Judy Hart

Publications of Judy Hart

• Critical appraisal for public health: a new checklist.

  Authors: Richard F Heller, Arpana Verma, Islay Gemmell, Roger Harrison, Judy Hart, Richard Edwards

  Public health. 02/2008; 122(1):92-8.

  OBJECTIVES: There have been a number of attempts to develop critical appraisal tools, but few have had a public health focus. This paper describes a new checklist with public health aspects. STUDYOBJECTIVES: There have been a number of attempts to develop critical appraisal tools, but few have had a public health focus. This paper describes a new checklist with public health aspects. STUDY DESIGN: Review of previous appraisal instruments and pilot test of new checklist. METHODS: Criteria of particular reference to public health practice were added to well-established appraisal criteria. The checklist was piloted with 21 public health professionals, research staff or postgraduate students. RESULTS: The checklist is organized using the 'ask', 'collect', 'understand' and 'use' categories of the Population Health Evidence Cycle. Readers are asked to assess validity, completeness and transferability of the data as they relate to: the study question; key aspects of the methodology; possible public health implications of the key results; and the implications for implementation in their own public health practice. Of the 21 public health professionals that piloted the checklist, 20 said that they found the checklist useful and 18 would use it or recommend it in the future. Participants were prepared to commit to the majority of the questions, and there was good agreement with a consensus of 'correct' answers. CONCLUSIONS: The public health critical appraisal checklist adds public health aspects that were missing from previous critical appraisal tools.

• Levels of second hand smoke in pubs and bars by deprivation and food-serving status: a cross-sectional study from North West England.

  Authors: Richard Edwards, Christian P Hasselholdt, Kim Hargreaves, Claire Probert, Richard Holford, Judy Hart, Martie Van Tongeren, Adrian F R Watson

  BMC public health. 02/2006; 6:42.

  BACKGROUND: The UK government proposed introducing partial smokefree legislation for England with exemptions for pubs and bars that do not prepare and serve food. We set out to test the hypothesisBACKGROUND: The UK government proposed introducing partial smokefree legislation for England with exemptions for pubs and bars that do not prepare and serve food. We set out to test the hypothesis that pubs from more deprived areas and non food-serving pubs have higher levels of particulate air pollution. METHODS: We conducted a cross sectional study in four mainly urban areas of the North West of England. We recruited a stratified random sample of 64 pubs divided into four groups based on whether their local population was affluent or deprived (using a UK area based deprivation measure), and whether or not they served food. The timing of air quality monitoring stratified to ensure similar distribution of monitoring by day of the week and time of evening between groups. We used a portable air quality monitor to collect fine particle (PM2.5) levels over a minimum of 30 minutes in areas where smoking was allowed,, and calculated mean time-time weighted average PM2.5 levels. RESULTS: Mean PM2.5 was 285.5 microg/m3 (95% CI 212.7 to 358.3). Mean levels in the four groups were: affluent food-serving pubs (n = 16) 188.1 microg/m3 (95%CI 128.1 to 248.1); affluent non food-serving (n = 16) 186.8 microg/m3 (95%CI 118.9 to 254.3); deprived food-serving (n = 17) 399.4 microg/m3 (95%CI 177.7 to 621.2); and deprived non food-serving (n = 15) 365.7 microg/m3 (195.6 to 535.7). Levels were higher in pubs in deprived communities: mean 383.6 microg/m3 (95% CI 249.2 to 518.0) vs 187.4 microg/m3 (144.8 to 229.9); geometric mean 245.2 microg/m3 vs 151.2 microg/m3 (p = 0.03). There was little difference in particulate levels between food and non food-serving pubs. CONCLUSION: This study adds to the evidence that the UK government's proposals for partial smokefree legislation in England would offer the least protection to the most heavily exposed group--bar workers and customers in non food-serving pubs in deprived areas. The results suggest these proposals would work against the UK government's stated aim to reduce health inequalities.

• Levels of second hand smoke in pubs and bars by deprivation and food-serving status: a cross-sectional study from North West England

  Authors: Richard Edwards, Christian Hasselholdt, Kim Hargreaves, Claire Probert, Richard Holford, Judy Hart, Van Tongeren Martie, Adrian Watson

  BMC Public Health. 01/2006;

  Abstract Background The UK government proposed introducing partial smokefree legislation for England with exemptions for pubs and bars that do not prepare and serve food. We set out to test theAbstract Background The UK government proposed introducing partial smokefree legislation for England with exemptions for pubs and bars that do not prepare and serve food. We set out to test the hypothesis that pubs from more deprived areas and non food-serving pubs have higher levels of particulate air pollution. Methods We conducted a cross sectional study in four mainly urban areas of the North West of England. We recruited a stratified random sample of 64 pubs divided into four groups based on whether their local population was affluent or deprived (using a UK area based deprivation measure), and whether or not they served food. The timing of air quality monitoring stratified to ensure similar distribution of monitoring by day of the week and time of evening between groups. We used a portable air quality monitor to collect fine particle (PM_2.5) levels over a minimum of 30 minutes in areas where smoking was allowed,, and calculated mean time-time weighted average PM_2.5levels. Results Mean PM_2.5was 285.5 μg/m³(95% CI 212.7 to 358.3). Mean levels in the four groups were: affluent food-serving pubs (n = 16) 188.1 μg/m³(95%CI 128.1 to 248.1); affluent non food-serving (n = 16) 186.8 μg/m³(95%CI 118.9 to 254.3); deprived food-serving (n = 17) 399.4 μg/m³(95%CI 177.7 to 621.2); and deprived non food-serving (n = 15) 365.7 μg/m³(195.6 to 535.7). Levels were higher in pubs in deprived communities: mean 383.6 μg/m³(95% CI 249.2 to 518.0) vs 187.4 μg/m³(144.8 to 229.9); geometric mean 245.2 μg/m³vs 151.2 μg/m³(p = 0.03). There was little difference in particulate levels between food and non food-serving pubs. Conclusion This study adds to the evidence that the UK government’s proposals for partial smokefree legislation in England would offer the least protection to the most heavily exposed group - bar workers and customers in non food-serving pubs in deprived areas. The results suggest these proposals would work against the UK government’s stated aim to reduce health inequalities.