‘What You See is All There is’: The Importance of Heuristics in Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) and Social Return on Investment (SROI) in the Evaluation of Public Health Interventions

Health economists are currently debating, with some suspicion, the relative merits of cost-benefit analysis (CBA), grounded in theoretical welfare economics, and the proliferation of social return on investment (SROI), a pragmatic approach of developing a triple-bottom line (social, environmental and financial), but not grounded in welfare theory. We argue, in rather existential terms, that there is a need to understand the role of heuristics, or prior beliefs, in current ‘best practice’ in CBA and SROI. A taxonomy of CBA and SROI is presented, which summarises the origins of the methods, reporting guidance, publication checklist of quality of reporting, who is wanting these analytical approaches, and policy decision rule present. We argue that a bottom-up SROI is best thought of as localised CBA, building stakeholder involvement right into the framing of SROI, perhaps addressing or mitigating the effects of prior heuristics in top-down CBA. Behavioural CBA and social CBA recognise that people are not rational and that sources of value other than willingness to pay may best reflect social values. Standardisation of SROI and comparison with CBA may illuminate the role of prior heuristics and seek to better reflect social value in weighing up the costs and benefits of public health interventions at both a local and societal level

Development of the Wheelchair outcomes Assessment Tool for Children (WATCh):A patient-centred outcome measure for young wheelchair users

<div><p>Objective</p><p>To develop a patient-centred outcome measure (PCOM) for use with children and young people accessing National Health Service (NHS) wheelchair and posture services. Identifying and addressing outcomes of most importance to young wheelchair users (≤ 18 years) will help services maximise the benefits achievable within available resources.</p><p>Methods</p><p>A mixed-methods approach was used, involving questionnaire surveys and qualitative interviews, and building on previous work identifying how young wheelchair users define health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Framework analysis was used to analyse the interview transcripts. Survey questionnaires seeking views on the importance of a range of outcomes were completed by 21 young wheelchair users or their parents. Subsequent face-to-face interviews with 11 parents or dyads of parents and young wheelchair users explored these responses and identified novel outcomes. Interviewees also scored and recorded satisfaction levels for their key outcomes.</p><p>Results</p><p>All outcomes proposed in the survey were rated as ‘extremely important’ by at least one respondent, as were additional outcomes uncovered in the qualitative data. In consultation with the service providers and service users, the Wheelchair outcomes Assessment Tool for Children (WATCh) was developed to allow service users and providers to identify, score and monitor individual users’ most important outcomes. The final WATCh tool comprises 16 outcome options, of which service users select five to be monitored. The tool will be used to measure key outcomes identified by service users before and after wheelchair provision.</p></div

Health economics of health justice partnerships: A rapid review of the economic returns to society of promoting access to legal advice

BACKGROUND: Welfare legal problems and inadequate access to support services follow both the socioeconomic and the health inequalities gradients. Health Justice Partnership (HJP) is an international practitioner-led movement which brings together legal and healthcare professionals to address the root causes of ill health from negative social determinants. The aim of this paper was to identify the current evidence base for the cost-effectiveness of HJP or comparable welfare advice services. METHODS: A rapid review format was used, with a literature search of PubMed, CINAHL, ASSIA, PsycINFO, Medline, Cochrane Library, Global Health and Web of Science identifying 496 articles. After removal of duplicates, 176 papers were screened on titles and abstracts, and 20 papers met the eligibility criteria. Following a full-text screening, a further 14 papers were excluded due to lack of economic evaluations. Excluded papers' reference lists were scanned, with a further 3 further papers identified which met the inclusion criteria. A final pool of nine studies were included in this review. RESULTS: Studies focused on the financial benefit to service users, with only three studies reporting on cost effectiveness of the interventions. Only one study reported on the economic impact of change of health in service users and one study reported on changes in health service use. CONCLUSION: This review highlights the current evidence gap in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of adequate access to free legal welfare advice and representation. We propose that an interdisciplinary research agenda between health economics and legal-health services is required to address this research gap