CHAPTER 4: EVIDENCE-BASED POLICY|
Are Government policies evidence-based?
4.1. Behaviour change interventions based on
evidence about what works are more likely to be successful than
those which are not. We have concluded that there is marked lack
of research at a population level (see paragraph 3.11 above).
This leads us to two further conclusions: first, the Government
should take steps to ensure that this sort of research is undertaken;
and, secondly, policies should, insofar as is feasible, reflect
the evidence that is, or becomes, available.
EXAMPLES OF EVIDENCE-BASED POLICIES
4.2. We were given a number of examples of policies
which were, to a greater or lesser extent, designed to reflect
the available evidence. These included smoking cessation services
(see Box 1, page 20), the Health Trainers Intervention (see Box
15, page 49) and energy efficient products policy (see Box 6,
page 27). A common
feature of these examples is that they were all developed by,
or in consultation with, academics with expertise in changing
NHS Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training
|The NHS Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training (NCSCT) was set up after implementation of Stop Smoking Services (SSSs) across the United Kingdom. The Centre was established in 2009 "to assess training needs, develop training standards, pilot and evaluate training programmes, develop a certification system for smoking cessation practitioners, deliver the training across England and continuously evaluate it, develop an accreditation system for trainers and courses and contribute to national policy development". Professor Michie noted that the team at the NCSCT undertook systematic reviews and looked at the Cochrane evidence reviews, alongside analysis of DH data on smoking cessation. That evidence was then used to form the basis of outcome measures and interventions which have been put into practice. Assessment and training have been continually monitored and revised in order to learn from experience and to take account of scientific advances, new evidence and contextual changes. The training is evaluated by its impact on stop smoking success rates, using comparisons of success rates of practitioners against controls. Participants' feedback on the training as well as their self-reported confidence in their competences are also assessed and used to evaluate training.
EXAMPLES OF POLICIES WHICH WERE NOT EVIDENCE-BASED
4.3. We were also given examples of (previous and current)
Government policies which were not based on evidence. Two of these,
minimum alcohol pricing and the Act on CO2 campaign,
are described below (see Boxes 2 and 3, page 21). The case studies
provided further examples: witnesses observed that those commissioning
weight management interventions at a local level were often insufficiently
knowledgeable to make evidence-based decisions (see paragraph
7.24 below), and the DfT policies in relation to sustainable transport
were said not to reflect the evidence about the effectiveness
of disincentives to car use (see paragraph 7.36 below).
Act on CO2
|'Act on CO2' was a cross-Government brand launched in 2007 with the aim of getting people to reduce their carbon footprint. It included a range of communications activities relating to home energy usage, smarter driving and car purchasing. The Sustainable Development Commission noted that the campaign 'Act on CO2' had been criticised for "failing to communicate effectively with the public, for being too negative in its messages, and for not including any supporting interventions to address the barriers to adopting low carbon behaviours". The campaign is an example of how policy was not based on the available evidence because:
- It involved only the provision of information. The Green Alliance note that it is now widely known "that information deficit models in practice rarely work: information alone is insufficient to lead to action".
- It did not include a range of interventions within a multi-component package to tackle a number of causes of behaviour and barriers to change.
|Professor Kelly and Professor Michie told us in November 2010 that there was good evidence about the effectiveness of alcohol pricing on reducing alcohol related harm but that it had not fed through to Government alcohol policy. Subsequently, in January 2011, the Home Office announced a ban on the sale of alcohol below the rate of duty plus VAT.
This policy has been criticised however for not reflecting the evidence about the level at which pricing affects behaviour. Requiring alcohol to be sold for no less than the rate of duty plus VAT means that minimum price for a unit of beer would be around 21p and for spirits around 28p. The NICE guidance on preventing harmful drinking published in 2010 shows that at the minimum price level proposed by the Government, a reduction in consumption of between 0.1% and 0.4% could be expected. However, a minimum price of 40p per unit would reduce consumption by 2.4%, while minimum prices of 50p and 60p would reduce consumption by 6.7% and 11.9% respectively.
REASONS WHY POLICIES MAY NOT BE EVIDENCE-BASED
4.4. There are two reasons, in addition to a lack of applied
research at a population level (see paragraphs 4.9-4.16 below),
why policies are not always based on the best available evidence:
ministers are unaware of relevant evidence, or they are aware
of the evidence but choose not to reflect it in policy decisions.
4.5. Where ministers are unaware of relevant
evidence, this is a failure of the process by which the Government
are informed about research findingsa process often described
as the translation of research.
We were given a number of reasons for the breakdown of this process:
a lack of significant involvement of Government social scientists
and economists; an absence of adequate mechanisms for communication
between policy makers and external researchers; an inadequate
understanding of behavioural research by policy makers; and an
absence of adequate mechanisms for sharing knowledge within Government.
We consider how to address these problems in paragraphs 4.17 to
4.6. Even where ministers are aware of relevant
evidence, other factors may lead them to disregard it. This appears
to have been the case with current alcohol pricing policy (see
Box 3, page 21). Norman Baker MP, a Minister at the DfT,
explained: "evidence is best used to inform policy
but not to drive it in an unreconstituted way"; the Government
"have to make choices based not just on the evidence-base
but also on the political objectives of the Government
at a particular time, and to ensure fairness across the country".
Other considerations might include immediate reaction to events,
judgements about ethical acceptability, cost and cost-effectiveness.
These considerations might justifiably affect the extent to which
a policy is based on the available evidence.
4.7. We acknowledge that there will be occasions
when it is legitimate for a government not to implement behaviour
change interventions for which there is good evidence of effectiveness.
In these circumstances, however, we believe that ministers have
a responsibility to explain why they have decided not to do so.
4.8. We agree with the principle, stated in
the Government's Principles of Scientific Advice, that
ministers should explain publicly their reasons for policy decisions,
particularly when a decision is not consistent with scientific
advice and, in doing so, should accurately represent the evidence.
This places a responsibility on scientists and social scientists
within government to ensure that ministers are provided with accurate
and up-to-date advice on the available evidence about how to change
behaviour so that they can identify where and why they are not
basing policies on that evidence.
Addressing the barriers to evidence-based
APPLIED RESEARCH AT A POPULATION LEVEL
4.9. In paragraph 3.8, we conclude that there
is a lack of applied research at a population level. Mr Bartholomew
of the GSR told us about the "frustration" of policy
makers at the fact that, although there is very good academic
research, researchers often do not take the final step and answer
the question "what would you do about it?"
We were provided with a number of reasons why this sort of research
POOR EVALUATION OF GOVERNMENT BEHAVIOUR CHANGE INTERVENTIONS
4.10. It is clear that if the Government's attempts
to change behaviour at a population level were rigorously evaluated,
this would provide evidence about effective interventions. Evaluation
is discussed in Chapter 7.
FUNDING AND RESEARCH CAPACITY
4.11. There was disagreement in the evidence
we received about whether, on the one hand, there is research
capacity to conduct research at a population level but insufficient
funding available to support it or whether, on the other hand,
there is simply insufficient research capacity, so that further
funding would make little difference. The majority of the evidence
we received on this issue related to public health research.
4.12. The BPS suggested that the problem was
one of funding: there would be more research at a population level
if there were more "funding [of] evidence-based translational
research to develop cost-effective strategies that can be adopted
and utilised in practice".
Many other witnesses agreed. NICE argued, for example, that "the
UK's capacity for this kind of research is good with much potential"
(albeit "disparate and often highly individualistic")
but "there is not enough funding available for behaviour
change evaluation ..."
Professor Karen Lucas, Department for Transport Studies at
the University of Oxford, agreed, stating: "... there is
sufficient research expertise, but insufficient research funding
and not enough interdisciplinary interaction on this subject ..."
4.13. In relation to funding, Dr Halpern
and Professor Michie both highlighted the findings of a 2006
report by the UK Clinical Research Collaboration which estimated
that 2.5% of health research funding is spend on prevention and
just 0.5% on primary behavioural factors, despite the fact that
understanding how to change behaviour is of significant potential
benefit. DH responded:
"research with relevance to behavioural factors is supported
through most of our funding streams" but "spend on this
cannot be disaggregated from total spend across the portfolio".
4.14. Professor Dame Sally Davies, Director
General of Research and Development and Chief Scientific Adviser
for DH and the NHS, suggested that the block to behavioral research
was not a lack of funding but rather a lack of research capacity.
Other witnesses agreed that research capacity was the more important
issue. Professor Marteau
and Dr Haynes, for example, noted in relation to health research
"At the academic level and for health-related
interventions, the development of [National Institute for Health
Research] and the National Prevention Research Initiative means
that there is probably now as much money as there is capacity
to develop and evaluate interventions."
Professor Erik Millstone, Professor in
Science and Technology Policy at the University of Sussex, said,
more broadly, that "... there is very little capacity in
the UK to conduct research that is of practical relevance".
Dr Tim Chatterton, University of the West of England, agreed
that there was scope to build greater capacity in academia for
this kind of work.
4.15. We were, nonetheless, provided with a number
of examples of how the Government are providing funding for the
development of research at a population level in collaboration
with the research councils. 
We set out two of them below (see Boxes 4 and 5, page 24).
The Sustainable Behaviours Research Groups:
Defra and the ESRC
|The Sustainable Behaviours Research Groups were begun and funded by Defra, the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the Scottish Government in order to enhance the evidence-base in this field and specifically to develop research in a form that could be used by policy makers. The groups are researching issues including the rebound effects of behavioural changes, the role of routine and habit, and circumstances which facilitate or constrain sustainable behaviour. Both research groups are involved in evidence synthesis and investigating issues relating to the use of evidence by policy officials.
An advisory group has been established, made up of the funders, leading academics from the sustainability field and two independent members (one representing businesses and the other the third sector). This group provides a challenge function from the different fields of expertise and will optimise investments by broadening the reach of findings. Defra has also undertaken a policy timeline mapping exercise so that findings feed into policy objectives.
National Prevention Research Initiative (NPRI): DH
and the MRC
|DH Policy Research Programme spent £34 million in 2009-10. As part of this the department provides funding to the NPRI alongside the devolved governments and third sector organisations. The aim of the NPRI is to develop and implement successful, cost-effective interventions that reduce people's risk of developing major diseases by influencing their health behaviours. The NPRI has so far committed £33 million to research projects looking at the use of alcohol and tobacco, and diet and physical activity. The most recent calls for research proposal focus funding on cross-disciplinary research that has a large potential influence on population health.
In February 2011, Anne Milton MP, Minister for Public Health, established an National Institute for Health Research School for Public Health Research in order to increase the evidence-base for effective public health practice. DH has also established a Policy Research Unit on Behaviour and Health which will focus on behaviour such as diet and physical activity.
4.16. Whilst we welcome efforts by some departments to work
collaboratively with academics to develop behavioural research,
further capacity to conduct research at a population level needs
to be developed. Funding for research of this kind is a necessary
in order to build this capacity. The long-term evaluation of interventions
using population-representative samples will be expensive and
it will be necessary for funding to be made available before this
work can be carried out. We urge ministers to consult their
departmental Chief Scientific Advisers (CSAs) about whether the
amount of money spent on applied behaviour change research at
a population level is sufficient to meet their policy needs.
Translation of research
ROLE OF GOVERNMENT SCIENTISTS
4.17. Government scientists have an important role in ensuring
that academic research is used to inform policy decisions. Professor Kelly
noted the need for "a specialist way of making that link"
between researchers and policy makers, in order to bring the two
very different cultures together. This should be core work for
4.18. A cross-departmental social science resource
is provided by the Government Economic Service (GES) and the Government
Social Research service (GSR) which are responsible for giving
"evidence-based advice to support the rationale, objectives,
appraisal, monitoring, evaluation and feedback to support effective
policy making and delivery".
Government economists and social scientists are civil servants
who work within particular Government departments in order to
ensure that policies formulated within their department are "guided
by the best available analysis and evidence".
Mr Bartholomew, joint head of the GSR, described his role
within his department as ensuring that policy makers were made
aware of the most up-to-date scientific findings, including those
about behaviour change, in order to enable effective evidence-based
policy. The Government
Social Research Unit and Government Economic Service Team in HM
Treasury (now the combined Government Economic and Social Research
Team) provide the professional support and leadership for social
researchers and economists across all government departments.
THE GOVERNMENT CHIEF SOCIAL SCIENTIST
4.19. The Government's Chief Social Scientist
(CSS), the head of the social research profession in government,
has in the past been an independent expert in the social sciences.
The post has, however, most recently been filled by two government
social scientists from the Department of Education and the Department
for Work and Pensions.
Professor Sir John Beddington, Chief Government Scientific
Adviser (GCSA), confirmed that the CSS is a job currently "divided
between two civil servants".
The CSS sits on the Heads of Analysis (HoA) group alongside the
heads of the other analytical professions, including the GCSA
in his capacity as Head of Science and Engineering Profession,
and heads of profession for economics, statistics and operational
research. The role of the HoA group is to "provide leadership
to all analysts in government and champion first rate analysis
across government". 
4.20. The majority of government departments
also have a departmental CSA who works within their department
to "ensure that science and engineering are at the core of
decisions within departments and across government".
The network of departmental CSAs works closely with the GCSA through
the Chief Scientific Advisers Committee, one of the functions
of which is to facilitate communication on high profile science
issues and those posing new challenges for government.
We note however that departmental CSAs belong to a different profession
from that of the social scientists working within their departments
and it is not clear what responsibility CSAs have for the performance
and development of social scientists. Sir John Beddington
confirmed, when giving evidence to this Committee on science spending
in May 2011, that the Government "do not have anybody as
a Chief Scientific Adviser who has a background in social research
at the moment".
4.21. Professor Marteau was critical of
the GES and GSR and suggested they were not doing enough to drive
forward an agenda of evidence-based policy making.
Academics from the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences at
the University of Bath also noted that "the profile, status
and consequent influence of Government Social Research staff in
informing the policy strategy and delivery ... varies across different
We were also concerned to hear that current capacity within Government
with regard to behaviour change expertise was "variable"
and that though a few departments have some notable expertise,
others have less or none at all.
4.22. The limited reference to the GES and GSR
in the evidence we received suggests to us that they are not as
effective as they might be. We also note that evidence submitted
to us by the GES and GSR provides little detail about how they
intend to promote evidence-based policy.
4.23. Government scientists and social scientists
have an important role to play in facilitating the translation
of behaviour change research and in remedying the problems with
translation which we have identified. We recommend therefore
that, at the earliest opportunity, the Government appoint a Chief
Social Scientist (CSS) who reports to the GCSA and is an independent
expert in social science research to ensure the provision of robust
and independent social scientific advice.
4.24. We further recommend that the Government
consider whether existing mechanisms for the provision of social
scientific advice, in particular advice on behavioural science,
are fit for purpose. This should include consideration of how
departmental CSAs and social scientists within departments can
best work together to provide up to date social scientific advice
to support evidence-based behaviour change interventions.
BETTER LINKS BETWEEN THE ACADEMIC AND POLICY MAKING
4.25. Many witnesses highlighted the need for
closer working between behaviour change researchers and policy
makers to ensure that policies are properly informed by relevant
evidence. Some suggested that, given the complexity of the area,
researchers should be involved in intervention design from the
beginning. As we
have already observed, the examples of interventions which were
properly evidence-based were notable for their use of external
expertise. The BPS were brought into DH to design the Health Trainers
programme (see Box 15, page 49), and Defra's energy efficient
products policy was developed in collaboration with a broad range
of experts (see Box 6, page 27).
Energy efficient products
|Defra's energy efficient products policy was developed by a team of behavioural economists, social researchers and communications experts. The policy engaged the manufacturers and retailers to change the context in which the products were sold, using evidence about the importance of the environment in influencing people's decisions. Drawing on research into consumer purchasing patterns, interventions were also designed to raise the salience of energy efficiency at the point of decision making through labelling and communications campaigns. Between 1996 and 2007 the percentage of fridges and freezers purchased by consumers which were A-rated for efficiency increased from 5% to over 70%.
The Sustainable Development Commission described the policy on energy efficient products as evidence-based and, as a result, multi-faceted, making use of a number of different types of interventions, including communication and information provision alongside requirements on industry.
4.26. Other efforts to involve behavioural scientists in the
development of policy are also being made. We were told that one
of the functions of BIT was to bring in external experts on an
ad hoc basis and invite the relevant departments to meet
them. The departments
also provided some examples. DH had developed an arrangement with
BPS for the provision of health psychologists to advise on evidence
about behaviour change.
Though that arrangement has come to an end, Dr Sunjai Gupta,
Head of Public Health Strategy and Social Marketing at DH, said
that his team continued to include a health psychologist.
4.27. Gemma Harper, Chief Social Scientist at
Defra, told us that her department work closely with their departmental
scientific advisory council and expert committees. They were also
working with the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC)
on proposals for a social science orientated expert committee
in order to ensure that they had the best advice, external to
government, on behaviour change.
Liz Owen, Head of Customer Insight at DECC, said that, in relation
to development of energy efficiency policy, her department was
engaging with external experts. She admitted, however, that this
was an area in which DECC had "more to do".
4.28. Links are also being made with the research
community through internships and research placements. Dr Rachel
McCloy, a psychologist from the University of Reading, was an
ESRC-funded Public Sector Research Fellow based in HM Treasury.
She has been involved in developing a Behavioural Science in Government
Network and compiling a database on work across Government (see
paragraph 4.38 below).
Dr McCloy told us that arrangements such as her fellowship
were "very useful in bringing academics in" so that
they could see "what it's like on the other side of the table".
Dr Chatterton, an ESRC-funded placement fellowship at DECC,
told us that placements were "a great way forward".
His placement had "opened [his] eyes to how big the gulfs
are between the world of government policy making and the world
4.29. Though many witnesses supported these mechanisms
for linking behavioural scientists and policy makers more closely,
some suggested that more needed to be done.
The Green Alliance, for example, said that placements and ad
hoc consultation would not be enough for "government
to keep on top of the wealth of academic progress, and to ensure
the latest research is impacting on decision-making" but
that a "greater dedicated resource" was required.
4.30. Departmental CSAs, whether or not they
have experience of the sciences of human behaviour, should be
responsible for establishing and maintaining contacts with leading
behavioural scientists with expertise relevant to their policy
areas and for consulting them as necessary.
BEHAVIOURAL INSIGHTS FOR POLICY MAKERS
4.31. The final link in the translation of research
is that between scientists and policy makers. A number of witnesses
suggested that policy makers themselves should become more familiar
with behavioural insights and their potential importance for improving
policy. Dr Halpern
said that a mark of success for BIT would be widespread expertise
in behavioural approaches within five years and that BIT was working
with the head of profession for policy making to embed insights
about behaviour change across Whitehall. We received, however,
no indication of how this would be achieved.
4.32. We recommend that the Cabinet Secretary,
in consultation with the GCSA and CSS, once appointed, should
take steps to ensure that civil servants with responsibility for
policy making have the necessary understanding of the importance
of changing behaviour and can identify the most appropriate people
to consult in their own departments about the development of behaviour
GUIDANCE TO POLICY MAKERS
4.33. There are a number of resources available
to help policy makers understand behaviour change and design policies
which take on board behavioural insights. These include the MINDSPACE
report, produced by the Cabinet Office and the Institute for Government;
a review by the GSR which discusses models of behaviour change
and provides a framework for designing interventions based on
their models; a report
by the Central Office of Information which also summarises models
of behaviour change;
NICE public health guidance on behaviour change at population,
community and individual levels;
and Defra's framework for pro-environmental behaviours, the four
Es (adapted by
the MINDSPACE report into the 6 Es).
4.34. Despite this wealth of material, witnesses
observed that none of the guidance provided an accessible, multi-disciplinary
framework for designing behaviour change interventions. Furthermore,
the sheer quantity of guidance, none of which covered everything
and much of which was too detailed, was potentially confusing
4.35. We recommend that the Cabinet Office,
in consultation with the CSS, once appointed, consider how to
consolidate the available guidance in a form which is evidence-based
and accessible to policy makers.
4.36. We further recommend that NICE updates
its 2007 Behaviour Change Guidance and considers whether accessible,
multi-disciplinary guidance could be provided in relation to health-related
behaviour change policies, particularly to offer more explicit
advice on how behaviour change techniques could be applied to
reduce obesity, alcohol abuse and smoking.
SHARING KNOWLEDGE ACROSS GOVERNMENT
4.37. Several witnesses identified a need for
better coordination of what is known about behaviour change within
and across government.
GES and GSR, for example, said that there should be:
- more shared practice in terms
of what works and what does not work in influencing behaviour;
- mechanisms for bringing people working in this
area across government together to promote good practice as well
4.38. The primary mechanism for achieving better
co-ordination appears to have been Dr McCloy's work.
The Behavioural Science in Government Network is to be supported
by a "Civil Pages community" which will act as a "forum
for the sharing of relevant information on work in this area across
government ... [incorporating] an inventory of work on behaviours
across Government ... [and] extant reports on behaviour change,
and information about relevant events [and] research developments".
Dr McCloy said that the Network had been successful in bringing
This view was supported by Ms Harper.
Dr McCloy's appointment as Research Fellow is however time-limited
and it is unclear how her work will be continued. When we asked
Mr Bartholomew, he said that GES and GSR were "looking
at other options for fellowships".
Several witnesses were concerned about detrimental consequences
arising from a lack of continuity of Dr McCloy's work.
4.39. A function of BIT is to "foster more
inter-departmental discussion about the effectiveness of different
means of changing behaviour".
The Government told us that a number of departments, including
Defra, DECC and DH, have already contributed to Government understanding
and knowledge about behaviour change and that heads of professions
had a role in disseminating that knowledge.
We were also told that government officials, particularly members
of the GES and GSR, sometimes went into other departments to help
4.40. It is not clear how, or how well, these
different resources work togetherhow, for example, the
work of BIT relates to the Behavioural Science in Government Network,
or how departmental scientists and policy makers participate in
either. Andrew Lee, Director of the Sustainable Development Commission,
also argued that "there is not nearly enough connecting up
between the Cabinet Office and Defra, which have now developed
quite a lot of expertise in this area. We had a lot of feedback
in our work about officials not knowing where the evidence was,
or what other people were doing".
The Central Office of Information agreed that the structures to
join up the different silos of expertise were not yet in place,
though also noted that many of these areas of expertise were focused
on particular disciplines. A mechanism to join up experts across
disciplines was needed to ensure that interventions were strategically
planned, and they suggested the creation of a cross-government
4.41. There are a number of different mechanisms
in place for sharing knowledge but too much activity can make
sharing knowledge more difficult rather than easier. We recommend
that the Cabinet Office, together with the GCSA and CSS, once
appointed, review the current mechanisms for sharing knowledge
about behaviour change among Government departments with a view
to introducing a more streamlined structure.
4.42. We recommend further that this revised
structure should involve the continuation of work begun on the
"inventory of behaviours" in order to establish an archive
of behaviour change interventions. This archive should provide
accounts of the evaluation of the interventions and include unsuccessful
as well as successful interventions.
48 We note that the Health Trainers programme had substantial
flaws in its evaluation and so must be considered poorly designed
in that regard; however, its design did reflect the available
BC 27. Back
BC 83. Back
BC 107. Back
HC Deb 18 January 2011 col 34WS. Back
Alcohol use disorders-preventing harmful drinking, NICE
BC 83, Q141. Back
BC 52, BC 83, BC 99, BC 100, BC 110, BC 113, Q 131. Back
Q 733. Back
Q 33. Back
BC 105. Back
BC 52. Back
BC 11. Back
UK Health Research Analysis, UK Clinical Research Collaboration
BC 151. Back
BC 44, BC 128. Back
BC 110. Back
BC 28. Back
Q 144. Back
QQ 59, 79, 116, 120, 301, 311. Back
Q 159. Back
BC 24. Back
Q 18. Back
Q 45. Back
Transcript of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and
Technology, Tuesday 24 May 2011 (Q 14). Back
Science and engineering in Government, Government Office
for Science (October 2009). Back
Transcript of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and
Technology, Tuesday 24 May 2011 (Q 14). Back
BC 110. Back
BC 54. Back
BC 31. Back
BC 38, BC 105, BC 108. Back
Q 71. Back
BC 114, Q 71. Back
BC 83. Back
QQ 13, 703. Back
Q 78. Professor Michie noted however that the formal consultancy
arrangement with the British BPS had come to an end (Q130). Back
Q 79. Back
Q 329. Back
Q 1. Back
Q 31. Back
Q 144. Back
BC 103, BC 107, BC 125. Back
BC 107. Back
BC 83, BC 110. Back
MINDSPACE, Cabinet Office and the Institute for Government
GSR behaviour change knowledge Review, GSR (2008). Back
Communications and behaviour change, Central Office of
Information (2009). Back
Behaviour change at population, community and individual levels,
NICE (2007). Back
Q 53. Back
MINDSPACE, op. cit. p. 9. Back
BC 9, BC 52, BC 86, BC 105. Back
BC 52. Back
BC 24. Back
BC 114, Q 26. Back
BC 24. Back
Q 31. Back
Q 80. Back
Q 33. Back
BC 76, BC 82. Back
BC 114. Back
Q 18. Back
Q 601. Back
BC 76. Back