Our comprehensive review and meta- analysis of these experiments find suggestive evidence of health benefits associated with investments in early life , income support , and health insurance interventions .
Housing and neighborhood trials had no effect on the outcomes included in the meta-analyses .
A positive effect of the trial on its primary socioeconomic outcome was associated with higher odds of reporting health improvements .
Early life , income , and health insurance interventions have the potential to improve health .
Policy Points Social policies might not only improve economic well-being , but also health .
Health policy experts have therefore advocated for investments in social policies both to improve population health and potentially reduce health system costs .
Since the 1960s , a large number of social policies have been experimentally evaluated in the United States .
Some of these experiments include health outcomes , providing a unique opportunity to inform evidence -based policymaking .
CONTEXT Insurers and health care providers are investing heavily in nonmedical social interventions in an effort to improve health and potentially reduce health care costs .
Good intentions and received wisdom are not enough
There is a common view among social and public health scientists that there is an evidence -based medicine ( EBM ) juggernaut , a powerful , naive , and overweening attempt to impose an inappropriately narrow and medical model of experimentation onto a complex social world . We have both frequently come across hostility among social scientists , and public health or health promotion practitioners or theorists , to attempts to apply EBM principles ( for example , systematic review s or experimental design s ) in social or public health setting s ( for example , sex education in schools , health promotion campaigns , or community development1 ) . We believe such hostility to be misplaced , and to be based on a number of misconceptions . The first misconception is that systematic review s and experimental design s have a wholly biomedical provenance . As Ann Oakley has pointed out , the use of experimental design s was well established in United States by the 1930s , and from the early 1960s to early 1980s there were many r and omised experiments for evaluating public policy interventions in United States , these being considered the optimum design . Much of the early literature on experimental design s ( including blinding ) came from the social sciences , as a response to the perceived need to be able to make valid causal inferences.2 The second misconception is that the “ real world ” is too complex , messy ,
Our comprehensive review and meta- analysis of these experiments find suggestive evidence of health benefits associated with investments in early life , income support , and health insurance interventions .
Housing and neighborhood trials had no effect on the outcomes included in the meta-analyses .
A positive effect of the trial on its primary socioeconomic outcome was associated with higher odds of reporting health improvements .
Early life , income , and health insurance interventions have the potential to improve health .
Policy Points Social policies might not only improve economic well-being , but also health .
Health policy experts have therefore advocated for investments in social policies both to improve population health and potentially reduce health system costs .
Since the 1960s , a large number of social policies have been experimentally evaluated in the United States .
Some of these experiments include health outcomes , providing a unique opportunity to inform evidence -based policymaking .
CONTEXT Insurers and health care providers are investing heavily in nonmedical social interventions in an effort to improve health and potentially reduce health care costs .