User talk:Tyding/sandbox

Overall, I like where you are going with this and the breakdown that you currently have! :)


 * Please cite all the research that you indirectly reference!


 * There were a few places where a clarification or explanation would have been helpful. Specifically, the more "technical" terms that you occasionally used (like "transport-specific interventions," difference between "cost-benefit analysis" and "cost-utility analysis.")


 * Would hope to see more varied citations. The majority of the citations that you have are from the 2000s and are published in peer reviewed journals. The sources are clearly very reputable, would be great to see some more variety like news articles.


 * Structurally, have the "Challenges of measuring value of interventions" section before "Interventions" so that people can have exposure to the difficulties related to set interventions. OR slightly expand on the the last sentence in the first paragraph "... evaluation of interventions has been difficult." This will allow readers to have a stronger understanding of the background and factors that have influenced the shaping of SDOH interventions.

* it would be interesting and useful to see specific data from some of the conclusions ex "interventions such as "health-related cash transfers"...have been shown to have a positive impact..." * Have citations. What does it mean to have a "positive impact"? How much of an impact did it have? Were the impacts the same for the different interventions? How did they vary? Perhaps expand on this idea more and add multiple citations for additional information.
 * Go more in depth about the "studies" that you indirectly referenced throughout your edits. Cite them and include some consistent and reputable data from them. Referring to the results of a paper as "shown to be economically beneficial" seems very flat and leaves the reader wanting more and slightly confused. (How is it more economically beneficial? for whom in that country?)