Measuring the health impact of Universal Basic Income as an upstream intervention: holistic trial design that captures stress reduction is essential

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Evidence & Policy Pub Date : 2020-03-10 DOI:10.1332/174426420x15820274674068
E. Johnson, M. Johnson, L. Webber
{"title":"Measuring the health impact of Universal Basic Income as an upstream intervention: holistic trial design that captures stress reduction is essential","authors":"E. Johnson, M. Johnson, L. Webber","doi":"10.1332/174426420x15820274674068","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Background: In the context of the UK Government’s ‘prevention agenda’, Laura Webber and colleagues have called for a ‘health in all policies’ approach. Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a system of cash transfers to citizens. Recent research suggests it could significantly benefit population health, including via reducing stress. However, a Finnish trial of a policy with similarities to UBI has influenced debate. This was reported as a failure due to a policy objective of reducing unemployment, despite demonstrating significant benefits to well-being.Aims and objectives: In this piece, we seek to advance the debate about the cost-benefit of UBI by identifying knowledge gaps and proposing a means of designing effective trials.Methods: We review UBI trial design and findings in comparison with social gradient in health literature and biopsychosocial theory to identify knowledge gaps.Findings: We highlight a need to refocus UBI trials on improved health, including via reduced stress, to provide policy makers the means of producing accurate cost-benefit analysis. Previous trials have either not reflected likely UBI policy or failed to measure impacts that enable accurate analysis. We contend that interdisciplinary work is required to establish trials that observe factors known to drive the social health gradient. Finally, we argue that statistical modelling is needed to extrapolate shorter-term findings to long-term population-level outcomes.Discussion and conclusions: Resource allocation by Government and/or major funders is required to produce evidence that enables accurate analysis of UBI. Such trials would provide a platform for interdisciplinary work resulting in joined-up evidence and policy.Key messagesExisting Universal Basic Income trial designs have not enabled accurate assessment of the policyInterdisciplinarity is needed in trials to observe key factors driving the social health gradientStatistical modelling is essential to produce population-level evidence for policy developmentFinancial resource must be directed to establishing more thorough and evidence-based trials\n","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426420x15820274674068","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Background: In the context of the UK Government’s ‘prevention agenda’, Laura Webber and colleagues have called for a ‘health in all policies’ approach. Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a system of cash transfers to citizens. Recent research suggests it could significantly benefit population health, including via reducing stress. However, a Finnish trial of a policy with similarities to UBI has influenced debate. This was reported as a failure due to a policy objective of reducing unemployment, despite demonstrating significant benefits to well-being.Aims and objectives: In this piece, we seek to advance the debate about the cost-benefit of UBI by identifying knowledge gaps and proposing a means of designing effective trials.Methods: We review UBI trial design and findings in comparison with social gradient in health literature and biopsychosocial theory to identify knowledge gaps.Findings: We highlight a need to refocus UBI trials on improved health, including via reduced stress, to provide policy makers the means of producing accurate cost-benefit analysis. Previous trials have either not reflected likely UBI policy or failed to measure impacts that enable accurate analysis. We contend that interdisciplinary work is required to establish trials that observe factors known to drive the social health gradient. Finally, we argue that statistical modelling is needed to extrapolate shorter-term findings to long-term population-level outcomes.Discussion and conclusions: Resource allocation by Government and/or major funders is required to produce evidence that enables accurate analysis of UBI. Such trials would provide a platform for interdisciplinary work resulting in joined-up evidence and policy.Key messagesExisting Universal Basic Income trial designs have not enabled accurate assessment of the policyInterdisciplinarity is needed in trials to observe key factors driving the social health gradientStatistical modelling is essential to produce population-level evidence for policy developmentFinancial resource must be directed to establishing more thorough and evidence-based trials
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
衡量作为上游干预措施的全民基本收入对健康的影响:捕捉压力减轻的整体试验设计是必不可少的
背景:在英国政府的“预防议程”的背景下,劳拉·韦伯和她的同事们呼吁“将健康纳入所有政策”。全民基本收入(UBI)是一种向公民转移现金的制度。最近的研究表明,它可以显著地有益于人们的健康,包括通过减少压力。然而,芬兰对一项与全民基本收入相似的政策的试验影响了辩论。据报道,这是由于减少失业的政策目标而失败的,尽管显示出对福祉的重大好处。目的和目标:在这篇文章中,我们试图通过识别知识差距和提出设计有效试验的方法来推进关于全民基本收入成本效益的辩论。方法:我们回顾了全民基本收入的试验设计和结果,并与健康文献中的社会梯度和生物心理社会理论进行了比较,以确定知识差距。研究结果:我们强调有必要将全民基本收入试验的重点重新放在改善健康上,包括通过减轻压力,为政策制定者提供准确的成本效益分析手段。以前的试验要么没有反映可能的全民基本收入政策,要么未能衡量能够进行准确分析的影响。我们认为,需要跨学科的工作来建立试验,观察驱动社会健康梯度的已知因素。最后,我们认为,需要统计模型来推断短期结果到长期人口水平的结果。讨论和结论:需要政府和/或主要资助者分配资源,以提供能够准确分析全民基本收入的证据。这样的试验将为跨学科的工作提供一个平台,从而产生联合的证据和政策。关键信息现有的全民基本收入试验设计不能准确评估政策,试验需要跨学科来观察驱动社会健康梯度的关键因素,统计模型对于为政策制定提供人口水平的证据至关重要,财政资源必须用于建立更彻底和基于证据的试验
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Evidence & Policy
Evidence & Policy SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
53
期刊最新文献
Breaking the Overton Window: on the need for adversarial co-production Examining research systems and models for local government: a systematic review Experiences and perceptions of evidence use among senior health service decision makers in Ireland: a qualitative study The critical factors in producing high quality and policy-relevant research: insights from international behavioural science units Understanding brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners: a multi-sectoral review of strategies, skills, and outcomes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1