Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38048303›Full record

ArticleHealth policy and planning2024

Whole of government approaches to accelerate adolescent success: efficiency and financing considerations.

Chris Desmond, Kathryn Watt, William E Rudgard, Lorraine Sherr, Lucie Cluver

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health policy and planning, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Accelerating achievement for Africa's adolescents.Contemporary social science · 2025
    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

5 authors.

Chris DesmondSchool of Economics and Finance, University of the Witwatersrand, 1 Jan Smuts Avenue, Braamfontein, Johannesburg, Gauteng 2000, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-3500-0196
Kathryn WattCentre for Rural Health, University of KwaZulu-Natal, 238 Masizi Kunene Road, Durban, KwaZulu-Natal 4041, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0003-4390-5857
William E RudgardDepartment of Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford, 32 Wellington Square, Oxford OX1 2ER, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7301-5217
Lorraine SherrHealth Psychology Unit, Institute of Global Health, University College London, Rowland Hill Street, London NW3 2PF, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5902-8011
Lucie CluverDepartment of Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford, 32 Wellington Square, Oxford OX1 2ER, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0418-835X

Funding

UK Research and Innovation Global Challenges Research Fund ES/S008101/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The multiple domains of development covered by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) present a practical challenge for governments. This is particularly acute in highly resource-constrained settings which use a sector-by-sector approach to structure financing and prioritization. One potentially under-prioritized solution is to implement interventions with the potential to simultaneously improve multiple outcomes across sectors, what United Nations Development Programme refer to as development 'accelerators'. An increasing number of accelerators are being identified in the literature. There are, however, challenges associated with the evaluation and implementation of accelerators. First, as accelerators have multiple benefits, possibly in different sectors, they will be undervalued if the priority setting is conducted sector-by-sector. Second, even if their value is recognized, accelerators may not be adopted if doing so clashes with any of the multiple competing interests policymakers consider, of which efficiency/social desirability is but one. To illustrate the first challenge, and outline a possible solution, we conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the implementation of three sector-specific interventions to an accelerator, first using a sector-by-sector planning perspective, then a whole of government approach. The case study demonstrates how evaluating the cost-effectiveness of interventions sector-by-sector can lead to suboptimal efficiency rankings and overlook interventions that are efficient from a whole of government perspective. We then examine why recommendations based on a whole of government approach to evaluation are unlikely to be heeded. To overcome this second challenge, we outline a menu of existing and novel financing mechanisms that aim to address the mismatch between political incentives and logistical constraints in the priority setting and the economic evaluation evidence for cost-effective accelerators. These approaches to financing accelerators have the potential to improve efficiency, and in doing so, progress towards the SDGs, by aligning political incentives more closely with recommendations based on efficiency rankings.

Indexed as

GovernmentAdolescentCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansacceleratorsdecision-makingDevelopment financingeconomic evaluationpolicy evaluationresearch to policyresource allocation

Identifiers

PMID38048303
PMCPMC11020293

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.