Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2018 Jul 27;11(1):506.
doi: 10.1186/s13104-018-3609-x.

Using decision methods to examine the potential impact of intersectoral action programs

Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai  1   2 , Ahmed M Bayoumi  3   4   5   6 , Emilie Renahy  7   8 , Rebecca Cheff  9 , Patricia O'Campo  4   10
Affiliations
Review

Using decision methods to examine the potential impact of intersectoral action programs

Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai et al. BMC Res Notes. .

Abstract

Objectives: In public health today, there is a widespread call for intersectoral action (ISA) programs, in which two or more sectors cooperate to address a problem. This trend raises a question of how to appropriately assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ISA programs. To assess the impact of ISA, evaluation methods should provide a framework for simultaneously considering the impact of two or more interventions when selecting from a portfolio of programs. There is a gap in literature on such methods. In this research note, from a narrative review, we report and describe methods that could be useful for evaluating ISA programs. Subsequently, we present a hypothetical case study to demonstrate the use of these methods.

Results: We identified four methods that have potential to assess the joint impact of multiple interventions: economic evaluation, portfolio analysis, multiple-criteria decision analysis, and programme budgeting and marginal analysis. To keep pace with the desire to use strong evidence to inform the selection and design of ISA programs, methods must evolve to support these initiatives. This research note seeks to begin a dialogue on existing decision methods which may be used to assist decision makers with funding and resource allocation decisions of ISA programs.

Keywords: Cross-sectoral research; Decision methods; Economic evaluation; Intersectoral action programs; Multiple-criteria decision analysis; Portfolio analysis; Programme budgeting and marginal analysis; Public health research.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Brownson RC, Fielding JE, Maylahn CM. Evidence-based public health: a fundamental concept for public health practice. Annu Rev Public Health. 2009;30:175–201. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.031308.100134. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brownson RC, Chriqui JF, Stamatakis KA. Understanding evidence-based public health policy. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(9):1576–1583. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.156224. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. LaPelle NR, Dahlen K, Gabella BA, Juhl AL, Martin D. Elaine: overcoming inertia: increasing public health departments’ access to evidence-based information and promoting usage to inform practice. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(1):77–79. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301404. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Atun R. Health systems, systems thinking and innovation. Health Policy Plan. 2012;27(suppl 4):iv4–iv8. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czs088. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Geyer R, Cairney P. Handbook on complexity and public policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2015.