Research and analysis

UKHSA Evaluation Strategy: June 2026 to 2029

Published 30 June 2026

Executive summary

The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA)’s ability to protect the public’s health relies on timely, high quality and trusted evidence. Evaluation is central to this. It enables UKHSA to understand what works, for whom, and at what cost. It also ensures that scientific, operational and policy activity delivers real-world impact.

This Evaluation Strategy sets out how UKHSA will plan, conduct and use evaluation as a core organisational function that supports decision making, accountability, economic efficiency and continuous improvement.

The strategy defines a set of clear aims. These focus on alignment to decisions, proportionate delivery, strong governance, equity, transparency and the active use of findings. Together, these aims ensure that evaluation is consistent and useful. UKHSA will use evaluation not just to generate evidence, but to improve decisions. Findings will inform priorities, improve services, establish value for money and strengthen preparedness. Evaluation is therefore not only a technical or analytical function, but a core part of how UKHSA learns, adapts and remains accountable for real world outcomes.

Strong governance supports this work. The Evaluation Steering Group (ESG) leads implementation with oversight from the Science Governance Committee (SGC). UKHSA will continue to use a mixed delivery model, combining internal expertise, academic partnerships and commissioned work. Capability will be strengthened through shared tools, templates, targeted training and the Evaluation Community of Practice.

Success will be measured by how evaluation is used and whether it improves decisions and outcomes.

Why evaluation matters for UKHSA

UKHSA’s mission to protect the nation from infectious diseases and environmental hazards depends on timely, high quality, and trusted evidence to inform decisions. Evaluation is essential to achieving this.

Evaluation:

• generates evidence on impact and effectiveness across surveillance, laboratories, modelling, services and interventions
• informs prioritisation and investment decisions including demonstrating value for money
• supports the development and updating of advice and guidance to the public, professionals and policymakers, ensuring it is evidence based, proportionate and responsive to emerging risks
• supports innovation while managing risk
• strengthens preparedness, response and recovery
• addresses health inequalities and minimising unintended consequences

It also helps ensure public resources are used well. Economic evaluation supports decisions by comparing costs and benefits. This is increasingly important for accountability, transparency and stewardship of public funds.

Evaluation mission and vision

Evaluation mission

To ensure UKHSA’s decisions and actions are informed by robust evaluation evidence that improves effectiveness, equity, preparedness and value for money.

Evaluation vision

Evaluation is an integral, routine and influential part of how UKHSA operates. It is embedded from design to delivery; proportionate, transparent and independent; and used to shape decisions.

Evaluation supports learning and accountability. It helps UKHSA respond quickly and adapt to changing risks.

Purpose and scope

Purpose

This strategy sets a single, organisation-wide framework for evaluation across UKHSA. It explains how evaluation is planned, delivered and used. Its aim is to ensure decisions are informed by strong evidence and that learning leads to improvement.

Scope

This strategy applies to evaluation (see Definitions) of UKHSA-delivered and UKHSA-led public health programmes, policies and interventions (see Definitions). It also includes work commissioned from UKHSA by other bodies, such as the NHS or the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC).

It covers a broad range of evaluation types, including impact, process and economic evaluations (including value-for-money assessments). While different evaluation types require distinct capabilities and governance routes, they are unified by common strategic aims and expectations for quality, use and learning.

It does not cover audit, routine monitoring, performance management, or quality assurance. However, these functions support evaluation design, interpretation and use and the strategic aims and tools captured within the strategy may be deployed to other operational evaluation activity within UKHSA.

The strategy aligns with the Cabinet Office Evaluation Task Force guidance, including expectations on governance, prioritisation, proportional resourcing, robust methods, capability, transparency, publication and periodic review.

Definitions

Evaluation

Evaluation is the process of assessing the value of an activity, how it operates and whether it has achieved what was intended. Evaluations may use quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods to assess the effectiveness, efficiency and impact of interventions. Evaluations may also consider health equity, inequalities, sustainability and cost-effectiveness.

Public health interventions

Public health interventions are activities which seek to improve health or prevent disease at the population level. Public health interventions reduce or mitigate risk factors and may be delivered by any organisation or individual (including the public) to specific communities, population sub-groups or whole populations. Individuals may also gain a health benefit from receiving a public health intervention.

Strategic aims for good evaluation at UKHSA

UKHSA will apply the following strategic aims to ensure evaluation is well designed, learned from and impactful.

Decision focused and strategically aligned

Evaluation should be designed around clear decisions and mapped to UKHSA’s strategic objectives. Questions, timing and outputs should match decision needs.

Prioritised, proportionate and timely

Evaluation should match the scale and risk of the issue. Rapid approaches should be used where needed.

Rigorous and credible

Methods should be appropriate and robust. Quality should be balanced  with feasibility.

Integrated

Evaluation should be part of routine work.  It should support delivery and improvement, not be a separate or downstream activity.

Transparent and well governed

Evaluation should follow data, ethical, and governance standards, with scientific independence maintained in line with the UKHSA Framework of Scientific Integrity and the Concordat to Support Research Integrity. Evaluations should be transparent about assumptions, uncertainty and limitations. Findings should be shared clearly and honestly.

Equitable and inclusive

Where appropriate, evaluation should assess impacts across different groups.  It should support reducing inequalities and minimise unintended consequences.

Actionable and impactful

Evaluation should produce clear, useable findings. Outputs should support decisions and track how evidence is used.

Capability building and learning oriented

UKHSA will strengthen evaluation skills through  training, tools and shared  learning.

Governance and oversight

Governance ensures evaluation is coordinated, ethical, integrated, high quality and impactful. UKHSA operates a proportionate governance model that provides visible ownership, assurance and alignment with cross-government expectations. Figure 1 summarises UKHSA’s evaluation governance and oversight arrangements and how responsibilities align across directorate, corporate and executive levels.

Figure 1. UKHSA’s evaluation governance and oversight arrangements

Figure 1 is a flowchart illustrating evaluation governance and oversight structure, showing progression from ‘Evaluation activity initiated’ through various committees to ‘Executive Committee’.

Key components include Directorate-level governance, Evaluation Steering Group (ESG) with strategic oversight, Science Governance Committee handling escalation and decisions, and involvement of external partners and communities of practice.

Ownership and accountability

Evaluation Steering Group (ESG)

The ESG:

• leads, maintains and assures the strategy and coordinates its implementation across the organisation
• oversees prioritisation and coordination of evaluations of public health interventions
• escalates evaluations with high sensitivity, significant organisational or policy implications to SGC
• ensures learning from evaluations is synthesised and shared

Science Governance Committee (SGC)

The SCG:

• provides executive oversight and accountability
• reports to Executive Committee (ExCo)

Research, Ethics and Governance Group (REGG)

The REGG:

• oversees research ethics and classification
• ensures alignment with research prioritisation and governance frameworks

Directorates

The Directorates:

• apply the Strategy locally, ensuring proportionate quality assurance and clear publication and learning routes
• liaise with the Evaluation and Epidemiological Sciences Division or SGC directly – they may choose to appoint an evaluation lead if helpful

Evaluation Community of Practice (CoP)

The Evaluation Community of Practice (CoP):

• encourages portfolio level learning across the organisation
• builds capability, shares best practice and learning through seminars, training and peer exchange
• facilitates internal and external collaboration (including NIHR health protection research units (HPRU), NHS and devolved administrations)
• encourages and supports the effective use of evaluation evidence

The CoP does not function as an approval body.

Analysis Function

The UKHSA Analysis Function supports all analysts in UKHSA to ensure analytical work of the Agency is of the highest quality and informs key decisions of the Agency to support UKHSA’s mission to keep communities safe, save lives and protect livelihoods.

Through the Analysis Function Board, it sets direction for cross-cutting analysis issues such as

• raising analytical capabilities, adoption of analytical standards and establishing robust analytical governance.
• supporting and enabling UKHSA’s analysis professions and communities of practice, including the Government Social Research profession which has strong links to the evaluation community of practice.

Monitoring and improving compliance with the Government Functional Standard for Analysis, including the use of government analysis standards such as The Green Book and Magenta Book by those carrying out appraisals and evaluations.

Standards and analytical quality assurance

Evaluation designs will apply the Magenta Book principles via UKHSA’s established governance routes, with proportionate approaches to ethical review, data protection, and analytical quality assurance. They will align with the UKHSA Data Strategy, ensuring that data is managed, shared and used responsibly to maximise public value, enable reproducibility and support high quality analysis across the organisation.

As a Public Sector Research Establishment (PSRE), UKHSA is committed to upholding the highest standards of research integrity, scientific independence and transparency, in line with the Framework of Scientific Integrity and the Concordat to Support Research Integrity. Evaluations of public health interventions will follow the UKHSA Evaluation Framework and principles, which are currently under development and are designed to complement the Magenta book for UKHSA’s specific organisational and operational context.

Transparency, publication and registry

UKHSA commits to proportionate and accessible publication of evaluation outputs with accessible summaries. Where applicable, protocols and evaluations will be published on the Government Evaluation Registry, suitable open access peer-reviewed journals, GOV.UK or other accessible platforms.

Evaluation prioritisation framework

High priority evaluations for UKHSA are identified through a cross-organisational call, led by ESG. These high priority evaluations are reported to SGC and receive ESG support. Set prioritisation criteria are used to assess the evaluation, including urgency, impact on public health and inequalities and risks associated. During public health incident responses, a complementary rapid prioritisation exercise may be undertaken which includes the identification of evaluations that address urgent evidence gaps, inform real time decision making, and support recovery and improvement. Decisions reflect public health impact, feasibility, equity considerations and alignment with UKHSA strategic priorities which use transparent processes led through established incident governance and evaluation expertise. Identification of priority evaluations is aligned with the UKHSA Research Prioritisation Framework.

Working with DHSC and the cross-government evaluation system

UKHSA contributes to the wider government evidence system by providing specialist scientific expertise and collaborating across departments and sectors.

UKHSA aligns with DHSC Evaluation Task Force guidance and the DHSC Evaluation Strategy. UKHSA engages with cross-government evaluation activity primarily through DHSC representation and partnerships.

UKHSA contributes expertise in clinical and public health practice, surveillance, genomics, laboratory science, epidemiology, data and information, modelling and environmental hazards to multi-department evaluation priorities, and works closely with academic partners, including HPRUs, to support deliver of independent and high quality evaluation.

Resourcing and capability

UKHSA resources evaluation in a flexible and sustainable way based on priority and proportionality, to ensure quality, timeliness and impact.

Resourcing model

Evaluation is delivered through a mixed and flexible resourcing model, drawing on internal capability, external expertise and a range of funding mechanisms, aligned to strategic priorities and decision needs:

Internal expertise

Including embedded analysts, behavioural scientists, economists, public health specialists, health equity and settings specialists, and the Evaluation and Epidemiological Sciences Division, providing leadership, coordination and central delivery capacity for evaluation activity. Evaluations are also delivered by a range of teams across UKHSA.

UKHSA’s scientific and analytical assets

Including laboratories, modelling platforms, surveillance systems and linked data sets, to maximise the value of existing capabilities, strengthen evaluation quality and reduce data latency.

Funding

Funding may come from:

• grants, potentially in partnership with HPRUs, academic institutions and other collaborators
• DHSC fundings routes, such as the Funders Forum
• partnerships, such as  with industry, where  aligned with UKHSA’s industrial strategy and governance requirements

External expertise where independence or specialist skills are required

Where independent input or specialist expertise is needed, UKHSA works closely with academic partners through NIHR HPRUs, an established network of honorary contract holders commissioned via the Academic Relationships team, and wider academia, to deliver priority and responsive evaluations.

Tools, data and infrastructure

Evaluation is supported by shared tools, equity guidance and rapid evaluation approaches, and by UKHSA’s scientific and analytical infrastructure.

Building capability and culture

UKHSA has already taken significant steps to build evaluation capability, including establishing the Evaluation and Epidemiological Sciences Division in 2023 and continues to strengthen capability through training (including the Cabinet Office Evaluation Academy), shared learning, specialist support and active communities of practice.

Training includes programmes such as the Evaluation Academy training modules, Analytics 101, value‑for‑money training, equity analysis guidance, evidence review training and a range of division specific development programmes.

The Agency maintains and updates shared tools, templates and guidance, equity tools and rapid evaluation resources. Staff also link with the Evaluation Academy.

Sustainability

Evaluation is embedded into planning, service improvement, project initiation and governance, ensuring it is routine rather than exceptional. This helps ensure there is appropriate evaluation resourcing. The Evaluation and Epidemiological Sciences Division provides leadership and capacity to deliver evaluations within the scope of this strategy across the all-hazards remit of UKHSA.

Methodological approaches

UKHSA applies a robust, proportionate approach to evaluation, selecting designs that best answer the evaluation question while reflecting feasibility, risk and context.

Types of evaluation

Methodological choice is driven by decision need, feasibility and risk, drawing on UKHSA’s scientific assets to strengthen validity and timeliness. UKHSA draws on the full spectrum of study methods, such as experimental and quasi-experimental designs, observational studies and evidence reviews and on a wide range of evaluation types, including but not limited to:

Process evaluations

To understand delivery, fidelity, reach, implementation barriers and enablers.

Impact evaluations

Using experimental or quasi‑experimental designs where feasible, especially for assessing the causal impact of public health interventions, programmes or policies.

Economic evaluations

Including cost‑effectiveness, cost‑benefit, return on investment and economic impact assessments to inform prioritisation, investment and scale‑up decisions, recognising the need to demonstrate value for money alongside effectiveness and equity. These can be both integrated into other evaluations and done separately building on other evaluations.

Rapid and real‑time evaluations

To support urgency evaluation priorities identified during public health incident and emergency response.

Equity focused and realist evaluations

To understand differential impacts, contextual mechanisms and how interventions work for different population groups and to address health inequalities.

Data

Evaluations use UKHSA’s scientific and analytical infrastructure including genomics, modelling, surveillance, laboratory data and linked data sets to strengthen validity, reduce data latency and support high quality methodological designs.

Impactful evaluation  

UKHSA commits to designing evaluations for action to shape decisions, priorities and improvement.

Impact is when evaluation leads to changes in decisions, behaviour or outcomes. This includes improvements in effectiveness, equity, efficiency, preparedness or public confidence.

Impactful evaluation means that findings are applied in practice, lessons are learned, and decisions and services change as a result. Impact does not require that every evaluation leads to major change.

Internal dissemination and learning loops

Findings from will be fed back into programme design, operational practice, scientific processes and training offers to support continuous improvement.

UKHSA’s Evaluation Community of Practice and knowledge mobilisation functions will support routine sharing of insights and strengthen organisational learning through regular online events.

Divisions are expected to:

• commission and engage with evaluation early, with a clear understanding of the decisions it will inform
• consider evaluation findings alongside other evidence when setting priorities, designing and improving services, adapting interventions or allocating resources
• respond explicitly to evaluation findings, including where evidence indicates that change, adaptation or de‑implementation is required.

For each major evaluation, intended users, decisions and expected changes will be identified. Evaluation outputs will be designed to be actionable, specifying what decisions the evidence informs and how recommended changes will improve effectiveness, equity or efficiency. Evaluations will follow the UKHSA Impact Framework.

External dissemination

Evaluation findings are a core input to UKHSA’s advice and guidance, including public communications, professional guidance and policy submissions to DHSC. This ensures a clear and consistent link between evidence generation, interpretation and recommendations. Management responses, feedback loops and debriefs are used to understand how evaluation evidence is applied in practice and to support learning and improvement.

Where appropriate, findings from evaluations will be disseminated through publication on UKHSA channels, such as the Research Portal, GOV.UK, and in peer-reviewed journals, supported by clear, plain English summaries to maximise accessibility. Targeted communications will also be used to share findings with policymakers (including DHSC) and stakeholders such as local authorities, scientific partners, international bodies and relevant communities.

Evaluations with significant policy, reputational or cross system implications will be subject to careful handling, including coordinated communications and engagement with relevant stakeholders, to ensure findings are interpreted appropriately and used effectively. Where applicable, evaluation protocols and reports will be published on the Government Evaluation Registry.

Measuring success

Annual reporting related to implementation of the strategy will be included with the ESG reporting structure through the SGC. Success will be assessed through:

Evidence use

Evaluations are published and referenced in practice, policies (internal or external), delivery of functions and services and in acute response.

Senior leaders expect evaluation evidence as part of decision making.

Services are underpinned by evidence and contain appropriate evaluation plans.

Embedding in planning

Evaluation is considered at the outset of programmes, policies, innovations and services.

Clear questions, decision points and resource needs are documented in plans.

Theories of change inform evaluation design.

Learning and improvement

Evaluation findings lead to changes in services, interventions, guidance, delivery models or investment decisions based on economic evaluations.

Evidence informs decisions across the agency and departmental leads see the impact of evaluation within their division.

Capability and culture

Staff report having the skills and confidence to undertake and use evaluation.

Strategy implementation and review

The ESG will lead implementation. Progress will be monitored and reported. The strategy will be formally reviewed every 3 years, or sooner if required.

Examples of evaluation at UKHSA

Summer immunisation of RSV among high-risk infants: a value for money evaluation

Context and purpose

UKHSA surveillance systems identified an abnormal increase in cases of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) during summer 2021, following the easing of COVID‑19 restrictions. This was unusual, as RSV typically has a winter seasonal pattern. Early detection through surveillance prompted timely public health action. In response, the RSV immunisation programme, which is normally delivered in winter, was brought forward and extended into the summer period. The purpose of this evaluation was to assess UKHSA’s role in enabling this rapid response and to quantify the health and economic impacts of implementing the immunisation programme earlier than usual.

Evaluation questions

What were the net present value, and benefit-to-cost ratio of the summer RSV immunisation programme?

Methods

A cost benefit analysis was undertaken to compare the costs of delivering the additional immunisation activity with the monetised health and societal benefits associated with preventing RSV cases and their downstream impacts on health services and mortality.

Findings

In 2021, immunising an estimated 2,128 high risk children over an additional 2‑month period was estimated to have prevented up to 695 RSV cases. This reduction in disease burden was associated with avoiding up to 15 fatalities, 395 hospital admissions and 271 GP consultations. Overall, the analysis found that UKHSA’s surveillance‑informed decision and subsequent immunisation response delivered very high value for money, with a benefit‑cost ratio estimated to lie between 5.8 and 12.4.

Impact and use

The findings strengthened UKHSA’s and wider UK government’s understanding of the critical role that high quality surveillance plays in enabling timely, evidence‑based public health action. The evaluation demonstrated that rapid interpretation of surveillance data, combined with the ability to adapt immunisation programmes, can generate substantial health benefits and economic returns. These results have been used to evidence the value of investment in surveillance systems and analytical capability and inform future planning for out‑of‑season or atypical infectious disease threats.

Evaluation of vaccine uptake during the 2023 to 2024 MMR catch-up campaigns in England

Context and purpose

A sustained increase in measles cases in England led UKHSA to declare a national standard incident in January 2024. In advance of this declaration, NHS England launched a new national measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) catch‑up campaign in November 2023 to encourage individuals who were not fully protected to receive missing doses. This national activity was delivered alongside a range of local and national communications from NHS and UKHSA partners. As part of the measles incident response, this evaluation was undertaken to assess the impact of the catch‑up activities on vaccine uptake and to generate evidence-based recommendations to inform future interventions aimed at increasing MMR coverage.

Evaluation questions

This evaluation assessed the impact of the 2023 to 2024 MMR catch-up activities on increasing both the number and proportion of individuals vaccinated with first and second doses of MMR (MMR1 and MMR2).

Methods

Descriptive analyses were conducted using R, drawing on national Immunisation Information System (IIS) data for MMR vaccination to assess changes in uptake over the campaign period. Changes in coverage were measured by comparing vaccination status prior to the campaign period, as of 31 August 2023, and at the end of the catch‑up period on 30 April 2024.

Findings

The catch‑up activity had a positive impact on overall MMR coverage, with gains broadly comparable to those observed in previous catch‑up campaigns. The largest increases were seen in populations with lower baseline coverage, demonstrating a beneficial effect on addressing inequalities associated with deprivation and ethnicity. However, the findings also showed that catch‑up activity alone has a limited effect on achieving high overall coverage.

Impact and use

The findings were used to improve understanding of how catch‑up activity influences MMR coverage, particularly in areas and groups with the lowest initial uptake. The evaluation concluded that sustained improvements in MMR coverage require long term, adequately resourced and community appropriate approaches rather than reliance on short‑term campaigns alone. The full evaluation report was published on GOV.UK in August 2024.

Evaluation of an enhanced condom distribution scheme

Context and purpose

Gonorrhoea rates in England reached a record high in 2023, particularly among young adults and gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM), raising concerns about rising antibiotic resistance and avoidable health harms. In response, an UKHSA‑led incident management team requested evidence on interventions to control transmission. This evaluation assessed the impact of a free condom distribution scheme delivered by Bristol City Council to 2 universities and the GBMSM community in Bristol.

Methods

Using established sexual health evaluation frameworks, the study combined analysis of condom distribution data with anonymous online surveys of students and GBMSM, complemented by coproduced student workshops and comparison with qualitative research. The evaluation focused on awareness, accessibility, acceptability, uptake and self-reported impact on condomless sex.

Findings

Among students surveyed, around half were aware of the scheme and most users found it accessible and acceptable. Almost a third reported access to free condoms prevented condomless sex. Awareness among GBMSM respondents was lower, but uptake among those aware was high, and most reported a similar preventative impact. Coproduced recommendations highlighted opportunities to increase reach and inclusivity, including wider product range, more inclusive messaging and greater trust in condom quality.

Impact and use

Findings directly informed the Bristol City Council gonorrhoea action plan. A knowledge‑to‑action plan was developed, with outputs including a report, plain language summary, manuscript, conference presentations and briefings. Stakeholders were involved through a steering group (University Health Centres, Student Unions, national and regional sexual health leads), with findings discussed pre- and post- workshops to enable iterative refinement of the intervention.