Rositsa Koleva-Kolarova, Emily Hulse, Bertalan Németh, Maureen Rutten-van Mölken, Rhiannon Tudor Edwards, Balázs Babarczy, Balázs Nagy, Sarah Wordsworth, Apostolos Tsiachristas
{"title":"Towards a Multi-sectoral Approach to Population Health: A Scoping Review of Cross-sectoral Evaluations of Health Interventions","authors":"Rositsa Koleva-Kolarova, Emily Hulse, Bertalan Németh, Maureen Rutten-van Mölken, Rhiannon Tudor Edwards, Balázs Babarczy, Balázs Nagy, Sarah Wordsworth, Apostolos Tsiachristas","doi":"10.1007/s40258-025-01023-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Health interventions, particularly those targeted at health promotion and disease prevention, often have a range of impacts that span beyond the healthcare sector. Making the case for investment in these interventions may require an inventory of costs and outcomes across multiple sectors beyond the health sector.</p><h3>Objectives</h3><p>To perform a scoping review of economic evaluations that used existing approaches for cross-sectoral evaluation of healthcare interventions and provide an understanding of how these approaches have been applied in empirical studies.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>Scoping reviews, a type of evidence synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. We used the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews and a pearl-growing search approach. A forward citation searching in Google Scholar and Web of Science of an initial set of selected papers that recommend cross-sectoral evaluations of health interventions was performed, complemented by free-word search in Google and Google Scholar. Cross-sectoral evaluations of health interventions that consider costs and outcomes beyond healthcare were included.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>From the 204 identified cross-sectoral evaluation studies of health interventions, the vast majority (85%) were cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses taking the societal costing perspective. Other approaches included social return on investment (6%), cost-benefit analysis (4%), cost study (3%), and combined approaches (2%). Two-thirds of the studies evaluated a treatment-based intervention while the remainder evaluated preventive interventions. In addition to healthcare, studies evaluated mostly costs related to productivity and non-direct medical costs, e.g., transport costs. Outcomes were focused on clinical results and patient-reported health and well-being.</p><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>There is a limited number of published cross-sectoral evaluations of health interventions despite the need of public and private investors for global value assessment. Issuing guidance on performing cross-sectoral evaluations and highlighting their need by health technology assessment agencies may improve existing evidence and therefore novel forms of investment in population health interventions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8065,"journal":{"name":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","volume":"24 3","pages":"479 - 497"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s40258-025-01023-1.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40258-025-01023-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Health interventions, particularly those targeted at health promotion and disease prevention, often have a range of impacts that span beyond the healthcare sector. Making the case for investment in these interventions may require an inventory of costs and outcomes across multiple sectors beyond the health sector.
Objectives
To perform a scoping review of economic evaluations that used existing approaches for cross-sectoral evaluation of healthcare interventions and provide an understanding of how these approaches have been applied in empirical studies.
Methods
Scoping reviews, a type of evidence synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. We used the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews and a pearl-growing search approach. A forward citation searching in Google Scholar and Web of Science of an initial set of selected papers that recommend cross-sectoral evaluations of health interventions was performed, complemented by free-word search in Google and Google Scholar. Cross-sectoral evaluations of health interventions that consider costs and outcomes beyond healthcare were included.
Results
From the 204 identified cross-sectoral evaluation studies of health interventions, the vast majority (85%) were cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses taking the societal costing perspective. Other approaches included social return on investment (6%), cost-benefit analysis (4%), cost study (3%), and combined approaches (2%). Two-thirds of the studies evaluated a treatment-based intervention while the remainder evaluated preventive interventions. In addition to healthcare, studies evaluated mostly costs related to productivity and non-direct medical costs, e.g., transport costs. Outcomes were focused on clinical results and patient-reported health and well-being.
Conclusions
There is a limited number of published cross-sectoral evaluations of health interventions despite the need of public and private investors for global value assessment. Issuing guidance on performing cross-sectoral evaluations and highlighting their need by health technology assessment agencies may improve existing evidence and therefore novel forms of investment in population health interventions.
背景:卫生干预措施,特别是以促进健康和预防疾病为目标的干预措施,往往会产生一系列超出卫生保健部门的影响。要说明对这些干预措施进行投资的理由,可能需要对卫生部门以外多个部门的成本和成果进行盘点。目的:对使用现有方法对医疗保健干预措施进行跨部门评估的经济评估进行范围审查,并提供对这些方法如何应用于实证研究的理解。方法:范围审查是一种证据综合,采用系统的方法来绘制一个主题的证据图,并确定主要概念、理论、来源和知识差距。我们使用PRISMA扩展来进行范围审查和珍珠生长搜索方法。在谷歌Scholar和Web of Science中对推荐卫生干预措施跨部门评估的一组初步选定论文进行了前向引文检索,并在谷歌和谷歌Scholar中进行了自由词检索。包括对卫生干预措施的跨部门评估,这些评估考虑了医疗保健以外的成本和结果。结果:在204项已确定的卫生干预措施跨部门评价研究中,绝大多数(85%)是从社会成本角度进行的成本效益和成本效用分析。其他方法包括社会投资回报(6%)、成本效益分析(4%)、成本研究(3%)和综合方法(2%)。三分之二的研究评估了以治疗为基础的干预措施,其余的研究评估了预防性干预措施。除医疗保健外,研究评估的主要是与生产力和非直接医疗费用有关的费用,例如运输费用。结果侧重于临床结果和患者报告的健康和福祉。结论:尽管公共和私人投资者需要进行全球价值评估,但已发表的卫生干预措施跨部门评估数量有限。发布关于开展跨部门评价的指导,并强调卫生技术评估机构的需要,可能会改善现有证据,从而在人口健康干预方面形成新的投资形式。
期刊介绍:
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy provides timely publication of cutting-edge research and expert opinion from this increasingly important field, making it a vital resource for payers, providers and researchers alike. The journal includes high quality economic research and reviews of all aspects of healthcare from various perspectives and countries, designed to communicate the latest applied information in health economics and health policy.
While emphasis is placed on information with practical applications, a strong basis of underlying scientific rigor is maintained.