Valuing the impact of health and social care programs using social return on investment analysis: how have academics advanced the methodology? A systematic review.

Clicks: 285
ID: 14023
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #238 of 442 articles by views in BMJ open

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 442 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
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.Systematic review.Community and residential settings.A wide range of demographic groups and age groups.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.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.CRD42018080195.
Reference Key
hutchinson2019valuingbmj Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Hutchinson, Claire Louise;Berndt, Angela;Forsythe, Deborah;Gilbert-Hunt, Susan;George, Stacey;Ratcliffe, Julie;
Journal BMJ open
Year 2019
DOI
10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029789
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.