Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37648275›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2023

Analyses of the return on investment of public health interventions: a scoping review and recommendations for future studies.

Hugo C Turner, Yoshiaki Hori, Paul Revill, Waranya Rattanavipapong, Ko Arai, Justice Nonvignon, Mark Jit, Yot Teerawattananon

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ global health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Cost-Effectiveness of a Lifestyle and Behavioral Care Model Targeting Cardiometabolic Disease Progression.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026
    Article
  6. Potential value streams of an integrated Canadian serosurveillance network.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

8 authors.

Hugo C TurnerMRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK ht306@ic.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-8428-3874
Yoshiaki HoriSchool of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0009-0000-1712-8084
Paul RevillCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.
Waranya RattanavipapongHealth Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0001-8628-2149
Ko AraiGraduate School of Business Administration, Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo, Japan.
Justice NonvignonSchool of Public Health, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana.
Mark JitCentre of Global Change and Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Yot TeerawattananonHealth Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.

Funding

Department of Health NIHR200908Department of Health NIHR200929Medical Research Council MR/R015600/1Medical Research Council MR/X020258/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Return on investment (ROI) analysis is increasingly being used for evaluating the value for money of public health interventions. Given its potential role for informing health policies, it is important that there is a more comprehensive understanding of ROI analysis within the global health field. To address this gap in the literature, we conducted a scoping review of recent research articles reporting an ROI metric for a health intervention within the public sector in any country setting. The database search was limited to literature published in English and studies published between 1 January 2018 and 14 June 2021. Uses and settings where the ROI metric is being applied, key methodological features of the calculations and the types of economic benefits included were extracted. 118 relevant studies were included within this scoping review. We found that ROI analyses of health interventions differed between those that only included fiscal savings (such as prevented medical expenses) and those which incorporated a wider range of benefits (such as monetised health benefits). This highlights the variation in the definition of ROI analyses and supports the finding that ROI analyses are used for a range of different research questions/purposes within the healthcare sector. We also found that the methodologies used in ROI calculations were inconsistent and often poorly reported. This review demonstrates that there is notable variation in the methodology surrounding recent ROI calculations of healthcare interventions, as well as the definition of ROI analysis. We recommend that ROI metrics should be carefully interpreted before they are used to inform policy decisions regarding the allocation of healthcare resources. To improve the consistency of future studies, we also set out recommended use cases for ROI analysis and a reporting checklist.

Indexed as

BenchmarkingPublic HealthChecklistDatabases, FactualHealth PolicyHumanshealth economicshealth policies and all other topicshealth policypublic health

Identifiers

PMID37648275
PMCPMC10471881

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.