Marginalising prevention during Health Devolution in Greater Manchester? A qualitative study of the perceptions and experiences of public health professionals

Clicks: 2
ID: 319537
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #91 of 93 articles by views in turkish journal of public health

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are increasing moves across the globe towards devolution of various state services, including health. However, Greater Manchester (GM) is the only region in England with fully devolved health powers. A key feature of the policies supporting devolution in GM was a proposed uplift in focus and funding for prevention of ill-health. This was deemed important for supporting people's health and wellbeing, and economic stability. This study explores the experiences of people working in public health during devolution in GM, and seeks to understand the constraints and opportunities of this novel approach. METHODS: Forty two semi-structured interviews were conducted with people in public health roles in GM, examining how relational processes contributed to how prevention was perceived and enacted. RESULTS: Prevention work was considered less of a priority than treatment-centred activities in GM, both in terms of planning and practice. Some plans for increased prevention were neglected, and lacking direction, which tended to lead to stagnation of genuinely innovative prevention-based plans. CONCLUSIONS: Continued marginalization of prevention could be explained through processes such as lifestyle drift and the enduring prestige attached to treatment work. Despite the intentions behind the policies, there were instances where devolution seemed to exacerbate these tendencies.
Reference Key
openalex_W7167284704 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Chris White, Daniel Bloyce, Miranda Thurston, Paul Bissell
Journal turkish journal of public health
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/pubmed/fdag050
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdag050
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.