Applying behavioural economics to health systems of low- and middle-income countries: what are policymakers' and practitioners' views?

EVITA 2.0, an updated framework for understanding evidence-based mental health policy agenda-setting: tested and informed by key informant interviews in a multilevel comparative case study

Background

Mental health remains a neglected issue on the global health policy agenda, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), and the translation of research evidence into policy and practice is slow. The new EVITA framework was developed to improve mental health evidence uptake and policy agenda-setting in LMICs. In addition, behavioural science methods may be able to support knowledge translation to policy.

Methods

Using a mixed-methods study design, we applied and tested the newly developed EVITA 1.1 framework against three case studies related to South Africa at the district, national and international levels. In-depth interviews with 26 experts were conducted between August and November 2019, transcribed, coded and analysed in NVivo, using iterative categorization. The data were analysed against both the EVITA framework and the MINDSPACE framework for behavioural insights.

Results

In our case study comparison, we found that (1) research translation to the policy agenda occurs in a complex, fluid system which includes multiple “research clouds”, “policy spheres” and other networks; (2) mental health research policy agenda-setting is based on key individuals and intermediaries and their interrelationships; and (3) key challenges and strategies for successful research to policy agenda impact are known, but are frequently not strategically implemented, such as including all stakeholders to overcome the policy implementation gap. Our data also suggest that behavioural science methods can be strategically applied to support knowledge translation to policy agenda-setting.

Conclusion

We found that the EVITA framework is useful for understanding and improving mental health research policy interrelationships to support evidence uptake to the policy agenda, and that behavioural science methods are effective support mechanisms. The revised EVITA 2.0 framework therefore includes behavioural insights, for improved mental health policy agenda-setting in LMICs. More research is needed to understand whether EVITA can be applied to other LMICs and to high-income contexts.

The moral perils of conditional cash transfer programmes and their significance for policy: a meta-ethnography of the ethical debate

Conditional cash transfer (CCT) is a compelling policy alternative for reducing poverty and improving health, and its effectiveness is promising. CCT programmes have been widely deployed across geographical, economic and political contexts, but not without contestation. Critics argue that CCTs may result in infringements on freedom and dignity, gender discrimination and disempowerment and power imbalances between programme providers and beneficiaries. In this analysis, we aim to identify the ethical concepts applicable to CCTs and to contextualize these by mapping the tensions of the debate, allowing us to understand the separate contributions as parts of a larger whole. We searched a range of databases for records on public health CCT. Strategies were last run in January 2017. We included 31 dialectical articles deliberating the ethics of CCTs and applied a meta-ethnographic approach. We identified 22 distinct ethical concepts. By analysing and mapping the tensions in the discourse, the following four strands of debate emerged: (1) responsibility for poverty and health: personal vs public duty, (2) power balance: autonomy vs paternalism, (3) social justice: empowerment vs oppression and (4) marketization of human behaviour and health: 'fair trade' vs moral corruption. The debate shed light on the ethical ideals, principles and doctrines underpinning CCT. These were consistent with a market-oriented liberal welfare regime ideal: privatization of public responsibilities; a selective rather than a universal approach; empowerment by individual entrepreneurship; marketization of health with a conception of human beings as utility maximizing creatures; and limited acknowledgement of the role of structural injustices in poverty and health. Identification of key tensions in the public health ethics debate may expose underpinning ideological logics of health and social programmes that may be at odds with public values and contemporary political priorities. Decisions about CCTs should therefore not be considered a technical exercise, but a context-dependent process requiring transparent, informed and deliberative decision-making.

Sustainability of Publicly Funded Health Care Systems: What Does Behavioural Economics Offer?

There has been a rapid increase in the use of behavioural economics (BE) as a tool for policy makers to deploy, including in health-related applications. While this development has occurred over the past decade, health care systems have continued to struggle with escalating costs. We consider the potential role of BE for making improvements to health care system performance and the sustainability of publicly funded health care systems, in particular. We argue that the vast majority of applications in this field have been largely focussed on BE and public health, or the prevailing level of risks to health in populations, and with policy proposals to 'nudge' individual behaviour (e.g. in respect of dietary choices). Yet, improvements in population health may have little, if any, impact on the size, cost or efficiency of health care systems. Few applications of BE have focussed on the management, production, delivery or utilisation of health care services per se. The latter is our focus in this paper. We review the contributions on BE and health care and consider the potential for complementing the considerable work on BE and public health with a clear agenda for behavioural health care economics. This agenda should complement the work of conventional microeconomics in the health care sector.

Integrating economics into the rationale for multisectoral action on obesity

Obesity is a compelling example of the challenges of championing and mobilizing a response that involves the whole of government and all of society. This paper discusses the need for economic rationales to strengthen the case for government intervention on obesity, with a view to better engaging the expertise and resources of nonhealth sectors. The paper also briefly reviews economic theory and evidence that could support an integrated multisectoral rationale for action, noting opportunities to expand the integration of economic evidence in the Americas.