Search

In 2010–2011, University of Colorado (CU) librarians implemented a multi-campus pilot study to measure the institutional value of library resources used by faculty in their research. The study incorporated quantitative methods including return on investment (ROI), cost benefit analysis (CBA), and citation analysis of journal articles published by faculty; and qualitative methodologies such as in-person interviews with faculty. The study resulted in a CU ROI model that can be used to measure faculty perceptions of value and the economic benefits of electronic journal collections for faculty research in terms of ROI. The CU ROI methodology provides outcomes beyond a single ROI number and led to unexpected benefits for informing collection development decisions and strategies. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

State, public, academic, and special libraries are conducting and publishing the results of studies aimed at showing the value of their services and resources. Librarians must be prepared and proactive so when asked to justify budget allocations they have the tools to show their library's value and understand the importance of expressing value in terms familiar to the administrators. By identifying stakeholders and obtaining their buy in, librarians can turn data into evidence of the organization's return on investment (ROI) in the library. ROI is a powerful tool to use when establishing credibility, accountability, and evidence demonstrating the library's value. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The European-study on Quantifying Utility of Investment in Protection from Tobacco (EQUIPT) project aimed to study transferability of economic evidence by co-creating the Tobacco Return On Investment (ROI) tool, previously developed in the United Kingdom, for four sample countries (Germany, Hungary, Spain and the Netherlands). The EQUIPT tool provides policymakers and stakeholders with customized information about the economic and wider returns on the investment in evidence-based tobacco control, including smoking cessation interventions. A Stakeholder Interview Survey was developed to engage with the stakeholders in early phases of the development and country adaptation of the ROI tool. The survey assessed stakeholders' information needs, awareness about underlying principles used in economic analyses, opinion about the importance, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of tobacco control interventions, and willingness to use a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) tool such as the ROI tool.Methods: A cross sectional study using a mixed method approach was conducted among participating stakeholders in the sample countries and the United Kingdom. The individual questionnaire contained open-ended questions as well as single choice and 7- or 3-point Likert-scale questions. The results corresponding to the priority and needs assessment and to the awareness of stakeholders about underlying principles used in economic analysis are analysed by country and stakeholder categories.Results: Stakeholders considered it important that the decisions on the investments in tobacco control interventions should be supported by scientific evidence, including prevalence of smoking, cost of smoking, quality of life, mortality due to smoking, and effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and budget impact of smoking cessation interventions. The proposed ROI tool was required to provide this granularity of information. The majority of the stakeholders were aware of the general principles of economic analyses used in decision making contexts but they did not appear to have in-depth knowledge about specific technical details. Generally, stakeholders' answers showed larger variability by country than by stakeholder category.Conclusions: Stakeholders across different European countries viewed the use of HTA evidence to be an important factor in their decision-making process. Further, they considered themselves to be capable of interpreting the results from a ROI tool and were highly motivated to use it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. To determine the relationship between return on investment (ROI) and quality of study methodology in workplace health promotion programs. Data Source. Data were obtained through a systematic literature search of National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Database o f Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Database (HTA), Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry, EconLit, PubMed, Embase, Wiley, and Scopus. Study Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria. Included were articles written in English or German reporting cost(s) and benefit(s) and single or multicomponent health promotion programs on working adults. Retum-to-work and workplace injury prevention studies were excluded. Data Extraction. Methodological quality was graded using British Medical Journal Economic Evaluation Working Party checklist. Economic outcomes were presented as ROI. Data Synthesis. ROI was calculated as ROI= (benefits - costs of program)/costs o f program. Results were weighted by study size and combined using meta-analysis techniques. Sensitivity analysis was performed using two additional methodological quality checklists. The influences o f quality score and important study characteristics on ROI were explored. Results. Fifty-one studies (61 intervention arms) published between, 1984 and 2012 included 261,901 participants and 122,242 controls from nine industry types across 12 countries. Methodological quality scores were highly correlated between checklists (r= .84-.93). Methodological quality improved over time. Overall weighted ROI [mean ± standard deviation (confidence interval)] was 1.38 ± 1.97 (1.38-1.39), which indicated a 138% return on investment. When accounting for methodological quality, an inverse relationship to ROI teas found. High-quality studies (n = 18) had a smaller mean ROI, 0.26 ± 1.74 (.2 3 -.3 0 ), compared to moderate (n = 16) 0.90 ± 1.25 (.90-.91) and low-quality (n = 27) 2.32 ± 2.14 (2.30-2.33) studies. Randomized control trials (RCTs) (n = 12) exhibited negative ROI, -0.22 ± 2.41(-.2 7 to -.16). Financial returns become increasingly positive across quasi-experimental, nonexperimental, and modeled studies: 1.12 ± 2.16 (1.11-1.14), 1.61 ± 0.91 (1.56-1.65), and 2.05 ± 0.88 (2.04-2.06), respectively. Conclusion. Overall, mean weighted ROI in workplace health promotion demonstrated a positive ROI. Higher methodological quality studies provided evidence of smaller financial returns. Methodological quality and study design are important determinants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background and Aims: Although clear benefits are associated with reducing smoking, there is increasing pressure on public health providers to justify investment in tobacco control measures. Decision‐makers need tools to assess the Return on Investment (ROI)/cost‐effectiveness of programmes. The EQUIPT project adapted an ROI tool for England to four European countries (Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and Hungary). EQUIPTMOD, the economic model at the core of the ROI tool, is designed to assess the efficiency of packages of smoking cessation interventions. The objective of this paper is to describe the methods for EQUIPTMOD and identify key outcomes associated with continued and cessation of smoking. Methods: EQUIPTMOD uses a Markov model to estimate life‐time costs, quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs) and life years associated with a current and former smoker. It uses population data on smoking prevalence, disease prevalence, mortality and the impact of smoking combined with associated costs and utility effects of disease. To illustrate the tool's potential, costs, QALYs and life expectancy were estimated for the average current smoker for five countries based on the assumptions that they continue and that they cease smoking over the next 12 months. Costs and effects were discounted at country‐specific rates. Results: For illustration, over a life‐time horizon, not quitting smoking within the next 12 months in England will reduce life expectancy by 0.66, reduce QALYs by 1.09 and result in £4961 higher disease‐related health care costs than if the smoker ceased smoking in the next 12 months. For all age–sex categories, costs were lower and QALYs higher for those who quit smoking in the 12 months than those who continued. Conclusions: EQUIPTMOD facilitates assessment of the cost effectiveness of smoking cessation strategies. The demonstrated results indicate large potential benefits from smoking cessation at both an individual and population level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]