Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31446413›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2019

Valuing the impact of health and social care programs using social return on investment analysis: how have academics advanced the methodology? A systematic review.

Claire Louise Hutchinson, Angela Berndt, Deborah Forsythe, Susan Gilbert-Hunt, Stacey George, Julie Ratcliffe

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Social return on investment (SROI) method to evaluate physical activity and sport interventions: a systematic review.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. "Frontiers in public health · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Social Return on Investment Analysis of the Health Precinct Community Hub for Chronic Conditions.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Claire Louise HutchinsonNursing & Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia claire.hutchinson@flinders.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-4289-8886
Angela BerndtSchool of Health Sciences, University of South Australia Division of Health Sciences, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Deborah ForsytheSchool of Health Sciences, University of South Australia Division of Health Sciences, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Susan Gilbert-HuntSchool of Health Sciences, University of South Australia Division of Health Sciences, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Stacey GeorgeNursing & Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Julie RatcliffeNursing & Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7365-1988

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo identify how social return on investment (SROI) analysis-traditionally used by business consultants-has been interpreted, used and innovated by academics in the health and social care sector and to assess the quality of peer-reviewed SROI studies in this sector.

designSystematic review. SETTINGS: Community and residential settings.

participantsA wide range of demographic groups and age groups.

resultsThe following databases were searched: Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, Econlit, Medline, PsychINFO, Embase, Emerald, Social Care Online and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Limited uptake of SROI methodology by academics was found in the health and social care sector. From 868 papers screened, 8 studies met the criteria for inclusion in this systematic review. Study quality was found to be highly variable, ranging from 38% to 90% based on scores from a purpose-designed quality assessment tool. In general, relatively high consistency and clarity was observed in the reporting of the research question, reasons for using this methodology and justifying the need for the study. However, weaknesses were observed in other areas including justifying stakeholders, reporting sample sizes, undertaking sensitivity analysis and reporting unexpected or negative outcomes. Most papers cited links to additional materials to aid in reporting. There was little evidence that academics had innovated or advanced the methodology beyond that outlined in a much-cited SROI guide.

conclusionAcademics have thus far been slow to adopt SROI methodology in the evaluation of health and social care interventions, and there is little evidence of innovation and development of the methodology. The word count requirements of peer-reviewed journals may make it difficult for authors to be fully transparent about the details of their studies, potentially impacting the quality of reporting in those studies published in these journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018080195.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisDelivery of Health CareHumansProgram EvaluationRehabilitation, VocationalSocial ParticipationSocial Welfarehealth economicssocial caresocial impactsocial return on investmentSROI

Identifiers

PMID31446413
PMCPMC6720245

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.