How can agent-based modelling provide new insights into the impact of minimum unit pricing in Scotland?

In recent years we have gained insight into the impact of minimum unit pricing (MUP)-a legal floor price below which a given volume of alcohol cannot be sold-on population-level reductions in alcohol sales, consumption and harm. However, several questions remain unanswered including how individual-level purchasing changes impact the local economy (e.g., balance between on-licence and off-licence outlets), lead to long-term population-level trends (e.g., youth drinking) and social harms (e.g., violence). Agent-based modelling captures heterogeneity, emergence, feedback loops and adaptive and dynamic features, which provides an opportunity to understand the nuanced effects of MUP. Agent-based models (ABM) simulate heterogeneous agents (e.g., individuals, organisations) often situated in space and time that interact with other agents and/or with their environment, allowing us to identify the mechanisms underlying social phenomena. ABMs are particularly useful for theory development, and testing and simulating the impacts of policies and interventions. We illustrate how ABMs could be applied to generate novel insights and provide best estimates of social network effects, and changes in purchasing behaviour and social harms, due to the implementation of MUP. ABMs like other modelling approaches can simulate alternative implementations of MUP (e.g., policy intensity [£0.50, £0.60] or spatial scales [local, national]) but can also provide an understanding of the potential impact of MUP on different population groups (e.g., alcohol exposure of young people who are not yet drinking). Using ABMs to understand the impact of MUP would provide new insights to complement those from traditional epidemiological and other modelling methods.

Economic evaluation of self-help group interventions for health in LMICs: a scoping review.

This scoping review aims to identify and critically appraise published economic evaluations of self-help group (SHG) interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) that seek to improve health and potentially also non-health outcomes. Through a systematic search of MEDLINE ALL (Ovid), EMBASE Ovid, PsychINFO, EconLit (Ovid) and Global Index Medicus, we identified studies published between 2014 and 2020 that were based in LMICs, included at least a health outcome, estimated intervention costs and reported the methods used. We critically analysed whether the methods employed can meaningfully inform decisions by ministries of health and other sectors, including donors, regarding whether to fund such interventions, and prioritized the aspects of evaluations that support decision-making and cross-sectoral decision-making especially. Nine studies met our inclusion criteria. Randomized controlled trials were the most commonly used vehicle to collect data and to establish a causal effect across studies. While all studies clearly stated one or more perspectives justifying the costs and effects that are reported, few papers clearly laid out the decision context or the decision maker(s) informed by the study. The latter is required to inform which costs, effects and opportunity costs are relevant to the decision and should be included in the analysis. Costs were typically reported from the provider or health-care sector perspective although other perspectives were also employed. Four papers reported outcomes in terms of a generic measure of health. Contrary to expectation, no studies reported outcomes beyond health. Our findings suggest limitations in the extent to which published studies are able to inform decision makers around the value of implementing SHG interventions in their particular context. Funders can make better informed decisions when evidence is presented using a cross-sectoral framework.

Equity impact of minimum unit pricing of alcohol on household health and finances among rich and poor drinkers in South Africa.

INTRODUCTION: South Africa experiences significant levels of alcohol-related harm. Recent research suggests minimum unit pricing (MUP) for alcohol would be an effective policy, but high levels of income inequality raise concerns about equity impacts. This paper quantifies the equity impact of MUP on household health and finances in rich and poor drinkers in South Africa. METHODS: We draw from extended cost-effectiveness analysis (ECEA) methods and an epidemiological policy appraisal model of MUP for South Africa to simulate the equity impact of a ZAR 10 MUP over a 20-year time horizon. We estimate the impact across wealth quintiles on: (i) alcohol consumption and expenditures; (ii) mortality; (iii) government healthcare cost savings; (iv) reductions in cases of catastrophic health expenditures (CHE) and household savings linked to reduced health-related workplace absence. RESULTS: We estimate MUP would reduce consumption more among the poorest than the richest drinkers. Expenditure would increase by ZAR 353 000 million (1 US$=13.2 ZAR), the poorest contributing 13% and the richest 28% of the increase, although this remains regressive compared with mean income. Of the 22 600 deaths averted, 56% accrue to the bottom two quintiles; government healthcare cost savings would be substantial (ZAR 3.9 billion). Cases of CHE averted would be 564 700, 46% among the poorest two quintiles. Indirect cost savings amount to ZAR 51.1 billion. CONCLUSIONS: A MUP policy in South Africa has the potential to reduce harm and health inequality. Fiscal policies for population health require structured policy appraisal, accounting for the totality of effects using mathematical models in association with ECEA methodology.

Effects of minimum unit pricing for alcohol in South Africa across different drinker groups and wealth quintiles: a modelling study.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the potential impact of minimum unit pricing (MUP) for alcohol on alcohol consumption, spending and health in South Africa. We provide these estimates disaggregated by different drinker groups and wealth quintiles. DESIGN: We developed an epidemiological policy appraisal model to estimate the effects of MUP across sex, drinker groups (moderate, occasional binge, heavy) and wealth quintiles. Stakeholder interviews and workshops informed model development and ensured policy relevance. SETTING: South African drinking population aged 15+. PARTICIPANTS: The population (aged 15+) of South Africa in 2018 stratified by drinking group and wealth quintiles, with a model time horizon of 20 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in standard drinks (SDs) (12 g of ethanol) consumed, weekly spend on alcohol, annual number of cases and deaths for five alcohol-related health conditions (HIV, intentional injury, road injury, liver cirrhosis and breast cancer), reported by drinker groups and wealth quintile. RESULTS: We estimate an MUP of R10 per SD would lead to an immediate reduction in consumption of 4.40% (-0.93 SD/week) and an increase in spend of 18.09%. The absolute reduction is greatest for heavy drinkers (-1.48 SD/week), followed by occasional binge drinkers (-0.41 SD/week) and moderate drinkers (-0.40 SD/week). Over 20 years, we estimate 20 585 fewer deaths and 9 00 332 cases averted across the five health-modelled harms.Poorer drinkers would see greater impacts from the policy (consumption: -7.75% in the poorest quintile, -3.19% in richest quintile). Among the heavy drinkers, 85% of the cases averted and 86% of the lives saved accrue to the bottom three wealth quintiles. CONCLUSIONS: We estimate that MUP would reduce alcohol consumption in South Africa, improving health outcomes while raising retail and tax revenue. Consumption and harm reductions would be greater in poorer groups.

Operational research to support equitable non-communicable disease policy in low-income and middle-income countries in the sustainable development era: a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) represent a growing health burden in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Operational research (OR) has been used globally to support the design of effective and efficient public policies. Equity is emphasised in the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) framework introduced in 2015 and can be analysed within OR studies. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science for studies published between 2015 and 2018 at the intersection of five domains (OR, LMICs, NCDs, health and decision-making and/or policy-making). We categorised the type of policy intervention and described any concern for equity, which we defined as either analysis of differential impact by subgroups or, policy focus on disadvantaged groups or promoting universal health coverage (UHC). RESULTS: A total of 149 papers met the inclusion criteria. The papers covered a number of policy types and a broad range of NCDs, although not in proportion to their relative disease burden. A concern for equity was demonstrated by 88 of the 149 papers (59%), with 8 (5%) demonstrating differential impact, 47 (32%) targeting disadvantaged groups, and 68 (46%) promoting UHC. CONCLUSION: Overall, OR for NCD health policy in the SDG era is being applied to a diverse set of interventions and conditions across LMICs and researchers appear to be concerned with equity. However, the current focus of published research does not fully reflect population needs and the analysis of differential impact within populations is rare.

Equal access for equal need: Eliciting public preferences for access to health treatment by employment status.

The National Health Service in the UK is set up under the principle of "equal access for equal need", where those with identical medical needs should be given equal priority in receiving health care. However, non-medical needs may also be relevant in health care decision-making. This paper considers how members of the general public value access to a health service given equal medical needs, where some service users have additional non-medical needs. There are three primary research questions. First, are public preferences regarding access to a health care service symmetric and inequality averse? Second, are public preferences asymmetric across different needs groups? And third, which individual characteristics of respondents are predictive of different public preferences in this domain? An online survey of the UK general public was conducted in January 2017 using binary choice questions. The hypothetical scenarios involved allocating extra resources from a social perspective, to reduce the waiting time to access a mental health service for the unemployed, for the employed, or for both groups. Based on a valid sample of 662 respondents, the study found that the three main preference categories were: inequality averse and symmetric, inequality averse and asymmetric in favour of the unemployed, and inequality seeking and asymmetric in favour of the unemployed, with the first group being the largest. Respondents' current labour market status was found to explain their preferences so that those who were currently job-seeking were more likely to demonstrate preferences that favoured the unemployed, and those who were currently unemployed were less likely to demonstrate asymmetric preferences that favoured the employed. The implications from these findings are that health policies in the UK that support equal access for equal medical need are likely to be received most favourably, yet a non-trivial minority may support policies favouring those with other, non-medical needs.