Health Data and Outcome Measure: Equity, Empowerment, and Sustainability, not just Disease Incidence or Cost-Efficiency
To ensure funding and procurement efforts for health data and outcomes measure equity, empowerment, and sustainability, rather than just disease incidence or cost-efficiency, you need to deliberately shift the metrics, processes, and incentives that guide funding and procurement decisions.
Here’s a structured approach:
1. Redefine Success Metrics
Equity-focused indicators: Track access disparities, health outcomes across marginalized populations, and social determinants of health (SDOH).
Empowerment measures: Include patient-reported outcomes on autonomy, health literacy, and self-efficacy.
Sustainability metrics: Evaluate environmental impact of interventions, long-term viability, and community capacity building.
Composite scoring: Combine these dimensions into funding proposals’ evaluation criteria, so disease incidence is just one factor among many.
2. Integrate Equity and Community Engagement
Participatory data design: Involve communities in deciding what data matters and how outcomes are measured.
Inclusive procurement: Require vendors or service providers to demonstrate community engagement, equity-focused strategies, and culturally appropriate methods of empowerment.
Accountability frameworks: Mandate transparent reporting on equity and empowerment outcomes in funding agreements.
3. Adjust Funding and Procurement Policies
Weighted scoring: Assign explicit scoring in grant or contract evaluations to equity, empowerment, and sustainability outcomes.
Conditional funding: Tie continued funding to demonstrated improvements in equity or empowerment metrics.
Longitudinal impact assessment: Fund projects that track sustainability of outcomes over time rather than just short-term cost savings.
4. Build Capacity for Measurement
Develop standardized tools: Create validated measures for empowerment, equity, and sustainability in health outcomes.
Train evaluators: Ensure funding committees understand and value these dimensions beyond clinical outcomes.
Leverage technology: Use interoperable health data platforms to capture longitudinal, disaggregated data across communities.
5. Foster Policy and Incentive Alignment
Policy mandates: Encourage legislation or institutional policies that prioritize equity, empowerment, and sustainability in funding decisions.
Public accountability: Publish reports linking funding allocations to equity and empowerment outcomes.
Cross-sector collaboration: Partner with social services, environmental agencies, and community organizations to address systemic determinants of health as it relates to equity and empowerment.
✅ Key takeaway: Shifting focus requires measuring what matters, not just what is easiest to quantify, embedding individual voices, adjusting evaluation criteria, and holding funding recipients accountable for long-term, equitable impacts.
Equity, Empowerment, and Sustainability (EES) Funding Scorecard
Domain Criteria Scoring (0–5)
Equity Indicators
Extent to which the project reduces disparities in health access and outcomes
0 = no consideration; 5 = strong
Measurable impact on marginalized populations
0 = no consideration; 5 = strong
Disaggregated health outcomes by race/ethnicity, income, gender, disability; improvements in SDOH
0 = no consideration; 5 = strong
Inclusion of historically oppressed populations in design and implementation
0 = not included; 5 = co-designed with specific participatory research methods
Empowerment
Enhancement of patient autonomy and decision-making
0 = no empowerment; 5 = significant improvement in autonomy
Patient-reported self-efficacy, shared decision-making rates
0 = no consideration; 5 = strong
digital health literacy
0 = no consideration; 5 = strong
Support for education, skill-building, or health literacy
0 = none; 5 = comprehensive
Workshops, training programs, accessible educational materials
0 = none; 5 = comprehensive
Sustainability
Long-term viability of the intervention or outcomes
0 = short-term only; 5 = sustainable & scalable
Ongoing funding plan, integration into local health systems, staff/community capacity building
0 = not considered; 5 = fully sustainable
Environmental and social sustainability
0 = not considered; 5 = fully sustainable
Environmental footprint, use of local resources, collaboration with environmental initiatives
0 = not considered; 5 = fully sustainable
Scoring Guidelines
0–1: Minimal attention; no data or planning provided
2–3: Some consideration; partial metrics or community engagement
4–5: Strong, evidence-based approach; measurable outcomes with clear monitoring
Total Score: Sum of all domains (max 25 points).
High priority for funding: 20–25 points
Moderate priority: 15–19 points
Low priority: <15 points
This framework makes funding decisions explicitly accountable for equity, empowerment, and sustainability, rather than just disease reduction or cost efficiency.
