The research from The King's Fund finds while there is emerging good practice and relationships in some areas, there is also a lack of understanding and consensus on the definitions of population health and how it relates to public health.

The report authors argue that more clarity is required, along with adequate funding and support for public health and population health.

To help, the government and national bodies need to help provide more clarity on the scope of public health and population health and where they interact, including through a framework for responsibilities and roles, and invest more in workforce capacity and capability, actively share best practice and models where leaders are working effectively together and ensure this happens in a stable organisational environment, where ICSs are allowed to mature and act on their population health and health inequalities goals without major structural reform.

David Buck, senior fellow at The King's Fund, said: ‘The new government has committed to halving the gap in healthy life expectancy between the richest and poorest regions of England. This goal cannot be achieved from Whitehall alone. It will be of paramount importance to create the right support and conditions to enable strong, effective and cohesive public health and population health leadership at a local and regional level.

‘While good practice is happening in places around the country, our research into how leaders in public health and population health work together found that tensions and a lack of engagement between public health and population health leaders remain in some areas. Their effectiveness could be enhanced by greater clarity on definitions and guidance on roles, sharing examples from good practice and greater investment in capacity and capability.'