pre-empting future work on safe staffing by the new regulator NHS Improvement (formed by the merger of Monitor and the Trust Development Authority).