Equity-informative methods of health services research

Using natural experiments to evaluate population health interventions: a framework for producers and users of evidence

Background

There has been a substantial increase in the conduct of natural experimental evaluations in the last 10 years. This has been driven by advances in methodology, greater availability of large routinely collected datasets, and a rise in demand for evidence about the impacts of upstream population health interventions. It is important that researchers, practitioners, commissioners, and users of intervention research are aware of the recent developments. This new framework updates and extends existing Medical Research Council guidance for using natural experiments to evaluate population health interventions.

Methods

The framework was developed with input from three international workshops and an online consultation with researchers, journal editors, funding representatives, and individuals with experience of using and commissioning natural experimental evaluations. The project team comprised researchers with expertise in natural experimental evaluations. The project had a funder-assigned oversight group and an advisory group of independent experts.

Results

The framework defines key concepts and provides an overview of recent advances in designing and planning evaluations of natural experiments, including the relevance of a systems perspective, mixed methods and stakeholder involvement throughout the process. It provides an overview of the strengths, weaknesses, applicability and limitations of the range of methods now available, identifies issues of infrastructure and data governance, and provides good practice considerations.

Limitations

The framework does not provide detailed information for the substantial volume of themes and material covered, rather an overview of key issues to help the conduct and use of natural experimental evaluations.

Conclusion

This updated and extended framework provides an integrated guide to the use of natural experimental methods to evaluate population health interventions. The framework provides a range of tools to support its use and detailed, evidence-informed recommendations for researchers, funders, publishers, and users of evidence.

Study registration

This methodological project was not registered.

Funding

This project was jointly funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) and National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), with project reference MC_PC_21009. The work is published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 13, No. 3.

Primer on Health Equity Research in Health Economics and Outcomes Research: An ISPOR Special Interest Group Report

OBJECTIVES

Disparities in health and healthcare between more and less socially advantaged groups are pervasive, multidimensional, and far-reaching. The material and social conditions in which people are born, grow, work, live, and age are systematically associated with their health and with the volume, quality, and outcomes of care received by the vast majority of the general population, as well as by specific marginalized populations. The field of health economics and outcomes research (HEOR) has an important role in supporting health equity goals. This publication aimed to act as a "primer" for conducting health equity research within the field of HEOR, establishing foundational understanding of key concepts.

METHODS

The ISPOR Special Interest Group on Health Equity Research was established in 2021 to advance equity-informative methods and data to better enable researchers to empirically investigate-and ultimately reduce-unfair social differences in health. This publication was developed by the ISPOR Special Interest Group leadership team with input from the group membership.

RESULTS

The resultant publication provides an overview of health equity research methods and data considerations as they relate to HEOR-relevant topics including clinical trials, real-world evidence and economic evaluation. Reflecting the current body of research on health equity in HEOR, particular focus is given to the latter. It also brings together a list of core reference material to support future learning.

CONCLUSIONS

This report provides the HEOR community with a tailored "state of play" overview of health equity, to support development of foundational understanding and inspire increased engagement.

Priorities and expectations of researchers, funders, patients and the public regarding the funding of medical research: results from the PERSPECT qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Ideally, medical research provides crucial data about disease processes, diagnoses, prognoses, treatment targets and outcomes, and systems of care. However, medical research is costly, and funding is difficult to receive because the processes are highly competitive. There is a paucity of data on the perspectives of researchers, funders, patients and the public about current funding paradigms. This study sought to understand the priorities and opinions of each group to better guide meaningful innovation in research funding processes.

METHOD

In this Priorities & Expectations of Researchers, Funders, Patients and the Public Regarding the Funding & Conduct of Stroke Research study, we conducted in-depth interviews with medical researchers, funders, patients and members of the general public to learn their opinions of the current funding process and thoughts about alternative approaches. We used both purposive and snowball sampling to recruit participants and conducted semistructured interviews. The study ended when thematic saturation was attained. Qualitative analysis followed inductive grounded theory methodology.

RESULTS

41 interviews were completed (11 researchers, 10 funders, 10 patients, 10 members of the general public; 61% female). Interviewees expressed a high interest in supporting a comprehensive evaluation of the research grant funding process while integrating funding mechanisms that are more inclusive and reduce bias in topic selection and researchers who receive funds. Participants acknowledged a gap in patient and public involvement in setting a research agenda, choosing topics to be studied and focusing on specific outcomes. Crowdfunding was identified as an alternative strategy that could facilitate research democratisation; however, participants emphasised the importance of expert review of research proposals, as in current processes to continue to support rigour and trust in research proposal quality.

CONCLUSION

Our research revealed stakeholder concerns about the transparency and equity of current research funding paradigms. Suggestions to democratize research and explore alternative fundraising platforms necessitate a fundamental shift in traditional research funding processes.

Informing Public Health Policies with Models for Disease Burden, Impact Evaluation, and Economic Evaluation

Conducting real-world public health experiments is often costly, time-consuming, and ethically challenging, so mathematical models have a long-standing history of being used to inform policy. Applications include estimating disease burden, performing economic evaluation of interventions, and responding to health emergencies such as pandemics. Models played a pivotal role during the COVID-19 pandemic, providing early detection of SARS-CoV-2's pandemic potential and informing subsequent public health measures. While models offer valuable policy insights, they often carry limitations, especially when they depend on assumptions and incomplete data. Striking a balance between accuracy and timely decision-making in rapidly evolving situations such as disease outbreaks is challenging. Modelers need to explore the extent to which their models deviate from representing the real world. The uncertainties inherent in models must be effectively communicated to policy makers and the public. As the field becomes increasingly influential, it needs to develop reporting standards that enable rigorous external scrutiny.

A Scoping Review of Economic Evaluations to Inform the Reorientation of Preventive Health Services in Australia

The Australian National Preventive Health Strategy 2021-2030 recommended the establishment of evidence-based frameworks to enable local public health services to identify strategies and interventions that deliver value for money. This study aimed to review the cost-effectiveness of preventive health strategies to inform the reorientation of local public health services towards preventive health interventions that are financially sustainable. Four electronic databases were searched for reviews published between 2005 and February 2022. Reviews that met the following criteria were included: population: human studies, any age or sex; concept 1: primary and/or secondary prevention interventions; concept 2: full economic evaluation; context: local public health services as the provider of concept 1. The search identified 472 articles; 26 were included. Focus health areas included mental health (n = 3 reviews), obesity (n = 1), type 2 diabetes (n = 3), dental caries (n = 2), public health (n = 4), chronic disease (n = 5), sexual health (n = 1), immunisation (n = 1), smoking cessation (n = 3), reducing alcohol (n = 1), and fractures (n = 2). Interventions that targeted obesity, type 2 diabetes, smoking cessation, and fractures were deemed cost-effective, however, more studies are needed, especially those that consider equity in priority populations.

Mobile Health Interventions and RCTs: Structured Taxonomy and Research Framework

Mobile Health Interventions (MHIs) have addressed a range of healthcare challenges and have been evaluated using Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) to establish clinical effectiveness. Using PRISMA we conducted a systematic literature review of RCTs for MHIs and identified 70 studies which were analyzed and classified using Nickerson-Varshney-Muntermann (NVM) taxonomy. From the resultant iterations of the taxonomy, we extracted insights from the categorized studies. RCTs cover a wide range of health conditions including chronic diseases, general wellness, unhealthy practices, family planning, end-of-life, and post-transplant care. The MHIs that were utilized by the RCTs were varied as well, although most studies did not find significant differences between MHIs and usual care. The challenges for MHI-based RCTs include the use of technologies, delayed outcomes, patient recruitment, patient retention, and complex regulatory requirements. These variances can lead to a higher rate of Type I/Type II errors. Further considerations are the impact of infrastructure, contextual and cultural factors, and reductions in the technological relevancy of the intervention itself. Finally, due to the delayed effect of most outcomes, RCTs of insufficient duration are unable to measure significant, lasting improvements. Using the insights from seventy identified studies, we developed a classification of existing RCTs along with guidelines for MHI-based RCTs and a research framework for future RCTs. The framework offers opportunities for (a) personalization of MHIs, (b) use of richer technologies, and (c) emerging areas for RCTs.

Exploring the nexus of equality and efficiency in healthcare

Purpose

This study aims to explore the nexus of equality and efficiency by considering public hospitals' development dynamics, capacity and technology indicators.

Design/methodology/approach

Data was collected from the Ministry of Health Public Hospital Almanacs from 2014 to 2017. The Gini index (GI) is used to estimate the inequality of distribution of hospital performance indicators. A bias-corrected efficiency analysis is calculated to obtain efficiency scores of public hospitals for the year 2017. A path analysis is then constructed to better identify patterns of causation among a set of development, equality and efficiency variables.

Findings

A redefined path model highlights that development dynamics, equality and efficiency are causally related and health technology (path coefficient = 0.57; t = 19.07; p < 0.01) and health services utilization (path coefficient = 0.24; t = 8; p < 0.01) effects public hospital efficiency. The final path model fit well (X2/df = 50.99/8 = 6; RMSEA = 0.089; NFI = 0.95; CFI = 0.96; GFI = 0.98; AGFI = 0.94). Study findings indicate high inequalities in distribution of health technologies (GI > 0.85), number of surgical operations (GI > 0.70) and number of inpatients (GI > 0.60) among public hospitals for the years 2014–2017.

Originality/value

Study results highlight that, hospital managers should prioritize equal distribution of health technology and health services utilization indicators to better orchestrate equity-efficiency trade-off in their operations.