Advertisement

A Journey to Real-World Decision Problems

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

Abstract

The principal aim of return on investment (ROI) analysis is to support decisions as it provides a decision maker with explicit data about the costs and consequences of alternative courses of action. Three questions dominate a decision maker’s dilemma: do I invest, do I invest more, do I disinvest? These questions are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Real-world decisions are complex to make and therefore the decision problems must be defined appropriately. This chapter shows how the PICO (population, intervention, comparator and outcomes) framework can be helpful in framing the decision problem at hand.

Keywords

Decision making Return on investment ROI PICO 

References

  1. 1.
    Glasgow RE, Emmons KM. How can we increase translation of research into practice? Types of evidence needed. Annu Rev Public Health. 2007;28:413–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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
  3. 3.
    Masters R, Anwar E, Collins B, et al. Return on investment of public health interventions: a systematic review. J Epidemiol Community Health. Published Online First: 29 March 2017. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2016-208141
  4. 4.
    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 Association 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
  5. 5.
    Pokhrel S, Evers S, Leidl R, Trapero-Bertran M, Kalo Z, De Vries H, et al. EQUIPT: protocol of a comparative effectiveness research study evaluating cross-context transferability of economic evidence on tobacco control. BMJ Open. 2014;4(11):e006945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    National Instititute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Methods for the development of NICE public health guidance. 3rd ed. London: National Instititute for Health and Care Excellence; 2012.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thokala P, Devlin N, Marsh K, Baltussen R, Boysen M, Kalo Z, et al. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making—an introduction: report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2016;19(1):1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    The King’s Fund. Cuts to public health spending: the falsest of false economies. 2015. https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2015/08/cuts-public-health-spending-falsest-false-economies

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