ArticleBMC public health2026
Social impact bonds: opportunities for funding health promotion and disease prevention.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextFiscal constraints, demographic shifts, and the growing burden of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) challenge the sustainability of health systems. Innovative financing instruments, such as social impact bonds (SIBs), have been proposed to support prevention and health promotion, yet empirical evidence on their effectiveness remains limited.
objectivesTo explore the advantages and disadvantages of SIBs for financing health prevention and promotion in OECD countries, drawing on perspectives from key stakeholders and evidence from the scientific and grey literature.
designWe conducted a qualitative exploratory study combining 15 semi-structured interviews with academics, consultants, investors, and representatives of public institutions, and a targeted review of 21 publications identified through a PubMed search and supplementary grey literature sources. Thematic analysis was applied to interview transcripts using a mixed inductive-deductive coding approach, and findings were triangulated with literature evidence.
resultsSIBs offer flexibility in service delivery, foster performance monitoring, and may provide longer-term financial stability to service providers. They support the piloting of innovative interventions and enhance accountability in program implementation. However, expected cost savings for governments were rarely realized in practice. Concerns have also been raised, mainly in the theoretical literature, about rigid outcome targets, limited empirical evidence of effectiveness in NCD prevention, high transaction costs, the "wrong pocket" problem, and political vulnerability. In practice, while SIBs are considered more suitable for narrowly defined interventions with measurable intermediate outcomes than for population-wide prevention programs, their scale-up is possible, for example though outcome funds-pooling multiple SIB projects-were viewed as a potential solution for attracting larger investors and creating broader impact.
conclusionsSIBs offer a promising but contested approach to financing prevention and health promotion. Their success depends on careful intervention selection, transparent design, and adaptation to local institutional and political contexts. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.