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
. 2018 Aug 23;18(1):660.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3450-x.

Systematic review of economic evaluations of interventions for high risk young people

Kim Edmunds  1 , Rod Ling  2 , Anthony Shakeshaft  3 , Chris Doran  4 , Andrew Searles  2
Affiliations

Systematic review of economic evaluations of interventions for high risk young people

Kim Edmunds et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

Background: The aim of this systematic literature review is to identify and critique full economic evaluations of interventions for high risk young people with the purpose of informing the design of future rigorous economic evaluations of such intervention programs.

Methods: A PRISMA compliant search of the literature between 2000 and April 2018 was conducted to identify full economic evaluations of youth focussed interventions for at risk young people. Duplicates were removed and two researchers independently screened the article titles and abstracts according to PICOS criteria for exclusion and inclusion. The remaining full text articles were assessed for eligibility and a quality assessment of the included articles was conducted using the Drummond checklist.

Results: The database, grey literature and hand searches located 488 studies of interventions for at risk young people. After preliminary screening of titles and abstracts, 104 studies remained for full text examination and 29 empirical studies containing 32 separate economic evaluations were judged eligible for inclusion in the review. These comprised 13 cost-benefit analyses (41%), 17 cost-effectiveness analyses (53%), one cost-utility analysis (3%) and a social return on investment (3%). Three main methodological challenges were identified: 1. attribution of effects; 2. measuring and valuing outcomes; and 3. identifying relevant costs and consequences.

Conclusions: A cost-benefit analysis would best capture the dynamic nature of a multi-component intervention for high risk young people, incorporating broader intersectoral outcomes and enabling measurement of more domains of risk. Prospective long-term data collection and a strong study design that incorporates a control group contribute to the quality of economic evaluation. Extrapolation of impact into the future is important for this population, in order to account for the time lag in effect of many impacts and benefits arising from youth interventions.

Keywords: Cost-benefit analysis; Cost-effectiveness analysis; Cost-utility analysis; Economic evaluation; High risk young people; Multi-component intervention; Social return on investment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable; literature based research involving no human subjects, human material or human data.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flow diagram
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Ou S-R, Mersky J, Reynolds A, Kohler K. Alterable predictors of educational attainment, income, and crime: findings from an inner-city cohort. Soc Serv Rev. 2007;81(1):85–128. doi: 10.1086/510783. - DOI
    1. Stade B, Ali A, Bennett D, Campbell D, Johnston M, Lens C, Tran S, Koren G. The burden of prenatal exposure to alcohol: revised measurement of cost. Can J Clin Pharmacol. 2009;16(1):e91–102. - PubMed
    1. Child Family Community Australia (CFCA) Effects of child abuse and neglect for children and adolescents. Canberra: Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS); 2014.
    1. Knight A, Shakeshaft A, Harvard A, Maple M, Foley C, Shakeshaft B. The quality and effectiveness of interventions that target multiple risk factors among young people: a systematic review. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2016;41(1):54–60. doi: 10.1111/1753-6405.12573. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Knight A, Maple M, Shakeshaft A, Shakeshaft B, Pearce T. Improving the evidence base for services working with youth at-risk of involvement in the criminal justice system: developing a standardised program approach. Health Justice. 2018;6(8). 10.1186/s40352-018-0066-5. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources