Health and Social Care Integration in Scotland: Evidence vs Rhetoric.

In this perspective paper we use publicly-available data to show that, despite much positive rhetoric in support of reforms in Scotland to integrate health and social care, these reforms, in their current state, have failed to meet their stated objectives. Rather than regress to the previous system, we propose continued evaluation of even more radical forms of such integration. This analysis, and set of future proposals, are timely given current considerations with respect to a National Care Service in Scotland and recent similar reforms in England and in other countries.

Systematic Review of the Relative Social Value of Child and Adult Health.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to synthesise knowledge on the relative social value of child and adult health. METHODS: Quantitative and qualitative studies that evaluated the willingness of the public to prioritise treatments for children over adults were included. A search to September 2023 was undertaken. Completeness of reporting was assessed using a checklist derived from Johnston et al. Findings were tabulated by study type (matching/person trade-off, discrete choice experiment, willingness to pay, opinion survey or qualitative). Evidence in favour of children was considered in total, by length or quality of life, methodology and respondent characteristics. RESULTS: Eighty-eight studies were included; willingness to pay (n = 9), matching/person trade-off (n = 12), discrete choice experiments (n = 29), opinion surveys (n = 22) and qualitative (n = 16), with one study simultaneously included as an opinion survey. From 88 studies, 81 results could be ascertained. Across all studies irrespective of method or other characteristics, 42 findings supported prioritising children, while 12 provided evidence favouring adults in preference to children. The remainder supported equal prioritisation or found diverse or unclear views. Of those studies considering prioritisation within the under 18 years of age group, nine findings favoured older children over younger children (including for life saving interventions), six favoured younger children and five found diverse views. CONCLUSIONS: The balance of evidence suggests the general public favours prioritising children over adults, but this view was not found across all studies. There are research gaps in understanding the public's views on the value of health gains to very young children and the motivation behind the public's views on the value of child relative to adult health gains. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The review is registered at PROSPERO number: CRD42021244593. There were two amendments to the protocol: (1) some additional search terms were added to the search strategy prior to screening to ensure coverage and (2) a more formal quality assessment was added to the process at the data extraction stage. This assessment had not been identified at the protocol writing stage.

Views, obstacles, and uncertainties around the inclusion of children and young people's time in economic evaluations: Findings from an international survey of health economists.

People's time is a limited resource and, in economic evaluations that adopt a societal perspective, it is important that it is valued and accounted for. Yet, in economic evaluations of interventions for children and young people (CYP), attempts to take into account the opportunity cost of their time are rare. To understand why this is the case, we need to first understand what views health economists hold in relation to CYP time, and what challenges they face in incorporating this in their evaluations. We planned and carried out an international survey of health economists. We used a combination of approaches to identify potential survey respondents (the survey's sampling frame), we developed a questionnaire that sought to capture respondents' views and practice through close- and open-ended questions, we piloted the questionnaire through a series of cognitive interviews, and we e-mailed unique links to the final version of the questionnaire to 1956 individuals in the sampling frame. We analysed data using quantitative (descriptive and inferential statistics) and qualitative (thematic analysis) methods. We received 274 complete responses. Most respondents (87%) believe CYP time should be considered for inclusion in economic evaluations conducted from a societal perspective. However, they identify a number of obstacles to doing so, most prominently uncertainties around appropriate practice (e.g., when CYP's time should or should not be included in calculations), methodological gaps (e.g., what value to attach to CYP's time), and practical difficulties in measuring displaced time in CYP. Reporting on their own practice, most respondents found it challenging to consider CYP time in their studies, and stressed the need for clear guidance on when, and further research on how, to appropriately account for CYP's time in economic evaluations. We offer our views on how to move the topic forwards and make suggestions further research.

Developing a combined framework for priority setting in integrated health and social care systems.

BACKGROUND: There is an international move towards greater integration of health and social care to cope with the increasing demand on services.. In Scotland, legislation was passed in 2014 to integrate adult health and social care services resulting in the formation of 31 Health and Social Care Partnerships (HSCPs). Greater integration does not eliminate resource scarcity and the requirement to make (resource) allocation decisions to meet the needs of local populations. There are different perspectives on how to facilitate and improve priority setting in health and social care organisations with limited resources, but structured processes at the local level are still not widely implemented. This paper reports on work with new HSCPs in Scotland to develop a combined multi-disciplinary priority setting and resource allocation framework. METHODS: To develop the combined framework, a scoping review of the literature was conducted to determine the key principles and approaches to priority setting from economics, decision-analysis, ethics and law, and attempts to combine such approaches. Co-production of the combined framework involved a multi-disciplinary workshop including local, and national-level stakeholders and academics to discuss and gather their views. RESULTS: The key findings from the literature review and the stakeholder workshop were taken to produce a final combined framework for priority setting and resource allocation. This is underpinned by principles from economics (opportunity cost), decision science (good decisions), ethics (justice) and law (fair procedures). It outlines key stages in the priority setting process, including: framing the question, looking at current use of resources, defining options and criteria, evaluating options and criteria, and reviewing each stage. Each of these has further sub-stages and includes a focus on how the combined framework interacts with the consultation and involvement of patients, public and the wider staff. CONCLUSIONS: The integration agenda for health and social care is an opportunity to develop and implement a combined framework for setting priorities and allocating resources fairly to meet the needs of the population. A key aim of both integration and the combined framework is to facilitate the shifting of resources from acute services to the community.

Preparing for future pandemics: A multi-national comparison of health and economic trade-offs.

Government investment in preparing for pandemics has never been more relevant. The COVID-19 pandemic has stimulated debate regarding the trade-offs societies are prepared to make between health and economic activity. What is not known is: (1) how much the public in different countries are prepared to pay in forgone GDP to avoid mortality from future pandemics; and (2) which health and economic policies the public in different countries want their government to invest in to prepare for and respond to the next pandemic. Using a future-focused, multi-national discrete choice experiment, we quantify these trade-offs and find that the tax-paying public is prepared to pay $3.92 million USD (Canada), $4.39 million USD (UK), $5.57 million USD (US) and $7.19 million USD (Australia) in forgone GDP per death avoided in the next pandemic. We find the health policies that taxpayers want to invest in before the next pandemic and the economic policies they want activated once the next pandemic hits are relatively consistent across the countries, with some exceptions. Such results can inform economic policy responses and government investment in health policies to reduce the adverse impacts of the next pandemic.

Common health assets protocol: a mixed-methods, realist evaluation and economic appraisal of how community-led organisations (CLOs) impact on the health and well-being of people living in deprived areas.

INTRODUCTION: This research investigates how community-led organisations' (CLOs') use of assets-based approaches improves health and well-being, and how that might be different in different contexts. Assets-based approaches involve 'doing with' rather than 'doing to' and bring people in communities together to achieve positive change using their own knowledge, skills and experience. Some studies have shown that such approaches can have a positive effect on health and well-being. However, research is limited, and we know little about which approaches lead to which outcomes and how different contexts might affect success. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using a realist approach, we will work with 15 CLOs based in disadvantaged communities in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. A realist synthesis of review papers, and a policy analysis in different contexts, precedes qualitative interviews and workshops with stakeholders, to find out how CLOs' programmes work and identify existing data. We will explore participants' experiences through: a Q methodology study; participatory photography workshops; qualitative interviews and measure outcomes using a longitudinal survey, with 225 CLO participants, to assess impact for people who connect with the CLOs. An economic analysis will estimate costs and benefits to participants, for different contexts and mechanisms. A 'Lived Experience Panel' of people connected with our CLOs as participants or volunteers, will ensure the appropriateness of the research, interpretation and reporting of findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This project, research tools and consent processes have been approved by the Glasgow Caledonian University School of Health and Life Sciences Ethics Committee, and affirmed by Ethics Committees at Bournemouth University, Queen's University Belfast and the University of East London. Common Health Assets does not involve any National Health Service sites, staff or patients.Findings will be presented through social media, project website, blogs, policy briefings, journal articles, conferences and visually in short digital stories, and photographic exhibitions.

Protocol for estimating the willingness-to-pay-based value for a quality-adjusted life year to aid health technology assessment in India: a cross-sectional study.

INTRODUCTION: To ensure that the evidence generated by health technology assessment (HTA) is translated to policy, it is important to generate a threshold value against which the outcomes of HTA studies can be compared. In this context, the present study delineates the methods that will be deployed to estimate such a value for India. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The proposed study will deploy a multistage sampling approach considering economic and health status for selection of states, followed by selection of districts based on Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) and identification of primary sampling units (PSUs) using the 30-cluster approach. Further, households within PSU will be identified using systematic random sampling and block randomisation based on gender will be done to select respondent from the household. A total of 5410 respondents will be interviewed for the study. The interview schedule will comprise of three sections including background questionnaire to elicit socioeconomic and demographic characteristics, followed by assessment of health gains, and willingness to pay (WTP). To assess the health gains and corresponding WTP, the respondent will be presented with hypothetical health states. Using time trade off method, the respondent will indicate the amount of time he/she is willing to give up at the end of life to avoid morbidities in the hypothetical health condition. Further, respondents will be interviewed about their WTP for treatment of respective hypothetical conditions using contingent valuation technique. These estimates of health gains and corresponding WTP will then be combined to ascertain the value of WTP per quality-adjusted life year. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The ethical approval has been obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC) of Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India. The study outcomes will be made available for general use and interpretation of HTA studies commissioned by India's central HTA Agency.

Intervening in the cycle of poverty, poor housing and poor health: the role of housing providers in enhancing tenants' mental wellbeing.

Poverty, poor housing and poor health are complexly interconnected in a cycle that has proven resistant to intervention by housing providers or policy makers. Research often focuses on the impacts of the physical housing defects, particularly upon rates of (physical) illness and disease. There has been comparatively little research into the ways in which housing services can underpin the generation of positive health and, especially, wellbeing. Drawing on qualitative data from 75 tenants in the social and private rented sectors, this paper describes the findings of a research project that tracked tenants' experiences across their first year in a new tenancy in Greater Glasgow, Scotland. The project collected data on tenants' perceptions of housing and housing service quality, financial coping and health and wellbeing, which was analysed using the principles of Realist Evaluation to elucidate impacts and causal pathways. Being able to establish a sense of home was key to tenants' wellbeing. The home provided many tenants with a recuperative space in which to shelter from daily stressors and was a source of autonomy and social status. A sense of home was underpinned by aspects of the housing service, property quality and affordability which are potentially amenable to intervention by housing providers. These findings raise questions about the extent to which social housing providers and the private rental market in the UK are able to meet the needs of vulnerable tenants. They suggest that approaches to housing provision that go beyond providing a basic dwelling are needed to successfully intervene in the cycle of poverty, poor housing and poor health.

Health economics and emergence from COVID-19 lockdown: the great big marginal analysis.

Despite denials of politicians and other advisors, trade-offs have already been apparent in many policy decisions addressing the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and its social and economic consequences. Here, we illustrate why it is important, from a wellbeing perspective, to recognise such trade-offs, and provide a framework, based on the economic concept of 'marginal analysis', for doing so. We illustrate its potential through consideration of optimising the balance between reducing the reproductive rate (R) of the virus and further opening of the economy. The framework accommodates both perspectives in the health-vs-economy debate whereby, depending on where we are within the marginal analysis framework, either health issues are allowed to dominate or, below some threshold of R and/or background level of infection, health and economic considerations can be traded off against each other. Given the inevitability of such trade-offs, the framework exposes crucial questions to be addressed, such as: the critical value of R and/or background infection, above which health considerations predominate, and which may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction; and the value of lives forgone resulting from the small increases in R and/or background infection levels that may have to be tolerated as the economy is gradually opened.

The relative value of carer and patient quality of life: A person trade-off (PTO) study.

Carer quality of life is increasingly considered alongside patient quality of life in economic evaluation. Important questions remain about how to value carer and patient quality of life effects alongside one another. In this study, we estimated the relative social value of two conceptualisations of carer quality of life (health-related and care-related) compared to patient quality of life. Relative valuations were estimated using a person trade-off (PTO) study with 990 representative members of the UK public. Participants chose between hypothetical services that improved the quality of life of carers and patients, iterating to a point of indifference. Overall 84% of participants completing the task were willing to trade patient and carer quality of life effects. Relative to a reference point of 1 for patient health-related quality of life, we estimated a social value of 0.74 for carer health-related quality of life effects and 0.69 for carer care-related quality of life effects. In conclusion, public preferences appear to support the inclusion of carer quality of life effects within economic evaluation. The results provide a means to value different carer quality of life outcomes in economic evaluation, where such values are needed and deemed appropriate.

Estimating an exchange-rate between care-related and health-related quality of life outcomes for economic evaluation: An application of the wellbeing valuation method.

Quality of life outcomes for family carers and patients may be measured in different ways within the same economic evaluation. We used the wellbeing valuation method to calculate "exchange rates" between care-related outcomes (the Carer Experience Scale and CarerQoL-7D) and health-related (the EQ-5D-5L) outcomes. Data on quality of life outcomes were collected through a postal quality of life survey in the UK. A random effects model was used to estimate carers' wellbeing as a function of their EQ-5D-5L, Carer Experience Scale (or CarerQoL-7D) and a set of control variables. When life satisfaction was used as the measure of wellbeing, a one-point gain in the Carer Experience Scale (0-100 scale) was equivalent (in wellbeing terms) to a 0.014 gain in EQ-5D-5L value; and a one point gain in the CarerQoL-7D (0-100 scale) was equivalent to a 0.033 gain in EQ-5D-5L. The exchange rate values were reduced when capability was used as the measure of wellbeing. The exchange rates estimated in this study offer a means to place carer and patient outcomes, measured via different quality of life instruments, on a common scale, although there are important issues to consider in operationalising the technique.

What is the right level of spending needed for health and care in the UK?

The health and care sector plays a valuable role in improving population health and societal wellbeing, protecting people from the financial consequences of illness, reducing health and income inequalities, and supporting economic growth. However, there is much debate regarding the appropriate level of funding for health and care in the UK. In this Health Policy paper, we look at the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and historical spending in the UK and comparable countries, assess the role of private spending, and review spending projections to estimate future needs. Public spending on health has increased by 3·7% a year on average since the National Health Service (NHS) was founded in 1948 and, since then, has continued to assume a larger share of both the economy and government expenditure. In the decade before the ongoing pandemic started, the rate of growth of government spending for the health and care sector slowed. We argue that without average growth in public spending on health of at least 4% per year in real terms, there is a real risk of degradation of the NHS, reductions in coverage of benefits, increased inequalities, and increased reliance on private financing. A similar, if not higher, level of growth in public spending on social care is needed to provide high standards of care and decent terms and conditions for social care staff, alongside an immediate uplift in public spending to implement long-overdue reforms recommended by the Dilnot Commission to improve financial protection. COVID-19 has highlighted major issues in the capacity and resilience of the health and care system. We recommend an independent review to examine the precise amount of additional funds that are required to better equip the UK to withstand further acute shocks and major threats to health.

Public values and plurality in health priority setting: What to do when people disagree and why we should care about reasons as well as choices.

CONTEXT: 'What does 'The Public' think?' is a question often posed by researchers and policy makers, and public values are regularly invoked to justify policy decisions. Over time there has been a participatory turn in the social and health sciences, including health technology assessment and priority setting in health, towards citizen participation such that public policies reflect public values. It is one thing to agree that public values are important, however, and another to agree on how public values should be elicited, deliberated upon and integrated into decision-making. Surveys of public values rarely deliver unanimity, and preference heterogeneity, or plurality, is to be expected. METHODS: This paper examines the role of public values in health policy and how to elicit, analyse, and present values, in the face of plurality. We delineate the strengths and weaknesses of aggregative and deliberative methods before setting out a new empirical framework, drawing on Sunstein's Incompletely Theorised Agreements, based on three levels: principles, policies and patients. The framework is illustrated using a recognised policy dilemma - the provision of high cost, limited-effect medicines intended to extend life for people with terminal illnesses. FINDINGS: Application of the multi-level framework to public values permits transparent consideration of plurality, including analysis of coherence and consensus, in a way that offers routes to policy recommendations that are based on public values and justified in those terms. CONCLUSIONS: Using the new framework and eliciting quantitative and qualitative data across levels of abstraction has the potential to inform policy recommendations grounded in public values, where values are plural. This is not to suggest that one solution will magically emerge, but rather that choices between policies can be explicitly justified in relation to the properties of public values, and a much clearer understanding of (in)consistencies and areas of consensus.

Addressing prioritization in healthcare amidst a global pandemic.

Trade-offs abound in healthcare yet depending on where one stands relative to the stages of a pandemic, choice making may be more or less constrained. During the early stages of COVID-19 when there was much uncertainty, healthcare systems faced greater constraints and focused on the singular criterion of "flattening the curve." As COVID-19 progressed and the first wave diminished (relatively speaking depending on the jurisdiction), more opportunities presented for making explicit choices between COVID and non-COVID patients. Then, as the second wave surged, again decision makers were more constrained even as more information and greater understanding developed. Moving out of the pandemic to recovery, choice making becomes paramount as there are no set rules to lean back into historical patterns of resource allocation. In fact, the opportunity at hand, when using explicit tools for priority setting based on economic and ethical principles, is significant.

An Examination of Consistency in the Incremental Approach to Willingness to Pay: Evidence Using Societal Values for NHS Dental Services.

INTRODUCTION: Willingness to pay (WTP) is used to generate information about value. However, when comparing 2 or more services using standard WTP techniques, the amounts elicited from participants for the services are often similar, even when individuals state a clear preference for one service over another. An incremental approach has been suggested, in which individuals are asked to first rank interventions and provide a WTP value for their lowest-ranked intervention followed by then asking how much more they are willing to pay for their next preferred choice and so on. To date, evaluation of this approach has disregarded protest responses, which may give information on consistency between stated and implicit rankings. METHODS: A representative sample of the English population (n = 790) were asked to value 5 dental services adopting a societal perspective, using a payment vehicle of additional household taxation per year. The sample was randomized to either the standard or the incremental approach. Performance for both methods is assessed on discrimination between values for interventions and consistency between implicit and stated ranks. The data analysis is the first to retain protest responses when considering consistency between ranks. RESULTS: The results indicate that neither approach provides values that discriminate between interventions. Retaining protest responses reveals inconsistencies between the stated and implicit ranks are present in both approaches but much reduced in the incremental approach. CONCLUSION: The incremental approach does not improve discrimination between values, yet there is less inconsistency between ranks. The protest responses indicate that objections to giving values to the dental interventions are dependent on a multitude of factors beyond the elicitation process.

Microcredit as a public health initiative? Exploring mechanisms and pathways to health and wellbeing.

The widening health gap between the best and worst-off in the UK requires innovative solutions that act upon the social, economic and environmental causes of ill-health. Initiatives such as microcredit have been conceptualised as having the potential to act on the social determinants of health. However, pathways that lead to this impact have yet to be empirically explored. People living on low incomes, who are financially-excluded, require access to credit to cope with everyday financial needs. While research shows the connections between debt and health, this link is often focused on over-indebtedness and negative health outcomes. In this paper, we investigate the impact of responsibly-delivered credit on the health and wellbeing of borrowers. In 2016-17, in-depth, semi-structured interviews were undertaken with fourteen borrowers from two microcredit providers offering personal and business microloans, operating in Glasgow, United Kingdom. Findings are presented, using social determinants of health as an analytic lens, and illustrated in a conceptual model explaining the loan mechanisms and pathways connecting microcredit to health and wellbeing. Microcredit, and the mechanisms through which it is delivered, were perceived by participants as positively impacting on their health and wellbeing. Access to flexible, responsibly-delivered, microloans enabled participants to plan and feel secure when faced with (un)expected financial events, reducing the associated stress, sustaining social relationships and empowering borrowers to take greater control over their lives. For some, receiving microcredit was stressful, as it is still a debt that needs to be repaid. Such stress can also be exacerbated by particular aspects of the lending model; for example, group lending. Our results contribute to growing evidence on the impact of financial inclusion approaches on health and wellbeing, highlighting the potential role of microcredit as a public health initiative and the need to support 'alternative' economic spaces in the UK to serve the financially-excluded.