Skills

Health Policy Brief

8 weeks · 0 milestones

Write a health policy brief for a specific decision-maker audience on a real public health issue. Proof requires a brief (maximum 4 pages) covering: the problem with epidemiological evidence, at least 2 policy options with documented trade-offs, a recommendation with implementation considerations, and a budget implication note. The audience must be specific — a named government department, health board, or named NGO — and the brief must be formatted and scoped for that audience. Reviewed by someone with health policy experience. Generic policy briefs on abstract topics are not accepted.

Part of: Health & Medicine · Proves for: UG

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.

Powstik Guide

A two-page evidence synthesis on one policy problem.

Steps

Define the problem and population.
Gather published evidence.
Cite every claim.
Note where evidence is weak.

Template

Problem:
Scale (with source):
Evidence summary:
Gaps:

What gets sent back

Uncited claims.
Over two pages.
No evidence gaps noted.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

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.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

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.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

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.

Powstik Guide

A revised brief after critique from a policy audience.

Steps

Present to a public health or policy professional.
Get written feedback with name and role.
Revise the brief.
Log each change.

Template

Reviewer:        Role:
Feedback:
| Change | Why |
|--------|-----|

What gets sent back

No reviewer role.
No revision log.
Peer-only review.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

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.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Part of

Prove Your Public Health Chops →

Related outcomes

Milestone map

3 milestones

Select a health policy problem and synthesise the evidence base

2–3 weeks

Proof required

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.

Powstik Guide

A two-page evidence synthesis on one policy problem.

Steps

Define the problem and population.
Gather published evidence.
Cite every claim.
Note where evidence is weak.

Template

Problem:
Scale (with source):
Evidence summary:
Gaps:

What gets sent back

Uncited claims.
Over two pages.
No evidence gaps noted.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

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.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Write the policy brief with recommendations

2–3 weeks

Proof required

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.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Present the brief to a public health or policy audience and receive critique

1–2 weeks

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.

Powstik Guide

A revised brief after critique from a policy audience.

Steps

Present to a public health or policy professional.
Get written feedback with name and role.
Revise the brief.
Log each change.

Template

Reviewer:        Role:
Feedback:
| Change | Why |
|--------|-----|

What gets sent back

No reviewer role.
No revision log.
Peer-only review.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

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.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.