Where’s Next for Public Health ROI Research?

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


The return on investment (ROI) research in public health is evolving as a useful ingredient to the decision-making process, but a number of challenges exist currently. This chapter surveys these challenges. The barriers to use ROI tools are around commissioning contexts, local needs, target population and types of users. Like any other model, ROI models are not free from limitations. Methodological research for the future could look at the ways in which more accurate data around effects (health, quality of life and wider) of behaviour change could be collected. Also, more accurate modelling techniques such as the one allowing individual user-level variation may be required. Transferring a well-established ROI model to other jurisdictions or other areas of public health may save research resources.


Decision making Return on investment ROI Impact Stakeholder 


  1. 1.
    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
  2. 2.
    EQUIPT. Supporting decision making in tobacco cessation in Europe: Tobacco Control Policy Proposals. 2016.
  3. 3.
    Public Health England (PHE). Making the case for investment in prevention and early intervention: tools and frameworks to help local authorities and the NHS. London: Public Health England; 2014.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gibbon M. Kent Tobacco Control and Stop Smoking Strategy. Kent County Council; 2014.
  5. 5.
    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
  6. 6.
    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
  7. 7.
    Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas JA. systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Return on investment tools. 2016.
  9. 9.
    EQUIPT. European-study on Quantifying Utility of Investment in Protection from Tobacco. 2016.
  10. 10.
    World Health Organisation (WHO). WHO OneHealth Tool. WHO. 2014.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Edwards RT, Charles JM, Lloyd-Williams H. Public health economics: a systematic review of guidance for the economic evaluation of public health interventions and discussion of key methodological issues. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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
  13. 13.
    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
  14. 14.
    Pokhrel S. Return on investment (ROI) modelling in public health: strengths and limitations. Eur J Public Health. 2015;25(6):908–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Philips Z, Bojke L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S. Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(4):355–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weinstein MC, O’brien B, Hornberger J, Jackson J, Johannesson M, McCabe C, et al. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices—Modeling Studies. Value Health. 2003;6(1):9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rutter J. Evidence and evaluation in policy making. London: Institute for Government; 2012.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    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
  19. 19.
    Best A, Holmes B. Systems thinking, knowledge and action: towards better models and methods. Evid Policy. 2010;6(2):145–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Atkinson J-A, Page A, Wells R, Milat A, Wilson AA. modelling tool for policy analysis to support the design of efficient and effective policy responses for complex public health problems. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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