Return on investment of public health interventions: a systematic review
- PMID: 28356325
- PMCID: PMC5537512
- DOI: 10.1136/jech-2016-208141
Return on investment of public health interventions: a systematic review
Abstract
Background: Public sector austerity measures in many high-income countries mean that public health budgets are reducing year on year. To help inform the potential impact of these proposed disinvestments in public health, we set out to determine the return on investment (ROI) from a range of existing public health interventions.
Methods: We conducted systematic searches on all relevant databases (including MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL; AMED; PubMed, Cochrane and Scopus) to identify studies that calculated a ROI or cost-benefit ratio (CBR) for public health interventions in high-income countries.
Results: We identified 2957 titles, and included 52 studies. The median ROI for public health interventions was 14.3 to 1, and median CBR was 8.3. The median ROI for all 29 local public health interventions was 4.1 to 1, and median CBR was 10.3. Even larger benefits were reported in 28 studies analysing nationwide public health interventions; the median ROI was 27.2, and median CBR was 17.5.
Conclusions: This systematic review suggests that local and national public health interventions are highly cost-saving. Cuts to public health budgets in high income countries therefore represent a false economy, and are likely to generate billions of pounds of additional costs to health services and the wider economy.
Keywords: ECONOMICS; Economic evaluation; Health inequalities; PUBLIC HEALTH; PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY.
Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
Conflict of interest statement
Competing interests: None declared.
Figures
Comment in
-
Public health interventions are highly cost saving, review finds.BMJ. 2017 Mar 29;356:j1606. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j1606. BMJ. 2017. PMID: 28360150 No abstract available.
References
-
- British Medical Association. Local authorities plunder ring fenced public health funds 2015. (cited 15 October 2015). http://www.bma.org.uk/news-views-analysis/news/2015/january/local-author...
-
- The Kings Fund. Cuts to public health spending: the falsest of false economies 2015. (cited 12 February 2016). http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2015/08/cuts-public-health-spending-fal...
-
- British Medical Journal. Raiding the public health budget 2014. (cited October 2015). http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g2274
-
- Hauck K, Smith P. Public choice analysis of public health priority setting. In: Cuyer A. Encyclopaedia of health economics. Oxford, UK: Elsevier, 2014:184–93 .
-
- Faculty of Public Health. What is Public Health [internet]. (cited 20 Jan 2017). http://www.fph.org.uk/what_is_public_health
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Miscellaneous