ROI Analysis: Making Policy Impacts

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

Abstract

In order for the return on investment (ROI) analysis to make an impact on health outcomes and wider economy, the findings must be used in policymaking. This chapter demonstrates that uptake of ROI concepts, tools and evidence are determined by several factors, such as the end users’ attitude, their expectation on social support and training needs. Stakeholder engagement in ROI research is therefore essential to make policy impact– this engagement should be throughout, from the design of the study to dissemination and beyond. Stakeholder engagement helps one to understand the decision context so that the ROI analysis can be meaningful to decision makers. Policy briefs and infographics are effective means to communicating ROI findings to government policymakers and wider stakeholders.

Keywords

Return on investment ROI Impact Stakeholder Decision context 

References

  1. 1.
    Research Councils UK (RCUK). Pathways to impact. 2014. http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/innovation/impacts/
  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, Cookson R, Capewell S. Return on investment of public health interventions: a systematic review. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2017;71:827–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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
  5. 5.
    European Commission. Public health: Tobacco: Policy. 2016. http://ec.europa.eu/health/tobacco/policy/index_en.htm
  6. 6.
    Brown T, Platt S, Amos A. Equity impact of European individual-level smoking cessation interventions to reduce smoking in adults: a systematic review. Eur J Public Health. 2014;24(4):551–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    European Commission. Attitudes of Europeans towards tobacco 2015: key findings of the 2015 Eurobarometer. 2016. http://ec.europa.eu/health/tobacco/docs/2015_infograph_en.pdf
  8. 8.
    Joossens L, Raw M. The Tobacco Control Scale 2013 in Europe. Association of European Cancer Leagues. 2014. http://www.europeancancerleagues.org/images/TobaccoControl/TCS_2013_in_Europe_13-03-14_final_1.pdf
  9. 9.
    Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J. A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cheung K, Evers S, de Vries H, Hiligsmann M. The most important barriers and facilitators to the use of HTA by policy makers. Eur Health Psychol. 2016;18(Suppl):477.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rutter J. Evidence and evaluation in policy making. London: Institute for Government; 2012.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cheung KL, Evers SM, Hiligsmann M, Voko Z, Pokhrel S, Jones T, et al. Understanding the stakeholders’ intention to use economic decision-support tools: a cross-sectional study with the tobacco return on investment tool. Health Policy. 2016;120(1):46–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vokó Z, Cheung KL, Józwiak-Hagymásy J, Wolfenstetter S, Jones T, Muñoz C, et al. Similarities and differences between stakeholders’ opinions on using Health Technology Assessment (HTA) information across five European countries: results from the EQUIPT survey. Health Res Policy Syst. 2016;14(1):38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    de Vries H, Mesters I, Van de Steeg H, Honing C. The general public’s information needs and perceptions regarding hereditary cancer: an application of the Integrated Change Model. Patient Educ Couns. 2005;56(2):154–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Return on investment tools. 2016. https://www.nice.org.uk/About/What-we-do/Into-practice/Return-on-investment-tools
  16. 16.
    EQUIPT. Supporting decision making in tobacco cessation in Europe: Tobacco Control Policy Proposals. 2016. http://equipt.eu/deliverables
  17. 17.
    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
  18. 18.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Supporting investment in public health: review of methods for assessing cost-effectiveness, cost impact and return on investment. Proof of concept report. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2011.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    UK Government. Health and Social Care Act 2012. London: Lesiglation.gov.uk; 2012.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Public Health England. Public Health Outcomes Framework: health improvement: compare areas: excess weight in Adults. 2015. https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/profile/public-health-outcomesframework/data#page/3/gid/1000042/pat/6/par/E12000004/ati/102/are/E06000015/iid/20101/age/235/sex/4
  21. 21.
    Public Health England. Public Health Outcomes Framework: health improvement: compare areas: physical activity. 2015. http://www.phoutcomes.info/public-health-outcomes-framework#page/3/gid/1000042/pat/6/par/E12000007/ati/102/are/E09000002/iid/90275/age/164/sex/4
  22. 22.
    Berg ML, Cheung KL, Hiligsmann M, Evers S, Kinderen RJ, Kulchaitanaroaj P, et al. Model-based economic evaluations in smoking cessation and their transferability to new contexts: a systematic review. Addiction. 2017;112:946–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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
  24. 24.
    EQUIPT. European-study on Quantifying Utility of Investment in Protection from Tobacco. 2016. http://www.equipt.eu/
  25. 25.
    Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Program Evaluation Guide—Step 1—Engage Stakeholders. 2012. https://www.cdc.gov/eval/guide/step1/index.htm
  26. 26.
    Lavis JN, Permanand G, Oxman AD, Lewin S, Fretheim A. SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 13: preparing and using policy briefs to support evidence-informed policymaking. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009;7(1):S13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    EQUIPT. Supporting decision making in tobacco cessation in Europe: policy and media briefs. 2016. http://equipt.eu/deliverables
  28. 28.
    Health & Social Care Information Centre. Statistics on smoking England 2016. . http://content.digital.nhs.uk/catalogue/PUB20781/stat-smok-eng-2016-rep.pdf
  29. 29.
    The EQUIPT Study Group. The EQUIPT ROI tool. 2016. http://equipt.eu/deliverables
  30. 30.
    World Health Organisation. Tobacco free initiative MPOWER. 2016. http://www.who.int/tobacco/mpower/en/
  31. 31.
    NHS Choices. NHS stop smoking services help you quit. 2016. http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/smoking/Pages/NHS-stop-smoking-adviser.aspx
  32. 32.
    NICE Public Health Guidance PH10. Stop smoking services guidance. 2013. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ph10/chapter/4-Recommendations
  33. 33.
    EQUIPT. Supporting Decision Making in Tobacco Cessation in Europe: comparative effectiveness report. 2016. http://equipt.eu/deliverables

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