Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Accept all cookies Reject all non-essential cookies

Health Economics

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Food Systems Interventions




The Problem

The rising trend of obesity and diet-related illnesses has severely impacted public health and strained healthcare systems. This has led to a growing demand for a comprehensive, systemic approach that emphasizes prevention and seeks to enhance access to healthy diets. In response, the SALIENT consortium was awarded funding to evaluate food systems trials aimed at promoting access to healthy and sustainable diets.

While assessing the impact of these trials is essential, evaluating their economic value is equally important. Thus, alongside impact evaluations, a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) will be conducted for selected interventions. This analysis will use the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) CBA model, initially developed in 2011 and continually updated, now part of the supplementary guidance to the HM Treasury Green Book. This model will measure the Net Present Value (NPV) and Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) of the SALIENT interventions, providing insights into their broader societal benefits beyond individual health effects.

Research question

What is the cost-benefit analysis or return on investment of different food systems interventions aimed at increasing access to healthy and sustainable diets using the GMCA CBA tool?

The Interventions

Community Shop: Decreasing the absolute and relative availability of target discretionary product categories in a UK surplus food social supermarket.

Your Local Pantry: Assessing the impact of access to membership in a community food shop.

Sufra: Comparing payment cards and food parcels to evaluate their effects on food insecurity, mental health, and well-being.

Costs

The costs will focus on the incremental expenses between the intervention and the comparator (business as usual). This includes:

  • Implementation costs (one-off and ongoing)
  • Revenue costs
  • Additional staffing costs
  • Training costs
  • Food procurement costs
  • Volunteering costs
  • In-kind donations

Outcomes

The outcomes will consider the social value benefits of:

  • Increased Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) due to the intervention.
  • Enhanced well-being and improved mental health.
  • Improved self-esteem and dignity.

Key Stakeholders