Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Select a health policy problem and synthesise the evidence base
2–3 weeks
Choose a specific health policy problem (e.g. NHS waiting time targets, HPV vaccination uptake in boys, sugar tax effectiveness, opioid prescribing reduction, or equivalent). Conduct a structured literature search (PubMed, PHE, WHO, NICE, or equivalent) and synthesise the evidence: what does the evidence show about the scale of the problem, what interventions have been tried and what was their evidence of effect, and what are the key evidence gaps? Produce a 2-page evidence synthesis.
Proof required
Submit your 2-page evidence synthesis with all claims cited to published sources. The synthesis must cover: scale of the problem (with prevalence data), what interventions have evidence, and at least one key evidence gap.
What gets checked
- All prevalence claims are cited — 'this is a major problem' without figures and sources does not qualify.
- Intervention evidence section distinguishes what has strong evidence from what has weak or mixed evidence.
- Evidence gap is specific — not 'more research is needed' but identifying exactly what question is unanswered and why it matters for policy.
Common mistakes
- Evidence synthesis that describes the health problem without reviewing what has been tried — both are required.
- Intervention evidence that lists studies without assessing their quality — critical appraisal must be implicit.
- Evidence gap that is too generic — 'we need more research on this topic' is not a policy-relevant evidence gap.
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
Masteryfor the dedicated
What a verifier looks for
- Ask the student to state the strongest piece of evidence they found for an intervention in their policy area.
- Ask what the key evidence gap is and what specific study would fill it.
- Check that prevalence data is cited with year and source.
Write the policy brief with recommendations
2–3 weeks
Produce a policy brief (4–6 pages) structured for a non-specialist decision-maker audience: an executive summary (one page), the problem statement (with evidence), current policy landscape (what policies exist, what they achieve), three specific policy recommendations with supporting rationale and feasibility analysis, and implementation considerations (cost, stakeholder acceptance, monitoring). Each recommendation must be evidence-based, specific, and actionable by a named decision-maker.
Proof required
Submit your completed policy brief (4–6 pages) with all recommendations linked to evidence from your synthesis, a named decision-maker for each recommendation, and feasibility considerations for each.
What gets checked
- Each recommendation is specific and actionable — 'improve public health funding' is not a specific recommendation; 'Increase NHS England's public mental health budget by £X million to fund Y specific programme in Z settings, commencing in financial year YYYY/YY' is.
- Each recommendation names a decision-maker — 'policymakers should act' is not a named decision-maker.
- Feasibility analysis addresses at least cost and stakeholder acceptance for each recommendation.
Common mistakes
- Recommendations that are too vague to be implemented — a decision-maker cannot act on 'address health inequalities'.
- Evidence base not linked to the recommendations — recommendations must flow from the synthesis in M1.
- No feasibility analysis — a recommendation without feasibility consideration is not actionable.
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Ask the student to state their strongest recommendation in one sentence — tests specificity and actionability.
- Ask who the named decision-maker is for recommendation 1 and why they were chosen.
- Check that the feasibility section addresses real-world implementation barriers.
Present the brief to a public health or policy audience and receive critique
1–2 weeks
Present your policy brief in a 20-minute structured presentation to at least one person with public health, health policy, or health management experience — a public health registrar, a commissioning manager, a health economist, an academic with public health expertise, or equivalent. Collect written feedback on the quality of the evidence, the specificity of the recommendations, and their feasibility. Revise your brief based on the feedback and produce a revision note identifying changes made.
Proof required
Submit your revised policy brief, written feedback from the reviewer (with their name and role), and a revision note identifying at least 2 changes made and the feedback that prompted each.
What gets checked
- Reviewer has public health, health policy, or health management experience — not a general clinician or peer student.
- Revision note links specific changes to specific feedback.
- At least 2 substantive changes are made — not cosmetic edits.
Common mistakes
- Reviewer without public health or policy experience.
- Revision note that lists changes without linking them to reviewer feedback.
- No substantive changes — a well-crafted brief always has room for improvement at this stage.
Resources
Foundationstart here
What a verifier looks for
- Verify reviewer credentials in public health or health policy.
- Ask what the most challenging critique of the brief was.
- Check that revision note changes are substantive.