Informing decisions with disparate stakeholders: cross-sector evaluation of cash transfers in Malawi.

Economic evaluation decision making education health care policy evaluation poverty research to policy resource allocation

Journal

Health policy and planning
ISSN: 1460-2237
Titre abrégé: Health Policy Plan
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8610614

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
13 Jan 2022
Historique:
received: 11 01 2021
revised: 13 10 2021
accepted: 14 11 2021
pubmed: 19 11 2021
medline: 18 1 2022
entrez: 18 11 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The Social Cash Transfer Programme (SCTP) in Malawi is a cross-sectoral policy with impacts on health, education, nutrition, agriculture and welfare. Implementation of the SCTP requires collaboration across sectors and across national and international stakeholders. Economic evaluation can inform investment by indicating whether benefits exceed costs, but economic evaluations that provide an overall benefit-cost ratio typically assume a common agreed objective and agreed set of value judgements. In reality, the various stakeholders involved in the delivery of the SCTP may have different remits and objectives and may differ in how they value the impacts of the programme. We use the SCTP as a case study to illustrate a cross-sectoral analytical framework that accounts for these differences. The stakeholders that contribute to the SCTP include the Ministry of Gender, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Economic Planning and Development and Global Fund. We estimate how the SCTP changes outcomes in education, health, net production and poverty, and distinguish outcomes in three groups: SCTP recipients; population in Malawi not eligible for the SCTP and population in other countries. After estimating the direct effects and opportunity costs from investing in the SCTP, we summarize the results according to different perspectives. The SCTP is estimated to provide benefits in excess of costs from the perspective of national stakeholders. From the perspective of an international donor interested in health outcomes, its health benefits do not outweigh the opportunity costs unless health improvement in SCTP recipients is valued at 18 times that of other potential spending beneficiaries or the donor values broader outcomes than health alone. This work illustrates the potential of a cross-sectoral economic evaluation to guide debate about stakeholder contributions to the SCTP, and the value judgements required to favour the SCTP above other policy options.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34791229
pii: 6430458
doi: 10.1093/heapol/czab137
pmc: PMC8757493
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

140-151

Subventions

Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/P028004/1
Pays : United Kingdom

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

Références

Value Health. 2017 Apr;20(4):699-704
pubmed: 28408014
Health Policy Plan. 2012 Mar;27(2):127-37
pubmed: 21378101
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2019 Oct;17(5):577-590
pubmed: 31098947
Am J Clin Nutr. 2013 Apr;97(4):896-901
pubmed: 23426036
Food Nutr Bull. 2011 Dec;32(4):324-32
pubmed: 22590965
BMJ Glob Health. 2018 Oct 10;3(Suppl 4):e000880
pubmed: 30364411
Value Health. 2016 Dec;19(8):929-935
pubmed: 27987642
Global Health. 2013 Aug 21;9:35
pubmed: 23965222
BMJ Glob Health. 2018 Apr 9;3(2):e000607
pubmed: 29662689
Arch Dis Child. 2018 Oct;103(10):920-926
pubmed: 29705725
Lancet. 2008 Nov 8;372(9650):1661-9
pubmed: 18994664
Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(11):903-17
pubmed: 19888791
Health Policy Plan. 2015 Jul;30(6):813-21
pubmed: 24963156
Lancet. 2009 Jun 20;373(9681):2137-69
pubmed: 19541040
Health Policy Plan. 2004 Jan;19(1):52-3; discussion 54-6
pubmed: 14679285
AIDS. 2014 Jan 28;28(3):425-34
pubmed: 24670525
Global Health. 2019 Dec 18;15(1):86
pubmed: 31849335
Stud Fam Plann. 2018 Dec;49(4):295-317
pubmed: 30461021
J Benefit Cost Anal. 2019;10(Suppl 1):1-14
pubmed: 33282627
Econ Educ Rev. 2017 Aug;59:63-80
pubmed: 29531427
Value Health. 2017 Feb;20(2):234-239
pubmed: 28237201
Lancet Glob Health. 2018 Mar;6(3):e255-e269
pubmed: 29433665
Lancet. 2006 Apr 8;367(9517):1193-208
pubmed: 16616562
Health Policy Plan. 2018 Jul 1;33(6):743-754
pubmed: 29912462
Food Nutr Bull. 2009 Jun;30(2):171-82
pubmed: 19689096
Health Policy Plan. 2018 Jun 1;33(5):675-696
pubmed: 29762708
BMJ Glob Health. 2020 Sep;5(9):
pubmed: 32938608
Lancet Glob Health. 2020 Feb;8(2):e204-e214
pubmed: 31864916
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Nov 15;11:CD011135
pubmed: 29139110
Health Promot Int. 2019 Dec 1;34(6):e106-e118
pubmed: 30272155

Auteurs

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH