Valuing the impact of health and social care programs using social return on investment analysis: how have academics advanced the methodology? A systematic review
Objectives To identify how social return on investment (SROI) analysis—traditionally used by business consultants—has been interpreted, used and innovated by academics in the health and social care sector and to assess the quality of peer-reviewed SROI studies in this sector.Design Systematic review...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2019-08-01
|
| Series: | BMJ Open |
| Online Access: | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/8/e029789.full |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850063011181494272 |
|---|---|
| author | Claire Louise Hutchinson Angela Berndt Susan Gilbert-Hunt Stacey George Julie Ratcliffe Deborah Forsythe |
| author_facet | Claire Louise Hutchinson Angela Berndt Susan Gilbert-Hunt Stacey George Julie Ratcliffe Deborah Forsythe |
| author_sort | Claire Louise Hutchinson |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Objectives To identify how social return on investment (SROI) analysis—traditionally used by business consultants—has been interpreted, used and innovated by academics in the health and social care sector and to assess the quality of peer-reviewed SROI studies in this sector.Design Systematic review.Settings Community and residential settings.Participants A wide range of demographic groups and age groups.Results The following databases were searched: Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, Econlit, Medline, PsychINFO, Embase, Emerald, Social Care Online and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Limited uptake of SROI methodology by academics was found in the health and social care sector. From 868 papers screened, 8 studies met the criteria for inclusion in this systematic review. Study quality was found to be highly variable, ranging from 38% to 90% based on scores from a purpose-designed quality assessment tool. In general, relatively high consistency and clarity was observed in the reporting of the research question, reasons for using this methodology and justifying the need for the study. However, weaknesses were observed in other areas including justifying stakeholders, reporting sample sizes, undertaking sensitivity analysis and reporting unexpected or negative outcomes. Most papers cited links to additional materials to aid in reporting. There was little evidence that academics had innovated or advanced the methodology beyond that outlined in a much-cited SROI guide.Conclusion Academics have thus far been slow to adopt SROI methodology in the evaluation of health and social care interventions, and there is little evidence of innovation and development of the methodology. The word count requirements of peer-reviewed journals may make it difficult for authors to be fully transparent about the details of their studies, potentially impacting the quality of reporting in those studies published in these journals.PROSPERO registration number CRD42018080195. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-a2cb3d40e76343b1afe208aa77c883d5 |
| institution | DOAJ |
| issn | 2044-6055 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2019-08-01 |
| publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMJ Open |
| spelling | doaj-art-a2cb3d40e76343b1afe208aa77c883d52025-08-20T02:49:46ZengBMJ Publishing GroupBMJ Open2044-60552019-08-019810.1136/bmjopen-2019-029789Valuing the impact of health and social care programs using social return on investment analysis: how have academics advanced the methodology? A systematic reviewClaire Louise Hutchinson0Angela Berndt1Susan Gilbert-Hunt2Stacey George3Julie Ratcliffe4Deborah Forsythe513 Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia2 School of Health Sciences, University of South Australia Division of Health Sciences, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia2 School of Health Sciences, University of South Australia Division of Health Sciences, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia1 Nursing & Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, AustraliaHealth and Social Care Economics Group, Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia2 School of Health Sciences, University of South Australia Division of Health Sciences, Adelaide, South Australia, AustraliaObjectives To identify how social return on investment (SROI) analysis—traditionally used by business consultants—has been interpreted, used and innovated by academics in the health and social care sector and to assess the quality of peer-reviewed SROI studies in this sector.Design Systematic review.Settings Community and residential settings.Participants A wide range of demographic groups and age groups.Results The following databases were searched: Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, Econlit, Medline, PsychINFO, Embase, Emerald, Social Care Online and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Limited uptake of SROI methodology by academics was found in the health and social care sector. From 868 papers screened, 8 studies met the criteria for inclusion in this systematic review. Study quality was found to be highly variable, ranging from 38% to 90% based on scores from a purpose-designed quality assessment tool. In general, relatively high consistency and clarity was observed in the reporting of the research question, reasons for using this methodology and justifying the need for the study. However, weaknesses were observed in other areas including justifying stakeholders, reporting sample sizes, undertaking sensitivity analysis and reporting unexpected or negative outcomes. Most papers cited links to additional materials to aid in reporting. There was little evidence that academics had innovated or advanced the methodology beyond that outlined in a much-cited SROI guide.Conclusion Academics have thus far been slow to adopt SROI methodology in the evaluation of health and social care interventions, and there is little evidence of innovation and development of the methodology. The word count requirements of peer-reviewed journals may make it difficult for authors to be fully transparent about the details of their studies, potentially impacting the quality of reporting in those studies published in these journals.PROSPERO registration number CRD42018080195.https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/8/e029789.full |
| spellingShingle | Claire Louise Hutchinson Angela Berndt Susan Gilbert-Hunt Stacey George Julie Ratcliffe Deborah Forsythe Valuing the impact of health and social care programs using social return on investment analysis: how have academics advanced the methodology? A systematic review BMJ Open |
| title | Valuing the impact of health and social care programs using social return on investment analysis: how have academics advanced the methodology? A systematic review |
| title_full | Valuing the impact of health and social care programs using social return on investment analysis: how have academics advanced the methodology? A systematic review |
| title_fullStr | Valuing the impact of health and social care programs using social return on investment analysis: how have academics advanced the methodology? A systematic review |
| title_full_unstemmed | Valuing the impact of health and social care programs using social return on investment analysis: how have academics advanced the methodology? A systematic review |
| title_short | Valuing the impact of health and social care programs using social return on investment analysis: how have academics advanced the methodology? A systematic review |
| title_sort | valuing the impact of health and social care programs using social return on investment analysis how have academics advanced the methodology a systematic review |
| url | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/8/e029789.full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT clairelouisehutchinson valuingtheimpactofhealthandsocialcareprogramsusingsocialreturnoninvestmentanalysishowhaveacademicsadvancedthemethodologyasystematicreview AT angelaberndt valuingtheimpactofhealthandsocialcareprogramsusingsocialreturnoninvestmentanalysishowhaveacademicsadvancedthemethodologyasystematicreview AT susangilberthunt valuingtheimpactofhealthandsocialcareprogramsusingsocialreturnoninvestmentanalysishowhaveacademicsadvancedthemethodologyasystematicreview AT staceygeorge valuingtheimpactofhealthandsocialcareprogramsusingsocialreturnoninvestmentanalysishowhaveacademicsadvancedthemethodologyasystematicreview AT julieratcliffe valuingtheimpactofhealthandsocialcareprogramsusingsocialreturnoninvestmentanalysishowhaveacademicsadvancedthemethodologyasystematicreview AT deborahforsythe valuingtheimpactofhealthandsocialcareprogramsusingsocialreturnoninvestmentanalysishowhaveacademicsadvancedthemethodologyasystematicreview |