Summary of housing improvement studies reporting cost data without economic evaluation (ordered by intervention type, study quality and date)
| Author, date, location | Study quality | Study design | Intervention costs | Costs to recipient | Potential for economic evaluation | Summary of economic data and accompanying authors’ interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention: Warmth and energy efficiency improvements (post-1980) | ||||||
| Howden-Chapman et al, 2008, New Zealand16 | A | RCT | ✓ | Yes | Mean cost of intervention per house $(NZ)3000. | |
| Platt et al, 2007, UK18 | A | Contr'd B&A | ✓ | No | Intervention group in receipt of improve heating were less likely to report difficulties to ‘manage financially’, than those who did not acquire heating (OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.60 to 0.99). | |
| Heyman et al, 2011, UK47 56 57 | B | RCT | ✓ | ✓ | Yes: SF-36 amenable to QALY calculation | Mean cost of intervention per house £727. Mean fuel expenditure (Int/Cont n=99/83) £596/£567, p=0.408. Change mean warmth satisfaction score (4 point scale) Int/Cont (n∼96/82) +1.18/+0.64 |
| Lloyd et al, 2008, UK17 | B | Contr'd B&A | ✓ | No | Heating costs per week Before vs After (>4 years after intervention) (Int/Cont n=75/40) £35 vs £7 per week, no change in rent. Control group do not report any changes in housing costs (unclear how data were obtained). | |
| Shortt et al, 2007, UK19 58 59 | B | Contr'd B&A | ✓ | No | Fuel costs per annum Before vs After (Int n=54) £1113 vs £751.56. (Data refers to sub-group who received full intervention, no data for changes in control group). | |
| Warm Front Study Group, 2006, UK21 48 60–63 | C | Contr'd B&A | ✓ | ✓ | Yes | Maximum value of grant per house £2500. Following introduction of cavity wall and loft insulation space heating fuel consumption reduced by 10% in centrally heated properties and 17% in non-centrally heated properties. Gas central heating system did not change fuel consumption due to increased internal temperature. |
| Allen, 2005, UK22 49 | C | UBA | ✓ | Yes | Mean cost of intervention per house £4477 (range £799–£10 144), total cost of project £176 297. Total funding from various grants (mean award per eligible property): disabled facilities £66 173 (£5494); occupational therapy £1691 (£85); renovation grant £14 081; home repair grant £8811. | |
| Allen, 2005, UK23 | C | UBA | ✓ | Yes | Mean cost of intervention per house £5800 (range £350 to £14 000). | |
| Eick et al, 2004, UK24 | C | RCT | ✓ | ✓ | No | Change in health costs in 3 months since intervention (n=16): GP visit −£136; GP home visit −£22.58; outpatient visit −£220; hospital admission −£5740; steroids −£5.70; antibiotics −£16.80; nebuliser −£1.23; absence from school due to asthma –£478.42; absence from school due to other reasons +£62.95Expenditure associated with the installation of MVHR system: cost of unit and installation £2500; annual maintenance by owner £150; annual running costs for occupant £35. |
| Caldwell et al, 2001, UK25 | C | Contr'd B&A | ✓ | No | Changes in annual energy costs since intervention (participant recall) in four intervention sites −£235.46/−£457.70/−£206.47/−£254.60. No change reported in control sites | |
| Green et al, 1999, UK26 64 | C | RC | ✓ | ✓ | Yes | Mean cost of intervention per house £28 000. Estimated heating bills Int/Cont £4.46 vs £9.04 (difference in fuel costs attributed largely to differences in fuel supplier tariffs rather than consumption); weekly rent Int/Cont £29.64/£19.63 |
| Intervention: Rehousing/retrofitting ± neighbourhood renewal (post 1995) | ||||||
| Thomson et al, 2007, UK27 | A | Contr'd B&A | ✓ | No | Rent data presented for 33 (Int/Cont 18/15) participants. Mean rent per week at baseline Int/Cont £32.24/£31.00. Mean change in rent per week Int/Cont +£6.65/+£1.31. Some residents reported increased fuel cost (Int/Cont 14/5) actual cost data not presented. | |
| Critchley et al, 2004, UK29 | A | Contr'd B&A | ✓ | No | Over 12-year period Liverpool Housing Action Trust invested £260 m in housing renewal (this appears to be the total housing budget and does not refer specifically to this intervention). Estimated annual running costs Before vs After rehousing for: two person household £662 vs £347; single person's costs £610 vs £319. Percentage living in fuel poverty(excluding housing benefit), Before vs After intervention for- 1 person households 86% vs 14%; 2 person households 48% vs 8%. | |
| Thomas et al, 2005, UK28 65 | B | Contr'd B&A | ✓ | Yes | Total cost of renewal project (Single Regeneration Budget) £2 million over study period. Costs do not relate necessarily to study sample and not specifically to housing, project included range of non-housing investment improvements. | |
| Blackman et al, 2001, UK30 66 | C | UBA | ✓ | Yes | Mean cost of renewal project per house £8000. Total cost of housing renewal programme £5.5 million. Costs do not relate necessarily to study sample and not specifically to housing, project included some environmental improvements and road safety improvements. | |
| Ambrose, 2000, UK31 32 67 | C | UBA | ✓ | No | Before vs 2 years After intervention. Mean weekly housing costs: rent (n=105 households) £52 vs £72; water (n=60) £0.92 vs £4.38; gas (n=92) £5.54 vs £6.46; electricity (n=98) £4.62 vs £5.77. Before vs 3 years after intervention (n=19 households): mean weekly housing costs: rent £60.33 vs £79.30; water £3.50 vs £5.06; gas (n=9) £8.28 vs £6.15; electricity (n=6) £4.76 vs £3.33. (cost data collected retrospectively, not all participants reporting cost data also reported health data) | |
| Walker and Bradshaw, 1999 UK33 | C | XCBA | ✓ | ✓ | No | Investment of £8.6 million by local authority in repair of homes and renovation of property. Percentage change in general practice prescribing costs per 1000 patients after intervention (1994–1998). Intervention practice A/Intervention practice B/Control practices (n=7): gastrointestinal +12.33%/+25.8%/+12.92%; cardiovascular +31.27%/+37.56%/+27.01%; respiratory +46.92%/+82.87%/+43.57+; central nervous system +79.22%/+73.7%/+79.7%; hypnotic +67.58%/+15.99%/+93.33%; anxiolytic −74.12%/−12.29%/−6.51%; antidepressant +109.51%/+86.27%/+120.77%; analgesic +26.92%/+26.59%/+42.66%; anti-infective +12.96%/−22.19%/−26.26%. |
| Woodin et al, 1996, UK34 | C | R | ✓ | No | Total cost of renewal project £97 million, figure includes more than study sample. | |
| Halpern, 1995, UK35 | C | XUBA | ✓ | Yes | Mean cost of intervention per house (full refurbishment) £10 000–£15 000. | |
| Intervention: Provision of basic housing needs/low or middle income country | ||||||
| Cattaneo et al, 2006, Mexico36 | B | RC | ✓ | Yes | Mean cost of intervention per house=$(US)150. | |
| Aga Khan Health Service, 2001, Pakistan38 | B | RC | ✓ | No | Annual spending (rupees) on health care after intervention (Int/Cont n=50/99) 0 rupees=14%/16%; 1–999 rupees 18%/18%; 1000–5999 rupees 26%/39%; >5999 rupees 26%/16%; don't know 16%/10%. Estimated that insulation has resulted in up to 50% reduction in wood consumption by a typical family, reducing cost and time spent collecting and buying firewood. | |
| Aiga et al, 2002, Phillipines37 68 | C | R | ✓ | No | Mean monthly household expenditure on water (Pesos) Int/Cont 109/234. Intervention cost not available. Mean household income (Pesos) after intervention Int/Cont 8032/4530. Increased household income attributed to increase in time available to earn (as a result of improved water supply). Estimated that increased income of 5740 Pesos in control group if they received improved water supply. | |
| Wolff et al, 2001, Malawi39 | C | UBA | ✓ | Yes | Mean cost of building a new ‘habitat’ house, $ (US) 550. | |
| Intervention: Rehousing from slums (pre-1965) | ||||||
| McGonigle et al, 1936 UK41 | B | Contr'd B&A | ✓ | No | Mean weekly rent Before vs After Int 4s.8d/9s.0d. Cont 4s.7¾d/4s.10¾d (s=shilling, d=pence, 1 shilling=5 pence). Rent as a % of income subdivided by employed or unemployed status (Int/Cont n=28/27 families). Int Employed/unemployed 20.5%/31.3%; Cont Employed/unemployed 14.7%/20.8% (Int/Cont n=35/30 families) Before vs After Int/Cont rent as % of income 20.5%/14.7% vs 31.3%/20.8%. | |
| Chapin, 1938, USA40 | C | UBA | ✓ | ✓ | No | Mean cost of intervention per house $(US) 7791 total cost of project $3 623 000 for 465 houses. Before vs After intervention, mean unit rental $(US) 15.68 vs 17.98, mean room rental $(US)3.21 vs 3.79. |
*Study design: RCT, randomised controlled trial; Contr'd B&A, controlled before & after; UBA, uncontrolled before & after; XCBA, controlled before & after using area level cross sectional data at both time points; XUBA, uncontrolled before & after using area level cross sectional data at both time points; RC, retrospective controlled study; R, retrospective uncontrolled.
QALY, quality adjusted life year.