CONTEXT: Public health policy can play an important role in improving public health outcomes. Accordingly, there has been an increasing emphasis by policy makers on identifying and implementing evidence-informed public health policy interventions. PROGRAM OR POLICY: Growth and refinement of the field of research assessing the impact of legal interventions on health outcomes, known as legal epidemiology, prompted this review of studies on the relationship between laws and health or economic outcomes. IMPLEMENTATION: Authors systematically searched 8 major literature databases for all English language journal articles that assessed the effect of a law on health and economic outcomes published between January 1, 2009, and September 18, 2019. This search generated 12 570 unique articles 177 of which met inclusion criteria. The team conducting the systematic review was a multidisciplinary team that included health economists and public health policy researchers, as well as public health lawyers with expertise in legal epidemiological research methods. The authors identified and assessed the types of methods used to measure the laws' health impact. EVALUATION: In this review, the authors examine how legal epidemiological research methods have been described in the literature as well as trends among the studies. Overall, 3 major themes emerged from this study: (1) limited variability in the sources of the health data across the studies, (2) limited differences in the methodological approaches used to connect law to health outcomes, and (3) lack of transparency surrounding the source and quality of the legal data relied upon. DISCUSSION: Through highlighting public health law research methodologies, this systematic review may inform researchers, practitioners, and lawmakers on how to better examine and understand the impacts of legal interventions on health and economic outcomes. Findings may serve as a source of suggested practices in conducting legal epidemiological outcomes research and identifying conceptual and method-related gaps in the literature.

Objective: Paid sick leave (PSL) laws mandate employers give workers paid time off when they are sick or injured. This current study aims to examine whether access to PSL is associated with healthcare utilization and health outcomes and to summarize the types of utilization and outcomes which have been reported to be associated with PSL. Methods: We conducted a rapid evidence review. Our search of seven databases, including Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Scopus, and JSTOR, on September 21, 2020, identified 757 studies, 30 of which were retained. Results: Previous evidence is mostly provided by cross-sectional studies with survey data. In this study, evidence suggests that PSL is significantly associated with some types of healthcare utilization and health outcomes. In terms of healthcare utilization, findings indicate PSL is associated with an increase in the use of some preventive services and a decrease in the use of emergency care; while findings are mixed regarding associations of PSL with health provider visits and the use of mammograms and pap smears. As for health outcomes, findings suggest PSL is associated with improved mental and self-rated health, decreased incidence of influenza-like illness, and lower occupational injuries and mortality rates. Conclusion: PSL may be an effective tool in improving some healthcare utilization and health outcomes. Future research could help identify mechanisms through which PSL access works and identify what policy components lead to better outcomes. © 2023

INTRODUCTION: Heart disease, cancer, unintentional injury, chronic lower respiratory disease, and stroke are the 5 leading causes of death in the U.S. The objective of this review is to examine the economic value of prevention interventions addressing these 5 conditions. METHODS: Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry data were queried from 2010 to 2018 for interventions that addressed any of the 5 conditions in the U.S. Results were stratified by condition, prevention stage, type of intervention, study sponsorship, and study perspective. The analyses were conducted in 2020, and all costs were reported in 2019 dollars. RESULTS: In total, 549 cost-effectiveness analysis studies examined interventions addressing these 5 conditions in the U.S. Tertiary prevention interventions were assessed in 61.4%, whereas primary prevention was assessed in 8.6% of the studies. Primary prevention studies were predominantly funded by government, whereas industry sources funded more tertiary prevention studies, especially those dealing with pharmaceutical interventions. The median incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the 5 conditions combined was $68,500 per quality-adjusted life year. Median incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were lowest for primary prevention and highest for tertiary prevention. DISCUSSION: Primary prevention may be more cost effective than secondary and tertiary prevention interventions; however, research investments in primary prevention interventions, especially by industry, lag in comparison. These findings help to highlight the gaps in the cost-effectiveness analysis literature related to the 5 leading causes of death and identify understudied interventions and prevention stages for each condition.