Social Impact Bonds (SIBs) are a new mechanism for delivering public services. This article reviews the emerging SIB literature in high‐income settings. It identifies three distinct narratives: a public sector reform narrative; a financial sector reform narrative; and a cautionary narrative. These are analyzed relative to three themes: public versus private values; outcomes contracting; and risk allocation. The first two narratives are complementary and offer a ‘win‐win’ portrayal of SIBs. The third narrative challenges this dominant commentary by highlighting potential risks. There is limited empirical evidence on active SIBs to support these narratives. SIBs may have the potential to align public and private interests while improving outcomes for people affected by entrenched social problems, but this is yet to be established and appears less probable than the third more cautionary narrative. More empirical research is needed to consider the potential risks, drawbacks, benefits and alternatives of SIBs in different settings.

BackgroundThe gap between research findings and clinical practice is well documented and a range of interventions has been developed to increase the implementation of research into clinical practice.FindingsA review of systematic reviews of the effectiveness of interventions designed to increase the use of research in clinical practice. A search for relevant systematic reviews was conducted of Medline and the Cochrane Database of Reviews 1998-2009. 13 systematic reviews containing 313 primary studies were included. Four strategy types are identified: audit and feedback; computerised decision support; opinion leaders; and multifaceted interventions. Nine of the reviews reported on multifaceted interventions. This review highlights the small effects of single interventions such as audit and feedback, computerised decision support and opinion leaders. Systematic reviews of multifaceted interventions claim an improvement in effectiveness over single interventions, with effect sizes ranging from small to moderate. This review found that a number of published systematic reviews fail to state whether the recommended practice change is based on the best available research evidence.ConclusionsThis overview of systematic reviews updates the body of knowledge relating to the effectiveness of key mechanisms for improving clinical practice and service development. Multifaceted interventions are more likely to improve practice than single interventions such as audit and feedback. This review identified a small literature focusing explicitly on getting research evidence into clinical practice. It emphasizes the importance of ensuring that primary studies and systematic reviews are precise about the extent to which the reported interventions focus on changing practice based on research evidence (as opposed to other information codified in guidelines and education materials).

BackgroundHealth service reconfigurations are of international interest but remain poorly understood. This article focuses on the use of evidence by senior managerial decision-makers involved in the reconfiguration of stroke services in London 2008–2012. Recent work comparing stroke service reconfiguration in London and Manchester emphasises the ability of senior managerial decision-makers in London to ‘hold the line’ in the crucial early phases of the stroke reconfiguration programme. In this article, we explore in detail how these decision-makers ‘held the line’ and ask what the broader power implications of doing so are for the interaction between evidence, health policy and system redesign.MethodsThe research combined semi-structured interviews (n = 20) and documentary analysis of historically relevant policy papers and contemporary stroke reconfiguration documentation published by NHS London and other interested parties (n = 125). We applied a critical interpretive and reflexive approach to the analysis of the data.ResultsWe identified two forms of power which senior managerial decision-makers drew upon in order to ‘hold the line’. Firstly, discursive power, which through an emphasis on evidence, better patient outcomes, professional support and clinical credibility alongside a tightly managed consultation process, helped to set an agenda that was broadly receptive to the overall decision to change stroke services in the capital in a radical way. Secondly, once the essential parameters of the decision to change services had been agreed, senior managerial decision-makers ‘held the line’ through hierarchical New Public Management style power to minimise the traditional pressures to de-radicalise the reconfiguration through ‘top down’ decision-making.ConclusionsWe problematise the concept of ‘holding the line’ and explore the power implications of such managerial approaches in the early phases of health service reconfiguration. We highlight the importance of evidence for senior managerial decision-makers in agenda setting and the limitations of clinical research findings in guiding politically sensitive policy decisions which impact upon regional healthcare systems.

Forms of large‐scale change, such as the regiona l re‐distribution of clinical services, are an enduring reform orthodoxy in health systems of high‐income countries. The topic is of relevance and importance to medical sociology because of the way that large‐scale change significantly disrupts and transforms therapeutic landscapes, relationships and practices. In this paper we review the literature on large‐scale change. We find that the literature is dominated by competing forms of knowledge, such as health services research, and show how sociology can contribute new and critical perspectives and insights on what is for many people a troubling issue.

No abstract

No abstract

Social Impact Bonds (SIBs) are a novel financing mechanism for public services delivery. This special issue about SIBs in the UK argues that they necessitate closer examination to understand the implications for all stakeholders. This introductory paper critically explores and challenges dominant practitioner narratives of SIBs as "win-win" solutions for governments and service providers. While SIBs may foster innovation it is unclear if they deliver better value given the complexity of public services. SIBs are a strategically ambiguous policy tool and policymakers should be cautious about SIBs due to contractual complexity and issues with ethics, governance, accountability and transparency. ARTICLE HISTORY• Social Impact Bonds are a nascent area of academic research that merits further multidisciplinary analysis. • SIBs are a strategically ambiguous policy tool. • There is insufficient evidence as to whether and how SIBs deliver better outcomes than conventional forms of financing.

This article highlights ten key strands of continuity and change in the use of evidence over the last two decades. Interest in evidence use continues, as do the many challenges encountered when seeking to deliver on this aspiration. There have been developments in ideas and actions, which foster some optimism that better use of varying forms of evidence can be encouraged.