Exploring the role of economics in prioritization in public health: what do stakeholders think?

Phillips, Ceri; Fordham, Richard; Marsh, Kevin; Bertranou, Evelina; Davies, Shân; Hale, Janine; Kingsley, Michael; Parke, Sian; Porteous, Carol; Rance, Jaynie; Warm, Daniel

doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckq121

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…56 Public health initiatives should be regarded as an investment in the health of the nation and not be expected to generate relatively short payback periods. 57 Therefore, they do not fit into narrow definitions and perspectives of cost-effectiveness. Investing in housing regeneration is an example of a public health intervention and involves an integrated set of activities aiming to reverse economic, social, environmental and physical decline to achieve long-lasting improvement to the area.…”

Section: Chapter 5 Does the Intervention Represent Value For Money?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Health impact, and economic value, of meeting housing quality standards: a retrospective longitudinal data linkage study

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPoor-quality housing adversely affects residents’ health but there is a paucity of high-quality evidence to support this.ObjectiveThis research investigated the health impact of bringing housing to a national quality standard.DesignA natural experiment of improvements to housing quality analysed using repeated measures of health-care utilisation and economic outcomes at an individual person level.SettingCarmarthenshire, UK.ParticipantsA total of 32,009 residents registered for a minimum of 60 days at 8558 social homes that received housing improvements between January 2005 and March 2015.InterventionsMultiple internal and external housing improvements, including wall and loft insulation, windows and doors, heating system upgrades, new kitchens and bathrooms, garden path safety improvements and electrical system upgrades (adding power sockets, and extractor fans in kitchens and bathrooms).Main outcome measuresEmergency hospital admissions for cardiorespiratory conditions and injuries. Primary health-care utilisation for respiratory and common mental health disorders, emergency department injury attendances and health-care utilisation costs.Data sourcesCarmarthenshire County Council home address and intervention records were anonymously linked within the Secure Anonymous Information Linkage databank to demographic information from the Welsh Demographic Service data set; hospital admission data from the Patient Episode Dataset for Wales; primary care contacts and prescribed medications from general practice data; emergency department attendances from the Emergency Department Data Set; and deaths from the Office for National Statistics mortality register.MethodsThe study used a longitudinal panel design to examine changes in standard of eight housing cointervention from intervention records, and linked to individuals registered at intervention homes. Health outcomes were obtained retrospectively for each individual in a dynamic cohort and were captured for up to 123 consecutive months. An additional local authority region could not be utilised as a comparator owing to different reporting pressures resulting in the recording of a different intervention. The exposure group for each cointervention was compared with an internal reference group of people living in homes that did not receive the cointervention during their tenancy. A multilevel modelling approach was used to account for repeated observations for individuals living in intervention homes. Counts of health outcomes were analysed using negative binomial regression models to determine the effect of each cointervention that reached housing quality standards during an individual’s period of tenancy, compared with those living in properties that did not. We adjusted for potential confounding factors and for background trends in the regional general population. A cost–consequences analysis was conducted as part of the health economic evaluation.ResultsResidents aged ≥ 60 years living in homes in which electrical systems were upgraded were associated with 39% fewer admissions than those living in homes in which they were not [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.72;p < 0.01]. Reduced admissions were also associated with windows and doors (IRR 0.71, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.81;p < 0.01), wall insulation (IRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.84;p < 0.01) and gardens and estates (IRR 0.73, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.83;p < 0.01) for those living in homes in which these cointervention were upgraded. There were no associations of change in emergency admissions with upgrading heating (IRR 0.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.01;p = 0.072), loft insulation (IRR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.11;p = 0.695), kitchens (IRR 0.98, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.17;p = 0.843) or bathrooms (IRR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.06;p = 0.287).LimitationsThere was no randomisation, there were incomplete data on the scale of the intervention for individual households and there were no estimates for the impact of the whole programme.ConclusionsThis complex interdisciplinary study found that hospital admissions could be avoided through improving housing quality standards.Future workAt their initiation, future non-health projects should have a built-in evaluation to allow intervention exposures to be randomly allocated to residents, with the simultaneous analysis of multiple health outcomes in one statistical model.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research programme.

show abstract

Section: Chapter 5 Does the Intervention Represent Value For Money?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Health impact, and economic value, of meeting housing quality standards: a retrospective longitudinal data linkage study

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…137 These investments do not always provide an immediate return in terms of health and other social benefits. 138 Therefore, they may not be considered cost-effective using accepted norms. There is some evidence, summarised in a review paper by Fenwick et al, 74 that investments in the energy efficiency of social housing stock provide wider benefits to the health and lives of residents, and that these investments may furthermore have value in their benefits to the NHS and social services.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The health impacts of energy performance investments in low-income areas: a mixed-methods approach

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundCold homes and fuel poverty contribute to health inequalities in ways that could be addressed through energy efficiency interventions.ObjectivesTo determine the health and psychosocial impacts of energy performance investments in low-income areas, particularly hospital admissions for cardiorespiratory conditions, prevalence of respiratory symptoms and mental health status, hydrothermal conditions and household energy use, psychosocial outcomes, cost consequences to the health system and the cost utility of these investments.DesignA mixed-methods study comprising data linkage (25,908 individuals living in 4968 intervention homes), a field study with a controlled pre-/post-test design (intervention,n = 418; control,n = 418), a controlled multilevel interrupted time series analysis of internal hydrothermal conditions (intervention,n = 48; control,n = 40) and a health economic assessment.SettingLow-income areas across Wales.ParticipantsResidents who received energy efficiency measures through the intervention programme and matched control groups.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcomes – emergency hospital admissions for cardiorespiratory conditions, self-reported respiratory symptoms, mental health status, indoor air temperature and indoor relative humidity. Secondary outcomes – emergency hospital admissions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease-related cardiorespiratory conditions, excess winter admissions, health-related quality of life, subjective well-being, self-reported fuel poverty, financial stress and difficulties, food security, social interaction, thermal satisfaction and self-reported housing conditions.MethodsAnonymously linked individual health records for emergency hospital admissions were analysed using mixed multilevel linear models. A quasi-experimental controlled field study used a multilevel repeated measures approach. Controlled multilevel interrupted time series analyses were conducted to estimate changes in internal hydrothermal conditions following the intervention. The economic evaluation comprised cost–consequence and cost–utility analyses.Data sourcesThe Patient Episode Database for Wales 2005–14, intervention records from 28 local authorities and housing associations, and scheme managers who delivered the programme.ResultsThe study found no evidence of changes in physical health. However, there were improvements in subjective well-being and a number of psychosocial outcomes. The household monitoring study found that the intervention raised indoor temperature and helped reduce energy use. No evidence was found of substantial increases in indoor humidity levels. The health economic assessment found no explicit cost reductions to the health service as a result of non-significant changes in emergency admissions for cardiorespiratory conditions.LimitationsThis was a non-randomised intervention study with household monitoring and field studies that relied on self-response. Data linkage focused on emergency admissions only.ConclusionAlthough there was no evidence that energy performance investments provide physical health benefits or reduce health service usage, there was evidence that they improve social and economic conditions that are conducive to better health and improved subjective well-being. The intervention has been successful in reducing energy use and improving the living conditions of households in low-income areas. The lack of association of emergency hospital admissions with energy performance investments means that we were unable to evidence cost saving to health-service providers.Future workOur research suggests the importance of incorporating evaluations with follow-up into intervention research from the start.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research programme.

show abstract

“…This method is adopted to find out how you can optimally allocate limited resources and is suitable when the aim is to compare different kinds of interventions. It is also a preferred approach for stakeholders compared with other common models [26,47]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-utility analysis of a dance intervention for adolescent girls with internalizing problems

Philipsson

Duberg

Möller

et al. 2013

Cost Eff Resour Alloc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe increasing prevalence of psychological health problems among adolescent girls is alarming. Knowledge of beneficial effects of physical activity on psychological health is widespread. Dance is a popular form of exercise that could be a protective factor in preventing and treating symptoms of depression. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of a dance intervention in addition to usual school health services for adolescent girls with internalizing problems, compared with usual school health services alone.MethodsA cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective based on a randomized controlled intervention trial was performed. The setting was a city in central Sweden with a population of 130 000. A total of 112 adolescent girls, 13–18 years old, with internalizing problems participated in the study. They were randomly assigned to intervention (n = 59) or control (n = 53) group. The intervention comprised dance twice weekly during eight months in addition to usual school health services. Costs for the stakeholder of the intervention, treatment effect and healthcare costs were considered. Gained quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were used to measure the effects. Quality of life was measured with the Health Utility Index Mark 3. Cost-effectiveness ratios were based on the changes in QALYs and net costs for the intervention group compared with the control group. Likelihood of cost-effectiveness was calculated.ResultsAt 20 months, quality of life had increased by 0.08 units more in the intervention group than in the control group (P = .04), translating to 0.10 gained QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was USD $3,830 per QALY and the likelihood of cost-effectiveness was 95%.ConclusionsIntervention with dance twice weekly in addition to usual school health services may be considered cost-effective compared with usual school health services alone, for adolescent girls with internalizing problems.Trial registrationName of the trial registry: “Influencing Adolescent Girls’ With Creative Dance Twice Weekly”Trial registration number: NCT01523561

show abstract

Exploring the role of economics in prioritization in public health: what do stakeholders think?

Abstract: Further research is required to substantiate and build on these preliminary findings and collaborations between economists and policy makers are needed to develop clear, rigorous and standard guidance relating to economic evaluation, recognizing the diversity of public health strategies.

Cited by 8 publications

References 6 publications

Health impact, and economic value, of meeting housing quality standards: a retrospective longitudinal data linkage study

Health impact, and economic value, of meeting housing quality standards: a retrospective longitudinal data linkage study

The health impacts of energy performance investments in low-income areas: a mixed-methods approach

Cost-utility analysis of a dance intervention for adolescent girls with internalizing problems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About