Dataset Information

Exploring different methods to evaluate the impact of basic income interventions: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Persistent income inequality, the increase in precarious employment, the inadequacy of many welfare systems, and economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic have increased interest in Basic Income (BI) interventions. Ensuring that social interventions, such as BI, are evaluated appropriately is key to ensuring their overall effectiveness. This systematic review therefore aims to report on available methods and domains of assessment, which have been used to evaluate BI interventions. These findings will assist in informing future program and research development and implementation.

Methods

Studies were identified through systematic searches of the indexed and grey literature (Databases included: Scopus, Embase, Medline, CINAHL, Web of Science, ProQuest databases, EBSCOhost Research Databases, and PsycINFO), hand-searching reference lists of included studies, and recommendations from experts. Citations were independently reviewed by two study team members. We included studies that reported on methods used to evaluate the impact of BI, incorporated primary data from an observational or experimental study, or were a protocol for a future BI study. We extracted information on the BI intervention, context and evaluation method.

Results

86 eligible articles reported on 10 distinct BI interventions from the last six decades. Workforce participation was the most common outcome of interest among BI evaluations in the 1960-1980 era. During the 2000s, studies of BI expanded to include outcomes related to health, educational attainment, housing and other key facets of life impacted by individuals' income. Many BI interventions were tested in randomized controlled trials with data collected through surveys at multiple time points.

Conclusions

Over the last two decades, the assessment of the impact of BI interventions has evolved to include a wide array of outcomes. This shift in evaluation outcomes reflects the current hypothesis that investing in BI can result in lower spending on health and social care. Methods of evaluation ranged but emphasized the use of randomization, surveys, and existing data sources (i.e., administrative data). Our findings can inform future BI intervention studies and interventions by providing an overview of how previous BI interventions have been evaluated and commenting on the effectiveness of these methods.

Registration

This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD 42016051218).

SUBMITTER: Pinto AD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8206888 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCombination prevention is currently considered the best approach to combat HIV epidemic. It is based upon the combination of structural, behavioral, and biomedical interventions. Such interventions are frequently implemented in a health-promoting manner due to their aims, the approach that was adopted, and their complexity. The impact evaluation of these interventions often relies on methods inherited from the biomedical field. However, these methods have limitations and should be adapted to be relevant for these complex interventions. This systematic review aims to map the evidence-based methods used to quantify the impact of these interventions and analyze how these methods are implemented.MethodsThree databases (Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed) will be used to identify impact evaluation studies of health promotion interventions that aimed at reducing the incidence or prevalence of HIV infection. Only studies based on quantitative design assessing intervention impact on HIV prevalence or incidence will be included. Two reviewers will independently screen studies based on titles and abstracts and then on the full text. The information about study characteristics will be extracted to understand the context in which the interventions are implemented. The information specific to quantitative methods of impact evaluation will be extracted using items from the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), the guidelines for reporting Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature (SAMPL), and the guidelines for Strengthening The Reporting of Empirical Simulation Studies (STRESS). This review will be conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.DiscussionThe impact evaluation of HIV prevention interventions is a matter of substantial importance given the growing need for evidence of the effectiveness of these interventions, whereas they are increasingly complex. These evaluations allow to identify the most effective strategies to be implemented to fight the epidemic. It is therefore relevant to map the methods to better implement them and adapt them according to the type of intervention to be evaluated.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020210825.

Project description:Universal, unconditional basic income is attracting increasing policy and academic interest. Income is a key health determinant, and a basic income could affect health through its effect on other determinants, such as employment. However, there is little evidence of its potential effects on public health, because no studies of interventions which meet the definition of basic income have been done. However, there is evidence from studies of interventions with similarities to basic income. Therefore, we aimed to identify these studies and to consider what can be learned from them about the potential effects of such interventions on health and socioeconomic outcomes. We did a systematic scoping review of basic income-like interventions, searching eight bibliographic and eight specialist databases from inception to July, 2019, with extensive hand searching. We included publications in English of quantitative and qualitative studies done in upper-middle-income or high-income countries, of universal, permanent, or subsistence-level interventions providing unconditional payments to individuals or families. We sought to identify the range of outcomes reported by relevant studies, and report health, education, employment, and social outcomes. We extracted and tabulated relevant data and narratively reported effects by intervention and outcome. We identified 27 studies of nine heterogeneous interventions, some universal and permanent, and many evaluated using randomised controlled trials or robust quasi-experimental methods. Evidence on health effects was mixed, with strong positive effects on some outcomes, such as birthweight and mental health, but no effect on others. Employment effects were inconsistent, although mostly small for men and larger for women with young children. There was evidence of spill-over effects in studies measuring effects on large populations. In conclusion, little evidence exists of large reductions in employment, and some evidence suggests positive effects on some other outcomes, including health outcomes. Evidence for macro-level effects is scarce. Quasi-experimental and dynamic modelling approaches are well placed to investigate such effects.

Project description:BackgroundDigital health can empower citizens to manage their health and address health care system problems including poor access, uncoordinated care and increasing costs. Digital health interventions are typically complex interventions. Therefore, evaluations present methodological challenges.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to provide a systematic overview of the methods used to evaluate the effects of internet-based digital health interventions for citizens. Three research questions were addressed to explore methods regarding approaches (study design), effects and indicators.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of reviews of the methods used to measure the effects of internet-based digital health interventions for citizens. The protocol was developed a priori according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols and the Cochrane Collaboration methodology for overviews of reviews. Qualitative, mixed-method, and quantitative reviews published in English or French from January 2010 to October 2016 were included. We searched for published reviews in PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINHAL and Epistemonikos. We categorized the findings based on a thematic analysis of the reviews structured around study designs, indicators, types of interventions, effects and perspectives.ResultsA total of 20 unique reviews were included. The most common digital health interventions for citizens were patient portals and patients' access to electronic health records, covered by 10/20 (50%) and 6/20 (30%) reviews, respectively. Quantitative approaches to study design included observational study (15/20 reviews, 75%), randomized controlled trial (13/20 reviews, 65%), quasi-experimental design (9/20 reviews, 45%), and pre-post studies (6/20 reviews, 30%). Qualitative studies or mixed methods were reported in 13/20 (65%) reviews. Five main categories of effects were identified: (1) health and clinical outcomes, (2) psychological and behavioral outcomes, (3) health care utilization, (4) system adoption and use, and (5) system attributes. Health and clinical outcomes were measured with both general indicators and disease-specific indicators and reported in 11/20 (55%) reviews. Patient-provider communication and patient satisfaction were the most investigated psychological and behavioral outcomes, reported in 13/20 (65%) and 12/20 (60%) reviews, respectively. Evaluation of health care utilization was included in 8/20 (40%) reviews, most of which focused on the economic effects on the health care system.ConclusionsAlthough observational studies and surveys have provided evidence of benefits and satisfaction for patients, there is still little reliable evidence from randomized controlled trials of improved health outcomes. Future evaluations of digital health interventions for citizens should focus on specific populations or chronic conditions which are more likely to achieve clinically meaningful benefits and use high-quality approaches such as randomized controlled trials. Implementation research methods should also be considered. We identified a wide range of effects and indicators, most of which focused on patients as main end users. Implications for providers and the health system should also be included in evaluations or monitoring of digital health interventions.

Project description:ObjectivesTo synthesise evidence on the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and barriers to responding to violence against women (VAW) in sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services in low/middle-income countries (LMICs).DesignMixed-methods systematic review.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, Psycinfo, Cochrane, Cinahl, IMEMR, Web of Science, Popline, Lilacs, WHO RHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Google, Google Scholar, websites of key organisations through December 2019.Eligibility criteriaStudies of any design that evaluated VAW interventions in SRH services in LMICs.Data extraction and synthesisConcurrent narrative quantitative and thematic qualitative syntheses, integration through line of argument and mapping onto a logic model. Two reviewers extracted data and appraised quality.Results26 studies of varied interventions using heterogeneous outcomes. Of ten interventions that strengthened health systems capacity to respond to VAW during routine SRH consultation, three reported no harm and reduction in some types of violence. Of nine interventions that strengthened health systems and communities' capacity to respond to VAW, three reported conflicting effects on re-exposure to some types of VAW and mixed effect on SRH. The interventions increased identification of VAW but had no effect on the provision (75%-100%) and uptake (0.6%-53%) of referrals to VAW services. Of seven psychosocial interventions in addition to SRH consultation that strengthened women's readiness to address VAW, four reduced re-exposure to some types of VAW and improved health. Factors that disrupted the pathway to better outcomes included accepting attitudes towards VAW, fear of consequences and limited readiness of the society, health systems and individuals. No study evaluated cost-effectiveness.ConclusionsSome VAW interventions in SRH services reduced re-exposure to some types of VAW and improved some health outcomes in single studies. Future interventions should strengthen capacity to address VAW across health systems, communities and individual women. First-line support should be better tailored to women's needs and expectations.Prospero registration numberCRD42019137167.

Project description:BackgroundIt is important to know the biomechanical properties of an allograft. This is because when looking to do a transplant of a tendon, the tendon must have very similar biomechanical properties to the original tendon. To use tendon allografts, it is critical to properly sterilize the tendon before implantation. In past decades, several sterilization procedures have been used. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the existing literature to compare the values of failure load/ultimate strength and Young's modulus of elasticity of different sterilization methods on commonly used tendon allografts. Five major scientific literature databases (Web of Science, Science Direct, Scopus, PLOS ONE, Hindawi) and additional sources were used.ResultsStudies used had to show a particular sterilization method. Studies were identified to meet the following inclusion criteria: is a controlled laboratory study, gamma irradiation (dose reported), and other sterilization methods. Search for publications dated between 1991 and March 31st, 2020. The database search and additional sources resulted in 284 records. Two hundred thirty records eliminated during the screening for various reasons. The number of articles used in the final synthesis was 54.ConclusionsIdentified sterilization methods (gamma irradiation, ethylene oxid, supercritical carbon dioxide (SCCO2), BioCleanse, Electron Beam) are offered as a catalog of potential methods. As a result of the broadness of the present research, it provides an overview of sterilization methods and their effect on the mechanical properties (failure load and Young's modulus of elasticity) of tendons. It does not stand for the state-of-the-art of any single process. Based on a systematic literature review, we recommend freezing and gamma irradiation or electron beam at 14.8-28.5 kGy. These methods are effective at keeping or improving the mechanical properties, while fully sterilizing the inside and the outside of the tendon. Other sterilization method (ethylene oxide, supercritical carbon dioxide (SCCO2), BioCleanse) deteriorated the mechanical properties. These methods are not recommended.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Despite the prevalence of mobile health (mHealth) technologies and observations of their impacts on patients' health, there is still no consensus on how best to evaluate these tools for patient self-management of chronic conditions. Researchers currently do not have guidelines on which qualitative or quantitative factors to measure or how to gather these reliable data. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to document the methods and both qualitative and quantitative measures used to assess mHealth apps and systems intended for use by patients for the self-management of chronic noncommunicable diseases. METHODS:A scoping review was performed, and PubMed, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and ProQuest Research Library were searched for literature published in English between January 1, 2015, and January 18, 2019. Search terms included combinations of the description of the intention of the intervention (eg, self-efficacy and self-management) and description of the intervention platform (eg, mobile app and sensor). Article selection was based on whether the intervention described a patient with a chronic noncommunicable disease as the primary user of a tool or system that would always be available for self-management. The extracted data included study design, health conditions, participants, intervention type (app or system), methods used, and measured qualitative and quantitative data. RESULTS:A total of 31 studies met the eligibility criteria. Studies were classified as either those that evaluated mHealth apps (ie, single devices; n=15) or mHealth systems (ie, more than one tool; n=17), and one study evaluated both apps and systems. App interventions mainly targeted mental health conditions (including Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder), followed by diabetes and cardiovascular and heart diseases; among the 17 studies that described mHealth systems, most involved patients diagnosed with cardiovascular and heart disease, followed by diabetes, respiratory disease, mental health conditions, cancer, and multiple illnesses. The most common evaluation method was collection of usage logs (n=21), followed by standardized questionnaires (n=18) and ad-hoc questionnaires (n=13). The most common measure was app interaction (n=19), followed by usability/feasibility (n=17) and patient-reported health data via the app (n=15). CONCLUSIONS:This review demonstrates that health intervention studies are taking advantage of the additional resources that mHealth technologies provide. As mHealth technologies become more prevalent, the call for evidence includes the impacts on patients' self-efficacy and engagement, in addition to traditional measures. However, considering the unstructured data forms, diverse use, and various platforms of mHealth, it can be challenging to select the right methods and measures to evaluate mHealth technologies. The inclusion of app usage logs, patient-involved methods, and other approaches to determine the impact of mHealth is an important step forward in health intervention research. We hope that this overview will become a catalogue of the possible ways in which mHealth has been and can be integrated into research practice.