Essays on Foreign Development Aid

The first part of this thesis demonstrates how economic inequality in the aid recipient country is detrimental to aid effectiveness. We model a recipient country that is characterised by a relatively rich local elite and poor rest of the population that compete over economic resources. Foreign aid is shown to be more effective when there is lower economic inequality, because of the lower contesting ability of the elite in this scenario. This hypothesis is supported by evidence using data from 59 recipient countries over 1971-2005. The second part of the thesis analyses two types of aid using a neoclassical growth framework, integrating the economies of aid donor and recipient. The focus is on the comparison between aid invested in social projects, such as building schools, hospitals, and aid invested in economic projects, such as building roads and bridges. Both types of aid are assumed to raise the productivity of the households in the recipient country, but social aid is also allowed to have a `direct effect' on the utility of these households. The projects can also differ in terms of their productivity and aid wastage levels. Because of this `direct effect' social aid has an advantage over economic aid. However, when the social-aid wastage exceeds a certain level, the advantage of the social aid rapidly decreases in the level of social aid wastage, up to a point of becoming negligible. This questions whether the recent surge in social aid can be justified in countries with social sectors characterised by high aid wastage

LifeSim : A Lifecourse Dynamic Microsimulation Model of the Millennium Birth Cohort in England

We present a dynamic microsimulation model for childhood policy analysis that models developmental, economic, social and health outcomes from birth to death for each child in the Millennium Birth Cohort (MCS) in England, together with public costs and a summary wellbeing measure. The model is a discrete event simulation in discrete time (annual periods), implemented in R, which progresses 100,000 individuals through each year of their lives from birth in the year 2000 to death. From age 0 to 18 the model draws observational data from the MCS, with explicit modelling of only a few derived outcomes (mental health, conduct disorder, mortality, health-related quality of life, public costs and a general wellbeing metric). During adulthood, all outcomes are modelled dynamically using explicit networks of stochastic process equations, with separate networks for working age and retirement. Our equations are parameterised using effect estimates from existing studies combined with target outcome levels from up-to-date administrative and survey data. We present our baseline projections and a simple validation check against external data from the British Cohort Study 1970 and Understanding Society survey

Evaluating Childhood Policy Impacts on Lifetime Health, Wellbeing and Inequality : Lifecourse Distributional Economic Evaluation

We introduce and illustrate a new framework for distributional economic evaluation of childhood policies that takes a broad and long view of the impacts on health, wellbeing and inequality from a cross-sectoral whole-lifetime perspective. Total lifetime benefits and public cost savings are estimated using lifecourse microsimulation of diverse health, social and economic outcomes for each individual in a general population birth cohort from birth to death. Cost-effectiveness analysis, policy targeting analysis and distributional analysis of inequality impacts are then conducted using an index of lifetime wellbeing that allow comparisons of both value-for-money (efficiency) and distributional impact (equity) from a cross-sectoral lifetime perspective. We illustrate how this framework can be applied in practice by re-evaluating a training programme in England for parents of children at risk of conduct disorder. Our illustration uses a simple index of lifetime wellbeing based on health-related quality of life and consumption, but other indices could be used based on other kinds of outcomes data such as life satisfaction or multidimensional quality of life. We create the detailed underpinning data needed to apply the framework by using a previously published meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials to estimate the short-term effects and a previously published lifecourse microsimulation model to extrapolate the long-term effects

Clustering of adverse health and educational outcomes in adolescence following early childhood disadvantage: population-based retrospective UK cohort study

Background: Disadvantage in early childhood (ages 0–5 years) is associated with worse health and educational outcomes in adolescence. Evidence on the clustering of these adverse outcomes by household income is scarce in the generation of adolescents born since the turn of the millennium. We aimed to describe the association between household income in early childhood and physical health, psychological distress, smoking behaviour, obesity, and educational outcomes at age 17 years, including the patterning and clustering of these five outcomes by income quintiles. Methods: In this population-based, retrospective cohort study, we used data from the Millennium Cohort Study in which individuals born in the UK between Sept 1, 2000, and Jan 1, 2002, were followed up. We collected data on five adverse health and social outcomes in adolescents aged 17 years known to limit life chances: psychological distress, self-assessed ill health, smoking, obesity, and poor educational achievement. We compared how single and multiple outcomes were distributed across early childhood quintile groups of income, as an indicator of disadvantage, and modelled the potential effect of three income-shifting scenarios in early childhood for reducing adverse outcomes in adolescence. Findings: We included 15 245 adolescents aged 17 years, 7788 (51·1%) of whom were male and 7457 (48·9%) of whom were female. Adolescents in the lowest income quintile group in childhood were 12·7 (95% CI 6·4–25·1) times more likely than those in the highest quintile group to have four or five adverse adolescent outcomes, with poor educational achievement (risk ratio [RR] 4·6, 95% CI 4·2–5·0) and smoking (3·6, 3·0–4·2), showing the largest single risk ratios. Shifting up to the second lowest, middle, and highest income groups would reduce multiple adolescent adversities by 4·9% (95% CI –23·8 to 33·6), 32·3% (–2·7 to 67·3), and 83·9% (47·2 to 120·7), respectively. Adjusting for parental education and single parent status moderately attenuated these estimates. Interpretation: Early childhood disadvantage is more strongly correlated with multiple adolescent adversities than any of the five single adverse outcomes. However, shifting children from the lowest income quintile group to the next lowest group is ineffective. Tackling multiple adolescent adversities requires managing early childhood disadvantage across the social gradient, with income redistribution as a central element of coordinated cross-sectoral action. Funding: UK Prevention Research Partnership

Clustering of adverse health and educational outcomes in adolescence following early childhood disadvantage: population-based retrospective UK cohort study

BACKGROUND: Disadvantage in early childhood (ages 0-5 years) is associated with worse health and educational outcomes in adolescence. Evidence on the clustering of these adverse outcomes by household income is scarce in the generation of adolescents born since the turn of the millennium. We aimed to describe the association between household income in early childhood and physical health, psychological distress, smoking behaviour, obesity, and educational outcomes at age 17 years, including the patterning and clustering of these five outcomes by income quintiles. METHODS: In this population-based, retrospective cohort study, we used data from the Millennium Cohort Study in which individuals born in the UK between Sept 1, 2000, and Jan 1, 2002, were followed up. We collected data on five adverse health and social outcomes in adolescents aged 17 years known to limit life chances: psychological distress, self-assessed ill health, smoking, obesity, and poor educational achievement. We compared how single and multiple outcomes were distributed across early childhood quintile groups of income, as an indicator of disadvantage, and modelled the potential effect of three income-shifting scenarios in early childhood for reducing adverse outcomes in adolescence. FINDINGS: We included 15 245 adolescents aged 17 years, 7788 (51·1%) of whom were male and 7457 (48·9%) of whom were female. Adolescents in the lowest income quintile group in childhood were 12·7 (95% CI 6·4-25·1) times more likely than those in the highest quintile group to have four or five adverse adolescent outcomes, with poor educational achievement (risk ratio [RR] 4·6, 95% CI 4·2-5·0) and smoking (3·6, 3·0-4·2), showing the largest single risk ratios. Shifting up to the second lowest, middle, and highest income groups would reduce multiple adolescent adversities by 4·9% (95% CI -23·8 to 33·6), 32·3% (-2·7 to 67·3), and 83·9% (47·2 to 120·7), respectively. Adjusting for parental education and single parent status moderately attenuated these estimates. INTERPRETATION: Early childhood disadvantage is more strongly correlated with multiple adolescent adversities than any of the five single adverse outcomes. However, shifting children from the lowest income quintile group to the next lowest group is ineffective. Tackling multiple adolescent adversities requires managing early childhood disadvantage across the social gradient, with income redistribution as a central element of coordinated cross-sectoral action

Meta-evaluation of a whole systems programme, ActEarly: a study protocol

INTRODUCTION: Living in an area with high levels of child poverty predisposes children to poorer mental and physical health. ActEarly is a 5-year research programme that comprises a large number of interventions (>20) with citizen science and co-production embedded. It aims to improve the health and well-being of children and families living in two areas of the UK with high levels of deprivation; Bradford in West Yorkshire, and the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. This protocol outlines the meta-evaluation (an evaluation of evaluations) of the ActEarly programme from a systems perspective, where individual interventions are viewed as events in the wider policy system across the two geographical areas. It includes investigating the programme's impact on early life health and well-being outcomes, interdisciplinary prevention research collaboration and capacity building, and local and national decision making. METHODS: The ActEarly meta-evaluation will follow and adapt the five iterative stages of the 'Evaluation of Programmes in Complex Adaptive Systems' (ENCOMPASS) framework for evaluation of public health programmes in complex adaptive systems. Theory-based and mixed-methods approaches will be used to investigate the fidelity of the ActEarly research programme, and whether, why and how ActEarly contributes to changes in the policy system, and whether alternative explanations can be ruled out. Ripple effects and systems mapping will be used to explore the relationships between interventions and their outcomes, and the degree to which the ActEarly programme encouraged interdisciplinary and prevention research collaboration as intended. A computer simulation model ("LifeSim") will also be used to evaluate the scale of the potential long-term benefits of cross-sectoral action to tackle the financial, educational and health disadvantages faced by children in Bradford and Tower Hamlets. Together, these approaches will be used to evaluate ActEarly's dynamic programme outputs at different system levels and measure the programme's system changes on early life health and well-being. DISCUSSION: This meta-evaluation protocol presents our plans for using and adapting the ENCOMPASS framework to evaluate the system-wide impact of the early life health and well-being programme, ActEarly. Due to the collaborative and non-linear nature of the work, we reserve the option to change and query some of our evaluation choices based on the feedback we receive from stakeholders to ensure that our evaluation remains relevant and fit for purpose

Meta-evaluation of a whole systems programme, ActEarly: A study protocol

Introduction: Living in an area with high levels of child poverty predisposes children to poorer mental and physical health. ActEarly is a 5-year research programme that comprises a large number of interventions (>20) with citizen science and co-production embedded. It aims to improve the health and well-being of children and families living in two areas of the UK with high levels of deprivation; Bradford in West Yorkshire, and the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. This protocol outlines the meta-evaluation (an evaluation of evaluations) of the ActEarly programme from a systems perspective, where individual interventions are viewed as events in the wider policy system across the two geographical areas. It includes investigating the programme’s impact on early life health and well-being outcomes, interdisciplinary prevention research collaboration and capacity building, and local and national decision making./ Methods: The ActEarly meta-evaluation will follow and adapt the five iterative stages of the ‘Evaluation of Programmes in Complex Adaptive Systems’ (ENCOMPASS) framework for evaluation of public health programmes in complex adaptive systems. Theory-based and mixed-methods approaches will be used to investigate the fidelity of the ActEarly research programme, and whether, why and how ActEarly contributes to changes in the policy system, and whether alternative explanations can be ruled out. Ripple effects and systems mapping will be used to explore the relationships between interventions and their outcomes, and the degree to which the ActEarly programme encouraged interdisciplinary and prevention research collaboration as intended. A computer simulation model (“LifeSim”) will also be used to evaluate the scale of the potential long-term benefits of cross-sectoral action to tackle the financial, educational and health disadvantages faced by children in Bradford and Tower Hamlets. Together, these approaches will be used to evaluate ActEarly’s dynamic programme outputs at different system levels and measure the programme’s system changes on early life health and well-being./ Discussion: This meta-evaluation protocol presents our plans for using and adapting the ENCOMPASS framework to evaluate the system-wide impact of the early life health and well-being programme, ActEarly. Due to the collaborative and non-linear nature of the work, we reserve the option to change and query some of our evaluation choices based on the feedback we receive from stakeholders to ensure that our evaluation remains relevant and fit for purpose

Equity-informative methods of health services research

Purpose: We review quantitative methods for analysing the equity impacts of health care and public health interventions: who benefits most and who bears the largest burdens (opportunity costs)? Mainstream health services research focuses on effectiveness and efficiency but decision makers also need information about equity. Design/methodology/approach: We review equity-informative methods of quantitative data analysis in three core areas of health services research: effectiveness analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis and performance measurement. An appendix includes further readings and resources. Findings: Researchers seeking to analyse health equity impacts now have a practical and flexible set of methods at their disposal which builds on the standard health services research toolkit. Some of the more advanced methods require specialised skills, but basic equity-informative methods can be used by any health services researcher with appropriate skills in the three core areas. Originality/value: We hope that this review will raise awareness of equity-informative methods of health services research and facilitate their entry into the mainstream so that health policymakers are routinely presented with information about who gains and who loses from their decisions

Quality Adjusted Life Years Based on Health and Consumption: A Summary Wellbeing Measure for Cross-Sectoral Economic Evaluation

We introduce a summary wellbeing measure for economic evaluation of cross-sectoral public policies with impacts on health and living standards. We show how to calculate period-specific and lifetime wellbeing using quality-adjusted life years based on widely available data on health-related quality of life and consumption and normative assumptions about three parameters – minimal consumption, standard consumption, and the elasticity of the marginal value of consumption. We also illustrate how these three parameters can be tailored to the decision-making context and varied in sensitivity analysis to provide information about the implications of alternative value judgements. As well as providing a general measure for cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-benefit analysis in terms of wellbeing, this approach also facilitates distributional analysis in terms of how many good years different population subgroups can expect to live under different policy scenarios