IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v80y2020ics0149718918302192.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Value for money: A utilization-focused approach to extending the foundation and contribution of economic evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Peterson, Christina
  • Skolits, Gary

Abstract

Value for Money (VfM) is an evaluative question about the merit, worth, and significance of resource use in social programs. Although VfM is a critical component of evidence-based programming, it is often overlooked or avoided by evaluators and decision-makers. A framework for evaluating VfM across the dimensions of economy, effectiveness, efficiency, and equity has emerged in response to limitations of traditional economic evaluation. This framework for assessing VfM integrates methods for engaging stakeholders in evaluative thinking to increase acceptance and utilization of evaluations that address questions of resource use. In this review, we synthesize literature on the VfM framework and position it within a broader theory of Utilization-Focused Evaluation (UFE). We then examine mechanisms through which the VfM framework may contribute to increased evaluation use. Finally, we outline avenues for future research on VfM evaluation.

Suggested Citation

  • Peterson, Christina & Skolits, Gary, 2020. "Value for money: A utilization-focused approach to extending the foundation and contribution of economic evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:80:y:2020:i:c:s0149718918302192
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2020.101799
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718918302192
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2020.101799?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martens, Krystin S.R., 2018. "How program evaluators use and learn to use rubrics to make evaluative reasoning explicit," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 25-32.
    2. Herman, Patricia M. & Avery, Deirdre J. & Schemp, Crystal S. & Walsh, Michele E., 2009. "Are cost-inclusive evaluations worth the effort?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 55-61, February.
    3. Tom Sefton, 2000. "Getting Less for More: Economic Evaluation in the Social Welfare Field," CASE Papers case44, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE.
    4. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Claxton, Karl & Stoddart, Greg L. & Torrance, George W., 2015. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 4, number 9780199665884, Decembrie.
    5. Cordes, Joseph J., 2017. "Using cost-benefit analysis and social return on investment to evaluate the impact of social enterprise: Promises, implementation, and limitations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 98-104.
    6. Roseland, Denise & Lawrenz, Frances & Thao, Mao, 2015. "The relationship between involvement in and use of evaluation in multi-site evaluations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 75-82.
    7. Eddama, Oya & Coast, Joanna, 2008. "A systematic review of the use of economic evaluation in local decision-making," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(2-3), pages 129-141, May.
    8. Jacobson, Miriam R. & Azzam, Tarek, 2018. "The effects of stakeholder involvement on perceptions of an evaluation’s credibility," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 64-73.
    9. Dickinson, Pauline & Adams, Jeffery, 2017. "Values in evaluation – The use of rubrics," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 113-116.
    10. Patton, Michael Quinn & Horton, Douglas, 2008. "Utilization-focused evaluation for agricultural innovation," ILAC Briefs 52533, Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) Initiative.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Springer, Emily, 2021. "Caught between winning repeat business and learning: Reactivity to output indicators in international development," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    2. Heidi Peterson, 2023. "Cost–Benefit Analysis (CBA) or the Highway? An Alternative Road to Investigating the Value for Money of International Development Research," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 35(2), pages 260-280, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Matthew Franklin & James Lomas & Gerry Richardson, 2020. "Conducting Value for Money Analyses for Non-randomised Interventional Studies Including Service Evaluations: An Educational Review with Recommendations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(7), pages 665-681, July.
    2. Gullickson, Amy M. & King, Jean A. & LaVelle, John M. & Clinton, Janet M., 2019. "The current state of evaluator education: A situation analysis and call to action," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 20-30.
    3. Yates, Brian T., 2021. "Toward collaborative cost-inclusive evaluation: Adaptations and transformations for evaluators and economists," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    4. Szijarto, Barbara & Milley, Peter & Svensson, Kate & Cousins, J. Bradley, 2018. "On the evaluation of social innovations and social enterprises: Recognizing and integrating two solitudes in the empirical knowledge base," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 20-32.
    5. Addo, Rebecca & Hall, Jane & Haas, Marion & Goodall, Stephen, 2020. "The knowledge and attitude of Ghanaian decision-makers and researchers towards health technology assessment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 250(C).
    6. Daniel Howdon & Sebastian Hinde & James Lomas & Matthew Franklin, 2022. "Economic Evaluation Evidence for Resource-Allocation Decision Making: Bridging the Gap for Local Decision Makers Using English Case Studies," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(6), pages 783-792, November.
    7. van Baal, Pieter & Morton, Alec & Severens, Johan L., 2018. "Health care input constraints and cost effectiveness analysis decision rules," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 59-64.
    8. Evans, S. & Dadich, A. & Stout, B. & Plath, D., 2020. "Clarifying the role of belief-motive explanations in multi-stakeholder realist evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    9. King, Julian, 2021. "Expanding theory-based evaluation: Incorporating value creation in a theory of change," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    10. Irina Pokhilenko & Luca M. M. Janssen & Aggie T. G. Paulus & Ruben M. W. A. Drost & William Hollingworth & Joanna C. Thorn & Sian Noble & Judit Simon & Claudia Fischer & Susanne Mayer & Luis Salvador-, 2023. "Development of an Instrument for the Assessment of Health-Related Multi-sectoral Resource Use in Europe: The PECUNIA RUM," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 155-166, March.
    11. Chiranjeev Sanyal & Don Husereau, 2020. "Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Services Provided by Community Pharmacists," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 375-392, June.
    12. Barbara Bini & Milena Vainieri & Sabina Nuti, 2015. "Definizione delle priorit? di intervento in sanit?: approcci socio-tecnici a confronto," MECOSAN, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2015(93), pages 49-73.
    13. Andrew J. Mirelman & Miqdad Asaria & Bryony Dawkins & Susan Griffin & Richard Cookson & Peter Berman, 2020. "Fairer Decisions, Better Health for All: Health Equity and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Paul Revill & Marc Suhrcke & Rodrigo Moreno-Serra & Mark Sculpher (ed.), Global Health Economics Shaping Health Policy in Low- and Middle-Income Countries, chapter 4, pages 99-132, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    14. Christopher M Doran & Irina Kinchin, 2020. "Economic and epidemiological impact of youth suicide in countries with the highest human development index," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-11, May.
    15. Boniface Oyugi & Olena Nizalova & Sally Kendall & Stephen Peckham, 2024. "Does a free maternity policy in Kenya work? Impact and cost–benefit consideration based on demographic health survey data," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(1), pages 77-89, February.
    16. Darie Casiana Maria, 2023. "The Link between Business Benefits and ERP Systems: A Bibliometric Analysis," Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, Sciendo, vol. 17(1), pages 1957-1966, July.
    17. Lili Wang & Lei Si & Fiona Cocker & Andrew J. Palmer & Kristy Sanderson, 2018. "A Systematic Review of Cost-of-Illness Studies of Multimorbidity," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 15-29, February.
    18. Etienne Nédellec & Judith Pineau & Patrice Prognon & Nicolas Martelli, 2018. "Level of Evidence in Economic Evaluations of Left Atrial Appendage Closure Devices: A Systematic Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(6), pages 793-802, December.
    19. Miller, Fiona A. & Lehoux, Pascale & Rac, Valeria E. & Bytautas, Jessica P. & Krahn, Murray & Peacock, Stuart, 2020. "Modes of coordination for health technology adoption: Health Technology Assessment agencies and Group Procurement Organizations in a polycentric regulatory regime," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    20. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:80:y:2020:i:c:s0149718918302192. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.