1. Foreword to the evaluation report
Introduction
This is a condensed version of the Evaluation Report commissioned by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) from RSM UK Consulting LLP (RSM) in partnership with NatCen Social Science Research to evaluate the ONS' role in the COVID-19 Infection Surveillance Programme.
COVID-19 was declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organisation on 12 March 2020. Virus containment efforts across the globe relied heavily on population quarantine ("lockdown") measures to restrict population movement and reduce individual contacts. To develop public health strategies for the UK's exit from lockdown there was an urgent need to understand SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission at a national and regional level.
The Office for National Statistics was commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) on 16 April 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, to develop and deliver a longitudinal study of the population prevalence of COVID-19 infection in the community, called the COVID-19 Infection Surveillance Programme (CISP, henceforth referred to as "the Programme"). The Programme has been running from April 2020 to present.
As detailed in the report the evaluation focussed on:
the legacy of the Programme, including recording an accurate and comprehensive description
how the ONS carried out the Programme, and whether it was delivered as intended
understanding the impact of the ONS' contribution, concentrating on testing the Theory of Change
identifying the Programme's key successes, challenges and lessons learned
Outline of successes and challenges
During the period to 31 March 2022 there were several surveys under the umbrella of the Programme:
COVID-19 Infection Survey – CIS
Schools Infection Survey – commonly abbreviated to SIS or SIS-1
Schools Infection Survey 2 – abbreviated to SIS-2
Vivaldi Care Home Study
Daily Contact Testing – DCT
By the end of March 2022, the CIS delivered over 8.4 million swab tests and 2.1 million blood tests since the inception of the programme, which supported published weekly bulletins, modelling the prevalence of COVID cases across all the nations of the United Kingdom. This was all produced by a highly skilled team of ONS analysts who, in addition to the regular bulletins, produced bespoke analysis when it was required, becoming an important part of the Government's Toolkit for making policy decisions.
The report refers to many positive findings on the delivery of the Programme and the impact of this, as well as some things we did not do so well. Difficulties around recruitment, workload and well-being were things that the Senior Leadership were constantly aware of. A number of initiatives were invested in to help staff through the journey. These included, but were not limited to, protected lunch periods, support sessions around dealing with grief and resilience with trained professionals, as well as increased visibility of senior leaders through Directorate-wide calls.
Response to recommendations
The report has referred to seven recommendations. The staffing recommendations are well known and were managed through internal prioritisation within the ONS. The COVID-19 pandemic was an unprecedented event and learning from the experience will be a key legacy, offering significant understanding of the nature and type of resource required, should a similar event arise in the future.
Several initiatives have been set up around well-being and mental health, championed at Director level, which regularly provides directorate-wide support sessions, as well as being available for individuals to supplement the established ONS-wide offerings through the Employee Assistance Programme.
The analytical teams are constantly reviewing the systems used, working with other government departments to optimise the outputs that are produced to help ensure there is a suite of information available. There are regular stakeholder engagements, which take place for publications and outputs, as well as more generic feedback through the Stakeholder Engagement Team. Additionally, the COVID Insights tool, which simply presents the latest picture from a range of data sources, continues to attract a large audience.
The targeted reach identified in the final recommendation appears to be from a low sample size. Our internal media team monitors public opinions through social media channels and media outlets. This has been done since before the survey was initiated and is reported to a wide ONS distribution on a daily basis. There has been nothing over the life of the survey to date which has been a cause for concern but the survey has appropriate escalation processes to address issues should they arise.
Overall, we are proud of how this report addresses the excellent work that has been undertaken, often in time-pressured situations, in order to produce weekly outputs, whilst reacting in an agile way to deal with the day-to-day issues of running a programme of this nature.
Nôl i'r tabl cynnwys2. Introduction
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) was commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) on 16 April 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, to develop and deliver a longitudinal study of the population prevalence of COVID-19 infection in the community, called the COVID-19 Infection Surveillance Programme (CISP, henceforth referred to as "the Programme"). The Programme has been running from April 2020 to present.
In April 2022, the ONS commissioned RSM UK Consulting LLP (RSM) in partnership with NatCen Social Science Research to evaluate the Programme between April 2022 and July 2022.
The evaluation activity covered:
the legacy of the Programme, including recording an accurate and comprehensive description
how the ONS carried out the Programme, and whether it was delivered as intended
understanding the impact of the ONS' contribution, concentrating on testing the Theory of Change
identifying the Programme's key successes, challenges and lessons learned
3. Programme activities and outputs
The evaluation considered the following workstreams within the Programme: the COVID-19 Infection Survey (CIS); the Schools Infection Survey (SIS); and wider programme activities such as COVD-19-related questions asked on the International Passenger Survey (IPS) and the COVID-19 Modelling Hub.
3.1 COVID-19 Infection Survey (CIS)
As the CIS was mobilised at pace (with fieldwork operation beginning approximately 10 days after being asked to develop the CIS) [note 1], there was a simultaneous focus on the Programme set-up and delivery of outputs. From April 2020, an initial team was formed with existing ONS resources and academic partners. By May 2020, there were six staff working in the Health Analysis and Pandemic Insight directorate (HAPI). Positions, funded by the Programme, grew at a fast pace during the initial months, amounting to 185 staff by August 2020. From November 2020, the number of Senior Executive Officer (SEO) and Higher Executive Officer (HEO) grades steadily grew to 202 staff, with a total for the Programme of 347 staff by November 2021.
The CIS aimed to find out how many people of different ages were getting COVID-19, with or without symptoms, and whether they had previously had COVID-19. This study included answering a series of standardised questions relating to various risk factors [note 2], alongside taking a swab from the nose and throat. Participants were also incentivised with vouchers (£50 for the first visit and £25 for subsequent visits). In March 2021, the CIS was expanded in scope, focusing on vaccine surveillance and monitoring antibodies. Blood tests were being used to determine if participants had previously had COVID-19.
By October 2021, over one million blood tests had been performed. There was a three-fold increase in blood sampling in just over seven months, and the volume of people being tested for antibodies stood at around 150,000 participants each month. As of March 2022, there had been over 8.4 million swab tests and almost 2.1 million blood tests completed across 4,435,685 households (267,912 unique households).
Outputs of the Programme
The analysis of these tests resulted in 104 weekly bulletins published on the ONS website, containing information on estimates of people who had COVID-19 in the UK, broken down by region, age, sex and COVID-19 variant. In addition to those weekly bulletins, there were 29 fortnightly bulletins on antibodies and vaccinations, 33 bulletins on characteristics of those with COVID-19, and seven technical articles released.
The results were also disseminated weekly to approximately 180 end users via Management Information Packs. These packs were intended to support operational decision making and included up-to-date information on positivity, analysis of new strains, whole genome sequencing, antibody analysis, re-infections, hospitalisations and deaths, subregional analysis, and PCR cycle threshold (CT) monitoring.
3.2 Schools Infection Survey (SIS)
Overall, the aim of the SIS was to help inform national policies to protect pupils and staff, and aid school recovery. SIS-1 had the additional aim of assessing the role of schools in COVID-19 transmission. In the school year 2020 to 2021, over 15,000 staff and pupils from 142 schools (55 primary and 87 secondary) were tested for current and past COVID-19 infection as part of SIS-1. As of April 2022, 12,605 antibody swabs had been collected from pupils from 173 schools (117 primary and 56 secondary) participating in SIS-2. In SIS-1, staff testing consisted of a nasal swab to detect current infection and a finger prick blood test to identify antibodies. Pupils completed a nasal swab test and placed a small sponge in their mouth to collect an oral fluid (saliva) sample to detect antibodies. In SIS-2, only antibody testing of pupils was carried out.
Positive swab test results were reported to participants via telephone; schools and the NHS Test and Trace Programme were also informed. For both SIS-1 and SIS-2, antibody results were reported back to participants a few weeks after the oral fluid (saliva) sample was tested. Follow-up online questionnaires were sent to parents and pupils after each round of testing to ask about their child’s health, their own health and information about other household members. In SIS-2, information was also collected on mental well-being, and opinions on COVID-19 vaccines. Parents responded on behalf of primary-aged pupils, whilst pupils in Years 7 to 13 completed the questionnaires themselves. Headteachers were also asked to complete follow-up questionnaires, which involved questions on COVID-19 control measures and mental health measures. In SIS-1, six datasets were released on the ONS website after each round of testing, which contained information on initial estimates of pupils and staff testing positive for current COVID-19 infection and antibodies, broken down by local authority, school type and participant type.
The analysis of both the test data and online questionnaires resulted in 13 bulletins published on the ONS website, containing information on the results of each study wave, mental health and long-COVID, physical activity and eating behaviours, and attitudes to vaccines and preventative measures. The outputs from the SIS had a wide reach. Between November 2020 and July 2021, there were 1,320 URL clicks on bulletin publications, and over a million impressions. Similarly, publications released in the period November 2021 to March 2022 have had 98,000 impressions and 129 URL clicks.
3.3 Other programme activities
The Vivaldi study aimed to understand the impact of COVID-19 in care homes. Care home managers were asked to report on the number of staff and residents in each care home, care home characteristics, prevalence of infection, and use of disease control measures by the homes. The survey was conducted over a four-week period, from 26 May to 19 June 2020, and in total, 5,126 out of 9,081 care homes (or 56% of care homes) in England responded to the survey. The survey results were then analysed and published in July 2020 as an article on the ONS website [note 3]. The ONS’ role was to provide the methodology to enable DHSC to weight their care home data.
Meanwhile, the Daily Contact Test (DCT) activity in schools, which measured the effectiveness of daily testing for close contacts of positive cases in schools, produced data through Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) and Lateral Flow Tests. Lateral Flow Tests were taken from staff and students at 201 secondary schools and colleges of further educations, as part of the England-wide school weekly mass testing programme, alongside separate PCR tests. The data from these tests were uploaded to the Secure Research Services (SRS) platform , which included anonymised data on close contacts, test and trace, and COVID-19 symptoms. The ONS DCT programme team also used a management reporting dashboard, which provided a breakdown of schools’ progress with testing and data reporting, to support the ONS’ role of cleaning data, which helped to facilitate the publication of the final report within two weeks of the end of the fieldwork (with Oxford University responsible for the analysis and reporting).
The International Passenger Survey is an existing survey that is undertaken by the ONS with international passengers arriving in or departing from the UK. As a part of the COVID-19 Surveillance Programme, this survey was updated in February 2021, and provided monthly figures on the attitudes of UK and overseas residents arriving in and departing from the UK towards social distancing, mask wearing, and COVID-19 restrictions, as well as the proportion who had been vaccinated. These figures have been compiled into publicly available datasets on the ONS website.
The COVID-19 modelling hub is a subsidiary of the CIS workstream and conducts both the development of statistical models and drafting statistical publications (for the ONS website and academic publications) relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. This work began shortly after the commencement of the pandemic, with its first publication – a report on mortality estimates by ethnicity – published in May 2020. Examples of analysis included risk prediction models for COVID-19, analysis of long COVID and vaccine uptake, inequalities and effectiveness.
Notes for: Programme activities and outputs
- COVID-19 Infection Surveillance Programme Mid-term Progress Report [ONS, January 2022]
- Information was collected on participants’ demographics (i.e. sex and ethnicity), work or education status, health status, COVID-19 infection symptoms and later vaccination.
- Impact of coronavirus in care homes in England: 26 May to 19 June 2020 [ONS, July 2020]
- The SRS platform is a secure server used by the ONS to allow researchers and academics access to data for research purposes.
4. The approach
The evaluation was undertaken via the following stages:
a desk review of existing documents and data relating to the Programme as submitted by the ONS in relation to the key lines of enquiry
data collection through an ONS staff survey, the SIS schools survey and public perceptions survey
qualitative interviews with ONS staff (21), end users (19), headteachers (6), and other programme users (7)
thematic analysis of interview notes and transcriptions to highlight commonalities within each key line of enquiry strand
The following section sets out the key aspects of the methodological approach at each stage, including the number of stakeholders contacted, number and percentage of responses received, and the approach taken.
Details of the methodology
Stage: Project initiation meeting
Approach
Meeting held with the ONS on 14 March 2022 to agree proposed methodology (to cover a process and impact evaluation, but not a scientific/epidemiological evaluation).
Details also discussed around: context; relevant documentation and data; evaluation plan; collaborative working and governance arrangements; risks; reporting and project management arrangements.
A project initiation document was produced, then in early April the evaluation plan was agreed, including all research tools.
Stage: Documentation and data review
Approach
A detailed documentation request was submitted to the ONS, requesting data on each of the areas of the Theory of Change and to assist in addressing each of the key lines of enquiry.
The review also informed stakeholder mapping, describing the Programme, its legacy and the process evaluation.
Stage: CIS – Survey of the ONS staff (online)
Approach
An online survey was distributed by the ONS team to 380 ONS staff across all grades and departments on 20 April 2022.
The survey consisted of 32 questions, most of which were closed questions using Likert-style response scales.
A three-week response period was provided, accompanied by regular weekly reminders throughout this period. However, due to a lower-than-expected number of responses, this was extended by one further week until 18 May 2022.
106 responses were received, representing a response rate of 27.9%. Data were analysed using Excel and Python, including descriptive statistics, cross-tabulations and statistical significance tests.
Stage: CIS – ONS staff interviews and case studies
Approach
Within the survey, staff were asked to volunteer to participate in a follow-on telephone interview with a member of the evaluation team; responses were also supplemented by targeted requests from the ONS team to specific departments and grades where survey completion rates were low.
21 staff participated in a telephone interview (via MS Teams) lasting approximately 45 minutes, using a semi-structured discussion guide.
Interviews were transcribed verbatim using MS Teams and were analysed using a coding framework in Excel.
From this, five case studies were purposively selected for development to showcase the role of different departments and illustrate strong examples of work during COVID-19.
Stage: CIS – Public perceptions survey (panel)
Approach
An online panel survey, administered by NatCen/Yonder took place between 11 and 12 May 2022.
Bespoke questions were constructed and added to Yonder's omnibus survey hosted on a secure online platform by the survey provider.
The survey consisted of eight core questions covering: awareness of the ONS and the CIS; accessing information; accessibility and impact of the CIS.
The survey had a quota sample of 2,012 adults, aged over 18, that was nationally representative of the public across Great Britain.
Data were analysed using Excel, including descriptive statistics, cross-tabulations and statistical significance tests.
Stage: SIS – School survey (online)
Approach
An online survey was distributed by the ONS SIS delivery team to 267 schools, between 27 April and 23 May 2022; regular reminders were sent to schools by the ONS over this period.
The survey consisted of 20 questions, most of which were closed questions using Likert-style response scales.
The survey was completed by one member of staff at each school, either the headteacher or the SIS school lead (for example, administration staff).
Data were analysed using SPSS, including descriptive statistics, cross-tabulations and statistical significance tests.
Stage: SIS – School interviews and case studies
Approach
Within the school survey, staff were asked to volunteer to participate in a follow-on telephone interview with a member of the evaluation team, to inform the development of a case study (see Case Study annex).
Five case studies were conducted with primary and secondary schools that participated in the SIS (either SIS-2 only or both SIS-1 and SIS-2); interviews were conducted with one or two staff members at each school, usually including the headteacher or the SIS school lead.
Each telephone interview (via MS Teams) lasted approximately 45 minutes, using a semi-structured discussion guide; interviews were audio recorded (with consent), transcribed verbatim and were analysed using a framework approach by case and theme within an overall matrix in Excel.
Stage: End-user survey (telephone) and case studies
Approach
Based on the stakeholder mapping, 33 end users (who used the outputs of the ONS' work) were identified and contacted by the ONS, to request their participation in the research.
Interviews were scheduled with 19 end users (with the remainder unable to participate within the study timeframes or declining to respond) via telephone or MS Teams using a semi-structured discussion guide.
Interviews were transcribed verbatim using MS Teams and were analysed using a coding framework in Excel.
From this, five case studies were purposively selected for development to showcase the range of ways in which the ONS' outputs were used.
Stage: Survey on other programme activities (telephone)
Approach
Based on the stakeholder mapping, seven interviewees who were involved in other aspects of the ONS' response to COVID-19 were identified and contacted by the ONS, to request their participation in the research.
Interviews were held with all seven individuals, using a semi-structured discussion guide, and transcribed via MS Teams.
From this, findings were analysed manually to showcase the range of other programme activities, along with outcomes and impacts of these.
5. Evaluation key findings
Key findings based on data collection and interviews are as follows:
5.1 Programme delivery
The Programme was one of the largest and most comprehensive prevalence studies delivered globally, during a period of national uncertainty and under unprecedented circumstances. Overall, the ONS staff, schools and end users reflected very positively on the delivery of the Programme and effectiveness of the outputs being delivered. The key findings include:
the size and scale of the Programme being established within a short period of time was seen as a major achievement
the Programme delivered high-quality outputs and was delivered as intended
the ONS staff were proud to have worked on the Programme
end users and schools felt the ONS staff were responsive in responding to queries related to the surveys
The ONS staff noted that staff recruitment, workload and well-being were challenges during the Programme.
5.2 Impact of the Programme
When the Programme was initially set up there were very few detailed prevalence datasets available nationally and internationally to inform pandemic policymaking. The Programme outputs were seen as timely, relevant, and effective by all stakeholder groups. They significantly informed the response to the pandemic, with outputs used as follows:
stakeholders used the information to support COVID-19 policies and tactical responses
end users used the Programme resources to support academic research and felt that the information (both granularity and presentation) was extremely useful
dissemination of CIS information may have influenced public COVID-19 behaviours
the ONS staff felt the reputation of the ONS had been enhanced by the Programme
some end users felt that Programme outputs would have been more useful if they had been provided even more rapidly but recognised that this may have led to compromises on the quality and detail of outputs
Overall, end users found the outputs from the CIS to be helpful in informing the decisions they made in responding to the pandemic.
5.3 Successes and Challenges
Successes
Outputs were seen as "gold standard" amongst the COVID-19 data available.
The ONS used both internal and external resources to establish the Programme at pace within just two months of a national lockdown.
The ONS staff were extremely satisfied with their work.
Programme outputs contributed significantly towards policies and decision making.
Programme outputs contributed significantly towards the understanding of COVID-19 prevalence and as a source of information to inform stakeholders' work.
The ONS successfully set up effective internal working groups across teams and circulated internal newsletters.
The ONS links with government departments improved because of the Programme.
The ONS raised their public profile, and their outputs were used almost daily in the media.
Challenges
Staff recruitment and retention were challenging due to the uncertainty surrounding the funding of the Programme and length of the pandemic.
It was difficult to work with stakeholders across multiple departments, to co-ordinate policy responses, at the rate at which outputs were required.
Ensuring the well-being of staff was a challenge; given not only the need to deliver at pace, but the impact of the ongoing pandemic on people personally and professionally.
5.4 Learning from the Programme
Drawing on the above successes and challenges, the key lessons for the ONS from setting up and delivering this Programme, which should be taken forward for other similar programmes, particularly other health surveillance projects or programmes, are detailed below.
The ONS should consider developing an emergency resourcing plan that builds in both the short-term emergency and longer-term response actions from this Programme. The approach taken to meeting resourcing needs included the use of secondments and fixed-term contracts; whilst this clearly provided the flexibility needed to meet requirements, some ONS staff also reported that it led to higher staff turnover. It was assumed that the pandemic would be short term, and therefore that short-term contracts would be most appropriate. Committing to a large permanent workforce to deliver the Programme would have likely represented poor workforce planning at the time, however longer-term contracts could have been implemented, as it became clear that the Programme would be in place for longer than initially anticipated. Work has already begun with the discussions taking place across the ONS at a senior level as to the future approach to programme-funded positions.
The ONS should consider regularly reviewing and ensuring the existing well-being initiatives that are being utilised and are effective in supporting staff well-being during periods of stress and high workloads, such as at the outset of this Programme. Some staff reported feeling stressed and experiencing significant workload pressures in the early stages of the pandemic. The ONS has already implemented a significant raft of well-being-focussed measures, which have likely alleviated these issues to some degree and can be further built upon. The ONS also performs well in national benchmarkable staff surveys and has been recognised for its staff well-being approach.
The ONS could use more comprehensive and better integrated dashboards for data presentation. Many government departments now expect, or prefer, dashboard products that allow them to view data in close to real time and run their own analyses and disaggregation. Some end users were not aware of the current offerings on the ONS website, whereas others did not view the current offer as sufficiently up-to-date or detailed. Front-line NHS and public health services need better-integrated dashboards across the ONS, NHS and the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) sources, with combined estimates of infection patterns disaggregated into useful and actionable groups. Furthermore, any future offer should be clearly advertised and communicated to governmental and academic stakeholders.
The ONS could communicate more on how outputs from the Programme were being used by stakeholders, in order to enable a greater understanding among ONS staff of the importance of their work. The only area for which staff displayed relatively low levels of satisfaction with their work on the Programme, was in understanding how end users were using the outputs in their own work. This means that some staff felt unaware of and disengaged with the policy decisions that their own work contributed to.
The ONS may want to consider how media coverage could be used to further enhance the profile of the ONS. The ONS was able to utilise media coverage of the Programme to increase its profile and recognition among the public. The ONS should build upon this opportunity to raise its profile and awareness among groups that are less aware of the ONS, as identified in the public perceptions survey. The public's view of the ONS, as an organisation, will likely be linked to their views on the government's overall response to the pandemic, unless the ONS' own work is communicated and advertised to them more thoroughly. Although the public do generally trust the ONS statistics, their levels of trust did not significantly change over the course of the pandemic.
5.5 Recommendations
Our recommendations regarding the Programme: were they carried out and were they delivered as intended?
These recommendations should be reviewed in the context within which the Programme was delivered: at pace in a turbulent and uncertain time, during the early days of the pandemic. These recommendations have been developed on the basis that the legacy of the Programme is largely very positive. They reflect lessons relating to the challenges and successes of the Programme so that the ONS might learn from these to deliver similar programmes more efficiently and effectively in the future. We suggest that these recommendations are reviewed and prioritised by the ONS, with an action plan developed to take each prioritised recommendation forward.
1. Develop an emergency resourcing plan
Review resource planning undertaken during the Programme, identifying what was required to deliver a programme of the size, scale and speed required by the CIS and the SIS during a pandemic, along with the supporting infrastructure.
Develop an emergency resourcing plan, which could be used to rapidly mobilise additional resources, should a similar need recur in future.
Reviewing resourcing currently and for future programmes might include: forecasting the need for initial and ongoing resourcing, which would be required to set up a programme of this scale and nature at pace in future; planning for rapid mobilisation and deployment of core teams; agreeing plans for redeployment of internal ONS resources (including a transition plan for those moving into new roles); and consideration of the appropriate balance between temporary and short-term contracts versus longer-term or more permanent opportunities, and their impact on attrition and retention.
Timescales
- Short term (within the next six months)
Who is involved?
- ONS – HR team and Directors or Deputy Directors of each department
2. Focus on staff well-being
The ONS should consider regularly reviewing processes and activities in place to support staff well-being.
Monitor the uptake and impact of well-being measures to ensure they are being used and that they are effective.
Timescales
- Short term (within the next six months)
Who is involved?
- ONS – HR team and Directors or Deputy Directors of each department
3. Timeliness of data
Work across the ONS to optimise the balance between quality assurance and timely data.
Given that the ONS' data are typically viewed as high quality and accurate; identify an optimum level of quality assurance, which ensures value for money, high-quality outputs whilst also providing as close to real-time data as possible, particularly in emergency situations, for end users.
Work with NHS and UKHSA on 'nowcasting' from combined surveys and routine testing data – reverse engineering the actions that need to be informed.
Timescales
- Medium term (within six to twelve months)
Who is involved?
- ONS – Directors or Deputy Directors of each department
4. Data presentation and visualisation
Work with end users to identify the best formats for sharing and showcasing data and information; this might include interactive techniques, which allow data to be shown at a variety of aggregation levels and classifications and explored in differing levels of granularity.
Gather requirements from decision-makers in local health and care systems who produced near-real-time, integrated data and intelligence tools such as CIPHA in pandemic responses.
Timescales
- Medium term (within six to twelve months)
Who is involved?
ONS – Directors or Deputy Directors working with Communications team
UKHSA
NHS England and NHS Improvement (NHSEI) Data and Intelligence
Recommendations on the impact of the Programme and whether it was delivered as intended
5. Identify opportunities to promote and share the successes of the Programme as it is being delivered
Review and refine internal feedback loops with the ONS staff, for example, by using case studies for internal and external marketing purposes, including for recruitment and hosting a "meet the end user" event.
Enable teams to reflect on successes and lessons at appropriate points in time.
Externally, the ONS should consider sharing the report with government, academics and end users, along with a potential presentation or webinar.
Timescales
- Short term (within the next six months)
Who is involved?
- The ONS evaluation team, all ONS staff and those who have participated in the evaluation (internally and externally)
6. Ongoing tracking of data usage, including identification of future opportunities
Continue to track use of the ONS data nationally and internationally, including academic outputs where timescales for publications are routinely longer.
This evaluation has been able to take a "point in time" view of such outputs achieved by March 2022, however there will be an ongoing impact around use of ONS data.
Showcasing the widespread and ongoing use of this dataset would be useful, given its reputation as "gold standard" within the academic/research community, and may lead to further (funding) opportunities for the ONS.
There may be further opportunities for the ONS to consider whether the dataset could be used for wider purposes to support "UK PLC" in becoming a beacon of research excellence internationally.
Timescales
- Longer term (next two to three years)
Who is involved?
ONS teams
NHSEI Data and Intelligence
UKHSA
Other bodies concerned with research and innovation across government (such as UK Research and Innovation (UKRI))
7. Targeted focus on groups where the ONS data has had less reach
Review findings and learnings from the public perceptions survey, particularly in light of those groups (women, younger people and those in lower socio-economic groups) who had lower levels of awareness of the CIS and so were less likely to benefit from it directly.
Work to find ways to engage with these groups, using a range of media and messaging techniques, in order to ensure that the positive outcomes achieved by other groups (such as increased awareness but also resulting impacts on health-promoting behaviours) are realised.
Timescales
- Longer term (next two to three years)
Who is involved?
- ONS – those with a focus on public communications, engagement and inequalities