Analyses of the return on investment of public health interventions: a scoping review and recommendations for future studies

Return on investment (ROI) analysis is increasingly being used for evaluating the value for money of public health interventions. Given its potential role for informing health policies, it is important that there is a more comprehensive understanding of ROI analysis within the global health field. To address this gap in the literature, we conducted a scoping review of recent research articles reporting an ROI metric for a health intervention within the public sector in any country setting. The database search was limited to literature published in English and studies published between 1 January 2018 and 14 June 2021. Uses and settings where the ROI metric is being applied, key methodological features of the calculations and the types of economic benefits included were extracted. 118 relevant studies were included within this scoping review. We found that ROI analyses of health interventions differed between those that only included fiscal savings (such as prevented medical expenses) and those which incorporated a wider range of benefits (such as monetised health benefits). This highlights the variation in the definition of ROI analyses and supports the finding that ROI analyses are used for a range of different research questions/purposes within the healthcare sector. We also found that the methodologies used in ROI calculations were inconsistent and often poorly reported. This review demonstrates that there is notable variation in the methodology surrounding recent ROI calculations of healthcare interventions, as well as the definition of ROI analysis. We recommend that ROI metrics should be carefully interpreted before they are used to inform policy decisions regarding the allocation of healthcare resources. To improve the consistency of future studies, we also set out recommended use cases for ROI analysis and a reporting checklist

Methodological variation in economic evaluations conducted in low- and middle- income countries: Information for reference case development

© 2015 Santatiwongchai et al. Information generated from economic evaluation is increasingly being used to inform health resource allocation decisions globally, including in low- and middle- income countries. However, a crucial consideration for users of the information at a policy level, e.g. funding agencies, is whether the studies are comparable, provide sufficient detail to inform policy decision making, and incorporate inputs from data sources that are reliable and relevant to the context. This review was conducted to inform a methodological standardisation workstream at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and assesses BMGF-funded cost-per-DALY economic evaluations in four programme areas (malaria, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS and vaccines) in terms of variation in methodology, use of evidence, and quality of reporting. The findings suggest that there is room for improvement in the three areas of assessment, and support the case for the introduction of a standardised methodology or reference case by the BMGF. The findings are also instructive for all institutions that fund economic evaluations in LMICs and who have a desire to improve the ability of economic evaluations to inform resource allocation decisions

Comparing 3 Approaches for Making Vaccine Adoption Decisions in Thailand

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) has developed the Total System Effectiveness (TSE) framework to assist national policy-makers in prioritizing vaccines. The pilot was launched in Thailand to explore the potential use of TSE in a country with established governance structures and accountable decision-making processes for immunization policy. While the existing literature informs vaccine adoption decisions in GAVI-eligible countries, this study attempts to address a gap in the literature by examining the policy process of a non-GAVI eligible country.Methods: A rotavirus vaccine (RVV) test case was used to compare the decision criteria made by the existing processes (Expanded Program on Immunization [EPI], and National List of Essential Medicines [NLEM]) for vaccine prioritization and the TSE-pilot model, using Thailand specific data. Results: The existing decision-making processes in Thailand and TSE were found to offer similar recommendations on the selection of a RVV product. Conclusion: The authors believe that TSE can provide a well-reasoned and step by step approach for countries, especially low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), to develop a systematic and transparent decision-making process for immunization policy

Institutionalizing Evidence-Informed Priority Setting for Universal Health Coverage: Lessons From Indonesia

10.1177/0046958020924920Inquiry (United States)5

Retrospective secondary data analysis to identify high-cost users in inpatient department of hospitals in Thailand, a middle-income country with universal healthcare coverage

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047330BMJ Open117e047330

A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluation Methodologies Between Resource-Limited and Resource-Rich Countries: A Case of Rotavirus Vaccines.

BACKGROUND: For more than three decades, the number and influence of economic evaluations of healthcare interventions have been increasing and gaining attention from a policy level. However, concerns about the credibility of these studies exist, particularly in studies from low- and middle- income countries (LMICs). This analysis was performed to explore economic evaluations conducted in LMICs in terms of methodological variations, quality of reporting and evidence used for the analyses. These results were compared with those studies conducted in high-income countries (HICs). METHODS: Rotavirus vaccine was selected as a case study, as it is one of the interventions that many studies in both settings have explored. The search to identify individual studies on rotavirus vaccines was performed in March 2014 using MEDLINE and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database. Only full economic evaluations, comparing cost and outcomes of at least two alternatives, were included for review. Selected criteria were applied to assess methodological variation, quality of reporting and quality of evidence used. RESULTS: Eighty-five studies were included, consisting of 45 studies in HICs and 40 studies in LMICs. Seventy-five percent of the studies in LMICs were published by researchers from HICs. Compared with studies in HICs, the LMIC studies showed less methodological variety. In terms of the quality of reporting, LMICs had a high adherence to technical criteria, but HICs ultimately proved to be better. The same trend applied for the quality of evidence used. CONCLUSION: Although the quality of economic evaluations in LMICs was not as high as those from HICs, it is of an acceptable level given several limitations that exist in these settings. However, the results of this study may not reflect the fact that LMICs have developed a better research capacity in the domain of health economics, given that most of the studies were in theory led by researchers from HICs. Putting more effort into fostering the development of both research infrastructure and capacity building as well as encouraging local engagement in LMICs is thus necessary

Variation of health-related quality of life assessed by caregivers and patients affected by severe childhood infections.

BACKGROUND: The agreement between self-reported and proxy measures of health status in ill children is not well established. This study aimed to quantify the variation in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) derived from young patients and their carers using different instruments. METHODS: A hospital-based cross-sectional survey was conducted between August 2010 and March 2011. Children with meningitis, bacteremia, pneumonia, acute otitis media, hearing loss, chronic lung disease, epilepsy, mild mental retardation, severe mental retardation, and mental retardation combined with epilepsy, aged between five to 14 years in seven tertiary hospitals were selected for participation in this study. The Health Utilities Index Mark 2 (HUI2), and Mark 3 (HUI3), and the EuroQoL Descriptive System (EQ-5D) and Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS) were applied to both paediatric patients (self-assessment) and caregivers (proxy-assessment). RESULTS: The EQ-5D scores were lowest for acute conditions such as meningitis, bacteremia, and pneumonia, whereas the HUI3 scores were lowest for most chronic conditions such as hearing loss and severe mental retardation. Comparing patient and proxy scores (n = 74), the EQ-5D exhibited high correlation (r = 0.77) while in the HUI2 and HUI3 patient and caregiver scores were moderately correlated (r = 0.58 and 0.67 respectively). The mean difference between self and proxy-assessment using the HUI2, HUI3, EQ-5D and EQ-VAS scores were 0.03, 0.05, -0.03 and -0.02, respectively. In hearing-impaired and chronic lung patients the self-rated HRQOL differed significantly from their caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: The use of caregivers as proxies for measuring HRQOL in young patients affected by pneumococcal infection and its sequelae should be employed with caution. Given the high correlation between instruments, each of the HRQOL instruments appears acceptable apart from the EQ-VAS which exhibited low correlation with the others

Methodological variation in economic evaluations conducted in low- and middle- income countries: Information for reference case development

10.1371/journal.pone.0123853PLoS ONE105e012385

Comparing 3 approaches for making vaccine adoption decisions in Thailand

10.15171/ijhpm.2020.01International Journal of Health Policy and Management910439-44

The physical activity at work (PAW) study protocol: a cluster randomised trial of a multicomponent short-break intervention to reduce sitting time and increase physical activity among office workers in Thailand

10.1186/s12889-020-09427-5BMC public health2011332