Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27633653›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2016

"It's a complex mesh"- how large-scale health system reorganisation affected the delivery of the immunisation programme in England: a qualitative study.

Tracey Chantler, Saumu Lwembe, Vanessa Saliba, Thara Raj, Nicholas Mays, Mary Ramsay, Sandra Mounier-Jack

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Decline in UK childhood vaccine uptake.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Tracey ChantlerLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Faculty of Public Health & Policy, London, UK. tracey.chantler@lshtm.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-7776-7339
Saumu LwembeLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Faculty of Public Health & Policy, London, UK.
Vanessa SalibaImmunisation, Hepatitis & Blood Safety Department, National Infection Service, Public Health England, 61 Colindale Avenue, London, UK.
Thara RajBristol City Council, Public Health, Bristol City Council, City Hall (formerly The Council House), College Green, Bristol, BS1 5TR, UK.
Nicholas MaysLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Faculty of Public Health & Policy, London, UK.
Mary RamsayImmunisation, Hepatitis & Blood Safety Department, National Infection Service, Public Health England, 61 Colindale Avenue, London, UK.
Sandra Mounier-JackLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Faculty of Public Health & Policy, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe English health system experienced a large-scale reorganisation in April 2013. A national tri-partite delivery framework involving the Department of Health, NHS England and Public Health England was agreed and a new local operational model applied. Evidence about how health system re-organisations affect constituent public health programmes is sparse and focused on low and middle income countries. We conducted an in-depth analysis of how the English immunisation programme adapted to the April 2013 health system reorganisation, and what facilitated or hindered the delivery of immunisation services in this context.

methodsA qualitative case study methodology involving interviews and observations at national and local level was applied. Three sites were selected to represent different localities, varying levels of immunisation coverage and a range of changes in governance. Study participants included 19 national decision-makers and 56 local implementers. Two rounds of interviews and observations (immunisation board/committee meetings) occurred between December 2014 and June 2015, and September and December 2015. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim and written accounts of observed events compiled. Data was imported into NVIVO 10 and analysed thematically.

resultsThe new immunisation programme in the new health system was described as fragmented, and significant effort was expended to regroup. National tripartite arrangements required joint working and accountability; a shift from the simpler hierarchical pre-reform structure, typical of many public health programmes. New local inter-organisational arrangements resulted in ambiguity about organisational responsibilities and hindered data-sharing. Whilst making immunisation managers responsible for larger areas supported equitable resource distribution and strengthened service commissioning, it also reduced their ability to apply clinical expertise, support and evaluate immunisation providers' performance. Partnership working helped staff adapt, but the complexity of the health system hindered the development of consistent approaches for training and service evaluation.

conclusionThe April 2013 health system reorganisation in England resulted in significant fragmentation in the way the immunisation programme was delivered. Some of this was a temporary by-product of organisational change, other more persistent challenges were intrinsic to the complex architecture of the new health system. Partnership working helped immunisation leaders and implementers reconnect and now the challenge is to assess how inter-agency collaboration can be strengthened.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorDelivery of Health CareEnglandGovernment ProgramsHealth Care ReformHumansImmunization ProgramsInterinstitutional RelationsOrganizational InnovationProgram EvaluationPublic HealthQualitative ResearchQuality of Health CareState MedicineDelivery of health servicesHealth reformsImmunisationOrganisational changePublic healthQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID27633653
PMCPMC5025625

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.