Local government often fund asset-based approaches (ABAs) to health improvement, but it is challenging for them to know which ABA should be funded. This study aimed to understand what cost and economic evidence was available about these interventions and, within the evidence, how economic impact has been measured.
Background
Community ‘assets’ are the collective resources which individuals and communities have at their disposal. This includes green spaces, individual knowledge and support groups. Utilising and encouraging use of community assets can help support whole community development, in turn supporting people in disadvantaged communities to engage with local resources.
Asset-based approaches (ABAs) to health improvement empower people in more disadvantaged communities to use local resources and increase control over their own health. This can bring about holistic improvement to health by not focusing on specific problems but rather taking a wider perspective on overall well-being (e.g. by supporting people to feel more confident or better prepared to make friends). Such broader goals can help improve people’s health by supporting them make healthier choices. This can both lead to larger improvements in health and well-being, and reduce cost to health services, like the NHS, by preventing the need for expensive in-hospital treatment.
Local government often fund ABAs to health improvement, but it is challenging for them to know which ABA should be funded. This study aims to understand what economic evidence is available about these interventions and, within the evidence, how economic impact has been measured.
Project Aims
Overall, the study provided an understanding, at a national level, of how ABAs are economically evaluated in research. This supported producing a best-practice framework for future evaluation of approaches/ interventions in both the academic and community setting.
This review aimed to answer the following questions:
- What designs, methods, and outcomes measures have been used to produce cost and economic evidence?
- What is the accrued evidence for the cost and economic impact of ABAs?
Project Activity
Recognising the value of patient and public involvement and engagement, the study had received input from members of the East of England community – novel for systematic reviews. The review had benefitted from input by Norfolk County Council's Commissioning Manager and Healthwatch Suffolk's Co-production Facilitator. The contributors supported in the development of the search strategy; and contributed to understanding the relevance of the literature to implementing ABAs.
The project defined search strategy and researchers screened papers for inclusion in the review. For more information, please see the systematic review protocol: PROSPERO registration
Anticipated Impact
The review was submitted to a journal for publication. This review highlighted the need for further development of the methodologies used in the economic evaluation of ABAs.
Who was involved?
Principal Investigator: Alice Wreford, ARC East of England Health Economics and Prioritisation (HEP) theme, University of East Anglia
Researchers and institutions:
- Health Economics Leads: Dr Adam P Wagner , ARC East of England Health Economics and Prioritisation (HEP) theme, University of East Anglia
- Professor Jennifer Whitty, Evidera
- Dr Linda Birt, ARC East of England Inclusive Involvement in Practice Led Research, University of East Anglia
- Dr Sarah Hanson, ARC East of England, University of East Anglia
- Dr Rory Cameron
- Dr Guy Peryer
- Susan Conquer,Health Watch Suffolk
