Published 12th January 2022

By Peter Craig, on behalf of the Unlocking Data team.

In a recent blog we set out the aims and way of working of our Unlocking Data Project, and some themes that had emerged from two workshops with producers and users of public health evidence. With three workshops and our scoping review of how secondary data is used in public health decision-making now completed, it is timely to reflect on emerging findings.

In our first two workshops we asked participants – decision-makers and analysts in public and third sector organisation - first to think broadly about the use of evidence in decision making, and then to focus on three case studies of cross-sectoral data linkage. We hoped that using case studies would encourage people to think about the specific strengths and weaknesses of current processes, rather than just about what an ideal system might look like. In our third workshop, we asked participants to generate recommendations for change, then to refine the wording of any that were unclear and group them under common themes. Finally, we asked participants to suggest who should be responsible for implementing each recommendation, indicate whether it should be considered a short, medium or long term action, and then categorise it on an impact/effort matrix.

The first task generated more than 70 separate recommendations. They ranged from broad political commitments through to detailed governance or technical matters. Looking across the range of recommendations, a number of themes stand out. One is the need to ensure that the public understands how data is being linked and shared and is engaged in the process. Others were more technical or procedural, such as the value of standardising procedures across institutions and datasets, and of decluttering the information governance landscape. The need for a proportionate approach to risk, that acknowledges (as the Caldicott principles do) the cost of missed opportunities was strongly advocated, as was the need to build capacity and expertise. Underpinning everything else, participants identified the importance of political leadership and commitment to making change happen.

Although some recommendations were intrinsically long term (e.g. the need to plan much further ahead) most were seen as things which could be implemented in the medium term. It was also encouraging that many were seen as high impact yet not necessarily high effort.

As well as the substantive findings of the study we’ve learnt a lot about using stakeholder workshops as a research tool – that is, as a means of gathering evidence and insights, rather than just as a way of sharing findings. For all the frustrations of using virtual meeting platforms, such as the lags that make conversation stilted and their perplexing refusal to work as well in a live session as they did in rehearsal, there are real efficiencies in hosting workshops on line rather than face to face. They are cheaper, both for conveners and participants, and fit more easily into busy schedules. The range of additional tools for collecting and recording participants’ input is growing rapidly and we in the research team have learnt new skills that we can apply to other projects.

Careful preparation is critical in making the most of scarce time with participants (no surprise there!) but by working with a clear set of questions and using a structure that encourages progression from the generation of ideas, through to appraisal and review, we have come away from the third workshop with a structured set of possible recommendations. Each is linked to a specific actor, such as central or local government, and categorised according to the effort involved in its implementation and its likely impact. The next task for the research team is to refine the recommendations by removing duplication, fine-tuning the wording and grouping them into a set of specific, implementable actions, that we can sense-check with a wider range of stakeholders.

Throughout the workshops, and in our first few meetings with other organisational stakeholders to share emerging findings, we have been struck by a shared sense of the value of cross-sectoral data linkage and an openness and commitment to making the process work better. We have been very conscious of asking busy people, many of whom are dealing with a pandemic in their day-to-day work, to take time out to think about changes whose benefits will be felt month or years in the future. We’re immensely grateful for their commitment of time and effort and encouraged by their willingness to invest in the study to believe that what we are doing is worthwhile.

First published: 12 January 2022

<< Improving Health Blog