The GEM shows promise in enabling measurement and enhancing understanding of both process and outcome of psychological and social empowerment within an Australian Indigenous context.

BackgroundThe aim of this systematic literature review is to identify and critique full economic evaluations of interventions for high risk young people with the purpose of informing the design of future rigorous economic evaluations of such intervention programs.MethodsA PRISMA compliant search of the literature between 2000 and April 2018 was conducted to identify full economic evaluations of youth focussed interventions for at risk young people. Duplicates were removed and two researchers independently screened the article titles and abstracts according to PICOS criteria for exclusion and inclusion. The remaining full text articles were assessed for eligibility and a quality assessment of the included articles was conducted using the Drummond checklist.ResultsThe database, grey literature and hand searches located 488 studies of interventions for at risk young people. After preliminary screening of titles and abstracts, 104 studies remained for full text examination and 29 empirical studies containing 32 separate economic evaluations were judged eligible for inclusion in the review. These comprised 13 cost-benefit analyses (41%), 17 cost-effectiveness analyses (53%), one cost-utility analysis (3%) and a social return on investment (3%). Three main methodological challenges were identified: 1. attribution of effects; 2. measuring and valuing outcomes; and 3. identifying relevant costs and consequences.ConclusionsA cost-benefit analysis would best capture the dynamic nature of a multi-component intervention for high risk young people, incorporating broader intersectoral outcomes and enabling measurement of more domains of risk. Prospective long-term data collection and a strong study design that incorporates a control group contribute to the quality of economic evaluation. Extrapolation of impact into the future is important for this population, in order to account for the time lag in effect of many impacts and benefits arising from youth interventions.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3450-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

IntroductionThe health of Indigenous Australians is worse than that of other Australians. Most of the determinants of health are preventable and the poor health outcomes are inequitable. The Australian Government recently pledged to close that health gap. One possible way is to improve the priority setting process to ensure transparency and the use of evidence such as epidemiology, equity and economic evaluation.The purpose of this research was to elicit the perceptions of Indigenous and non-Indigenous decision-makers on several issues related to priority setting in Indigenous-specific health care services. Specifically, we aimed to:1. identify the criteria used to set priorities in Indigenous-specific health care services;2. determine the level of uptake of economic evaluation evidence by decision-makers and how to improve its uptake; and3. identify how the priority setting process can be improved from the perspective of decision-makers.MethodsWe used a paper survey instrument, adapted from Mitton and colleagues’ work, and a face-to-face interview approach to elicit decision-makers’ perceptions in Indigenous-specific health care in Victoria, Australia. We used mixed methods to analyse data from the survey. Responses were summarised using descriptive statistics and content analysis. Results were reported as numbers and percentages.ResultsThe size of the health burden; sustainability and acceptability of interventions; historical trends/patterns; and efficiency are key criteria for making choices in Indigenous health in Victoria. There is a need for an explicit priority setting approach, which is systematic, and is able to use available data/evidence, such as economic evaluation evidence. The involvement of Indigenous Australians in the process would potentially make the process acceptable.ConclusionsAn economic approach to priority setting is a potentially acceptable and useful tool for Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHS). It has the ability to use evidence and ensure due process at the same time. The use of evidence can ensure that health outcomes for Indigenous peoples can be maximised – hence, increase the potential for ‘closing the gap’ between Indigenous and other Australians.

Background: Repeated, data-driven optimisation processes have been applied in many fields to rapidly transform the performance of products, processes and interventions. While such processes may similarly be employed to enhance the impact of public health initiatives, optimisation has not been defined in the context of public health and there has been little exploration of its key concepts. Methods: We used a modified, three-round Delphi study with an international group of researchers, public health policy-makers and practitioners to (1) generate a consensus-based definition of optimisation in the context of public health and (2i) describe key considerations for optimisation in that context. A pre-workshop literature review and elicitation of participant views regarding optimisation in public health (round 1) were followed by a daylong workshop and facilitated face-to-face group discussions to refine the definition and generate key considerations (round 2); finally, post-workshop discussions were undertaken to refine and finalise the findings (round 3). A thematic analysis was performed at each round. Study findings reflect an iterative consultation process with study participants. Results: Thirty of 33 invited individuals (91%) participated in the study. Participants reached consensus on the following definition of optimisation in public health: "A deliberate, iterative and data-driven process to improve a health intervention and/or its implementation to meet stakeholder-defined public health impacts within resource constraints". A range of optimisation considerations were explored. Optimisation was considered most suitable when existing public health initiatives are not sufficiently effective, meaningful improvements from an optimisation process are anticipated, quality data to assess impacts are routinely available, and there are stable and ongoing resources to support it. Participants believed optimisation could be applied to improve the impacts of an intervention, an implementation strategy or both, on outcomes valued by stakeholders or end users. While optimisation processes were thought to be facilitated by an understanding of the mechanisms of an intervention or implementation strategy, no agreement was reached regarding the best approach to inform decisions about modifications to improve impact.

No abstract