Cargando…

Valuing the impact of health and social care programs using social return on investment analysis: how have academics advanced the methodology? A systematic review

OBJECTIVES: To identify how social return on investment (SROI) analysis—traditionally used by business consultants—has been interpreted, used and innovated by academics in the health and social care sector and to assess the quality of peer-reviewed SROI studies in this sector. DESIGN: Systematic rev...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hutchinson, Claire Louise, Berndt, Angela, Forsythe, Deborah, Gilbert-Hunt, Susan, George, Stacey, Ratcliffe, Julie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6720245/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31446413
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029789
_version_ 1783448080714039296
author Hutchinson, Claire Louise
Berndt, Angela
Forsythe, Deborah
Gilbert-Hunt, Susan
George, Stacey
Ratcliffe, Julie
author_facet Hutchinson, Claire Louise
Berndt, Angela
Forsythe, Deborah
Gilbert-Hunt, Susan
George, Stacey
Ratcliffe, Julie
author_sort Hutchinson, Claire Louise
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To identify how social return on investment (SROI) analysis—traditionally used by business consultants—has been interpreted, used and innovated by academics in the health and social care sector and to assess the quality of peer-reviewed SROI studies in this sector. DESIGN: Systematic review. SETTINGS: Community and residential settings. PARTICIPANTS: A wide range of demographic groups and age groups. RESULTS: The following databases were searched: Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, Econlit, Medline, PsychINFO, Embase, Emerald, Social Care Online and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Limited uptake of SROI methodology by academics was found in the health and social care sector. From 868 papers screened, 8 studies met the criteria for inclusion in this systematic review. Study quality was found to be highly variable, ranging from 38% to 90% based on scores from a purpose-designed quality assessment tool. In general, relatively high consistency and clarity was observed in the reporting of the research question, reasons for using this methodology and justifying the need for the study. However, weaknesses were observed in other areas including justifying stakeholders, reporting sample sizes, undertaking sensitivity analysis and reporting unexpected or negative outcomes. Most papers cited links to additional materials to aid in reporting. There was little evidence that academics had innovated or advanced the methodology beyond that outlined in a much-cited SROI guide. CONCLUSION: Academics have thus far been slow to adopt SROI methodology in the evaluation of health and social care interventions, and there is little evidence of innovation and development of the methodology. The word count requirements of peer-reviewed journals may make it difficult for authors to be fully transparent about the details of their studies, potentially impacting the quality of reporting in those studies published in these journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018080195.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6720245
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67202452019-09-17 Valuing the impact of health and social care programs using social return on investment analysis: how have academics advanced the methodology? A systematic review Hutchinson, Claire Louise Berndt, Angela Forsythe, Deborah Gilbert-Hunt, Susan George, Stacey Ratcliffe, Julie BMJ Open Health Informatics OBJECTIVES: To identify how social return on investment (SROI) analysis—traditionally used by business consultants—has been interpreted, used and innovated by academics in the health and social care sector and to assess the quality of peer-reviewed SROI studies in this sector. DESIGN: Systematic review. SETTINGS: Community and residential settings. PARTICIPANTS: A wide range of demographic groups and age groups. RESULTS: The following databases were searched: Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, Econlit, Medline, PsychINFO, Embase, Emerald, Social Care Online and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Limited uptake of SROI methodology by academics was found in the health and social care sector. From 868 papers screened, 8 studies met the criteria for inclusion in this systematic review. Study quality was found to be highly variable, ranging from 38% to 90% based on scores from a purpose-designed quality assessment tool. In general, relatively high consistency and clarity was observed in the reporting of the research question, reasons for using this methodology and justifying the need for the study. However, weaknesses were observed in other areas including justifying stakeholders, reporting sample sizes, undertaking sensitivity analysis and reporting unexpected or negative outcomes. Most papers cited links to additional materials to aid in reporting. There was little evidence that academics had innovated or advanced the methodology beyond that outlined in a much-cited SROI guide. CONCLUSION: Academics have thus far been slow to adopt SROI methodology in the evaluation of health and social care interventions, and there is little evidence of innovation and development of the methodology. The word count requirements of peer-reviewed journals may make it difficult for authors to be fully transparent about the details of their studies, potentially impacting the quality of reporting in those studies published in these journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018080195. BMJ Publishing Group 2019-08-24 /pmc/articles/PMC6720245/ /pubmed/31446413 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029789 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Health Informatics
Hutchinson, Claire Louise
Berndt, Angela
Forsythe, Deborah
Gilbert-Hunt, Susan
George, Stacey
Ratcliffe, Julie
Valuing the impact of health and social care programs using social return on investment analysis: how have academics advanced the methodology? A systematic review
title Valuing the impact of health and social care programs using social return on investment analysis: how have academics advanced the methodology? A systematic review
title_full Valuing the impact of health and social care programs using social return on investment analysis: how have academics advanced the methodology? A systematic review
title_fullStr Valuing the impact of health and social care programs using social return on investment analysis: how have academics advanced the methodology? A systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Valuing the impact of health and social care programs using social return on investment analysis: how have academics advanced the methodology? A systematic review
title_short Valuing the impact of health and social care programs using social return on investment analysis: how have academics advanced the methodology? A systematic review
title_sort valuing the impact of health and social care programs using social return on investment analysis: how have academics advanced the methodology? a systematic review
topic Health Informatics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6720245/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31446413
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029789
work_keys_str_mv AT hutchinsonclairelouise valuingtheimpactofhealthandsocialcareprogramsusingsocialreturnoninvestmentanalysishowhaveacademicsadvancedthemethodologyasystematicreview
AT berndtangela valuingtheimpactofhealthandsocialcareprogramsusingsocialreturnoninvestmentanalysishowhaveacademicsadvancedthemethodologyasystematicreview
AT forsythedeborah valuingtheimpactofhealthandsocialcareprogramsusingsocialreturnoninvestmentanalysishowhaveacademicsadvancedthemethodologyasystematicreview
AT gilberthuntsusan valuingtheimpactofhealthandsocialcareprogramsusingsocialreturnoninvestmentanalysishowhaveacademicsadvancedthemethodologyasystematicreview
AT georgestacey valuingtheimpactofhealthandsocialcareprogramsusingsocialreturnoninvestmentanalysishowhaveacademicsadvancedthemethodologyasystematicreview
AT ratcliffejulie valuingtheimpactofhealthandsocialcareprogramsusingsocialreturnoninvestmentanalysishowhaveacademicsadvancedthemethodologyasystematicreview