Diary of a Policymaker

  • Subhash Pokhrel
  • Lesley Owen
  • Kathryn Coyle
  • Doug Coyle
Chapter

Abstract

Policymakers are in search of evidence that resonates to their local needs (real-world practice). Often what is available is not in the format desired. This is particularly the case for economic evidence, where the traditional metric (cost/QALY (quality adjusted life year)) is seen as “abstract” in the context of real-world decision making by many. This chapter introduces return on investment (ROI) analyses that offer information on the costs and benefits of alternative policy actions. ROI information should usually be presented as a single, simplified metric making it easy for decision makers to relate it to their local contexts.

Keywords

Decision making Return on investment ROI Cost QALY 

References

  1. 1.
    Masic I, Miokovic M, Muhamedagic B. Evidence based medicine – new approaches and challenges. Acta Inform Med. 2008;16(4):219–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    The Public Health Information and Data Tutorial. From evidence-based medicine to evidence-based public health. 2017. https://phpartners.org/tutorial/04-ebph/2-keyConcepts/4.2.1.html
  3. 3.
    Cairney P, Oliver K. Evidence-based policymaking is not like evidence-based medicine, so how far should you go to bridge the divide between evidence and policy? Health Res Policy Syst. 2017;15(1):35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cochrane Collaboration. What do we do? 2017. http://www.cochrane.org/about-us
  5. 5.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013 [PMG9]. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2013.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). Health technology assessment. 2017. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/funding-and-support/funding-for-research-studies/funding-programmes/health-technology-assessment/
  7. 7.
    NHS. Equity and excellence: liberating the NHS. London: Secretary for Health, 2010 to 2015 Conservative and Liberal Democrat Coalition Government; 2010.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    UK Government. Health and Social Care Act 2012. London: Lesiglation.gov.uk; 2012.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Owen L, Morgan A, Fischer A, Ellis S, Hoy A, Kelly MP. The cost-effectiveness of public health interventions. J Public Health (Oxf). 2012;34(1):37–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Trapero-Bertran M, Pokhrel S, Trueman P. Building the business case for Tobacco Control: a toolkit to estimate the economic impact of tobacco. Brunel Univeristy in asosciation with Tobacco Free Futures, Fresh Smoke Free North East & Smokefree South West, 2011. https://www.brunel.ac.uk/__data/assets/file/0017/144710/Technical-Report-16-Dec-2011.pdf
  11. 11.
    EQUIPT. European-study on Quantifying Utility of Investment in Protection from Tobacco. 2016. http://www.equipt.eu/

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Subhash Pokhrel
    • 1
  • Lesley Owen
    • 2
  • Kathryn Coyle
    • 3
  • Doug Coyle
    • 4
  1. 1.Health Economics Research Group (HERG), Division of Health SciencesBrunel University LondonUxbridgeUK
  2. 2.Centre for GuidelinesNational Institute for Health and Care ExcellenceLondonUK
  3. 3.Health Economics Research Group (HERG)Brunel University LondonUxbridgeUK
  4. 4.School of Epidemiology and Public HealthUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations