Towards a credible trial of the health effects of Universal Basic Income in Norway: research priorities identified from a concept mapping workshop

Towards a credible trial of the health effects of Universal Basic Income in Norway: research priorities identified from a concept mapping workshop | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Towards a credible trial of the health effects of Universal Basic Income in Norway: research priorities identified from a concept mapping workshop Robert Froud, Margreth Grotle, Ann-Helén Bay, Axel West Pedersen, and 9 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9221656/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 7 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Socioeconomic disadvantage and health conditions may mutually reinforce. Musculoskeletal and mental health conditions are among the leading causes of early labour market exit and together account for around two-thirds of long-term sickness absence resulting in labour market dropout in Norway. Universal Basic Income (UBI) has been proposed as an intervention that may help address social determinants of these conditions. Norway may be well-placed to host a trial of UBI effects on health, but context-specific underpinning work is needed before a credible grant application can be made. As a first step, we convened a group of health and UBI researchers to consider what underpinning work is needed and what factors may influence trial design. Methods Health and UBI researchers were invited to attend a conference and workshop, during which a Technology of Participation workshop approach was used to facilitate convergence of opinion on knowledge gaps and recommend research priorities. Results Fourteen researchers attended a workshop in Oslo and found broad convergence of opinion on priorities. Commended underpinning work included research in a Norwegian context to better understand health effects of reductions in benefit income due to sanctions or conditionality ( e.g. through qualitative work or surveys), undertaking a discrete choice experiment to quantify value attributes of desirable components of a future health-focused trial of UBI in Norway ( e.g. through conjoint analysis), and agreeing on a core set of outcome measures ( e.g. within a Delphi study) to commend for use in UBI trials more generally. Conclusions Better understanding the health effects of social benefit sanctions and the values placed on intervention components in a Norwegian context may support a case for doing a health-focused trial of UBI in Norway, and understanding values placed on different intervention components will help inform the design of such a trial. Recommending core outcome sets would facilitate cross-comparisons between trials. Consensus workshop Universal Basic Income Trials Benefit Sanctions Discrete Choice Experiments Core Outcome Sets Background Socioeconomic disadvantage and health conditions may mutually reinforce, creating a self‑perpetuating spiral in which constrained resources, insecure employment and reduced social participation increase the risk, severity and chronicity of illness.( 1 ) Economic inactivity due to health conditions has long been recognised as a persistent challenge across high-income countries, with musculoskeletal (MSK) and mental health conditions among the leading causes of early labour market exit.( 2 ) In Norway, these two condition groups together account for around two thirds of long-term sickness absence resulting in labour market dropout.( 3 ) The 2021 Global Burden of Disease study ranks low back pain, and other MSK disorders, first and fifth respectively as the largest contributors to Years Lived with Disability.( 4 ) Depressive disorders and anxiety rank second and sixth.( 4 ) MSK disorders disproportionately affect those at the older end of the working age distribution, whereas mental health disorders disproportionately affect those at the younger end of the distribution.( 2 , 3 ) Norway's welfare system is characterised by contribution-based benefits tied to labour market participation, with stigmatised means-tested social assistance as a safety net for those without work history. Access to generous sickness and disability benefits requires medical certification, creating a pathway where individuals seeking economic support may be channelled toward health-based benefits rather than employment support.( 5 ) The system creates poverty traps where combining work with benefits results in benefit withdrawal, discouraging rehabilitation efforts and labour market re-entry.( 6 , 7 ) These structural features of the welfare system may lock individuals into a work disability trap rather than supporting rehabilitation and return to work, a paradox that Universal Basic Income (UBI) has been proposed as a means of addressing.( 8 ) Many are now caught in a downward spiral of joblessness, which is associated with worsening health.( 9 , 10 ) Furthermore, leaving or never entering the workforce with potentially many years left to contribute is a double strike for the state: reduced productive economic activity coupled with increased benefit costs.( 2 ) An effective strategy to support people with common health problems, including mental health and MSK problems, could improve prosperity, wellbeing and productivity – benefits with the potential to justify substantial input costs. UBI is defined as a regular cash payment to all, without means test or work requirement.( 11 , 12 ) For practical purposes, in this paper, we will define all , as those adults legally resident and entitled to work in a country. There is suggestion from microsimulation that Basic Income schemes could prevent or postpone substantial numbers of cases of mental and physical health problems. A Basic Income health logic model has been proposed showing pathways from unconditional income through poverty reduction and income security to improved individual and community health.( 13 , 14 ) Further, an ongoing systematic review led by a subset of the authors of this paper, indicates that unconditional income schemes for adults in high income countries might have health benefits.( 15 ) It is not clear whether UBI-related interventions represent good value for money for the state in terms of any such health benefits. In assessing this, a societal perspective that considers health and social care costs, benefit payment costs, administrative costs, and changes in productivity is appropriate. To date, most studies have been framed within specific policy contexts with limited scope, and few have examined cost and health utility ( i.e. overall health-related quality of life) as primary outcomes in experimental settings. Recent community engagement research has begun to explore prospective health impacts,( 16 ) though experimental evidence remains limited. We want to test whether providing legal residents in a high-income country with a universal and unconditional income represents good value in terms of the improvement in the overall health of the community. We recognise here that any effects (positive or negative) such a scheme might generate will accrue to both the individual and the community within which they live. Whilst acknowledging ongoing debates about the merits of different experimental approaches,( 17 , 18 ) to obtain the best evidence on health effects, a randomised controlled trial is an appropriate tool.( 19 ) Norway is in a strong position to host a randomised controlled UBI trial. Although it is a rich country overall, economic inactivity, both in middle-aged people with MSK problems and young people with mental health problems, has been identified as a research and policy priority.( 20 – 22 ) Furthermore, resources within its sovereign wealth fund may help to fund a substantial UBI experiment without having an adverse impact on routine government expenditure. There are substantial scientific, practical and political challenges in setting up such a trial. Here we aimed to focus on scientific challenges. Before we can start addressing our overarching research question, ‘is UBI good value for money as an intervention to improve health? ’ we aimed to reach broad convergence of opinion among a group comprising UBI research and health trial experts on research priorities for underpinning work that is needed before health and political science researchers could proceed in preparing a credible grant application in the Norwegian context. Methods We used a participatory workshop format. Seed corn funding was provided by Kristiania University of Applied Sciences, Oslo Metropolitan University, and event funding was provided by The Research Council of Norway. The working group formed following a meeting between pain researchers (RF, MG, MU) and those doing UBI-related research (AHB, AWP). Workshop participants were invited by the working group as those authors the group identified had previously done trials of UBI-like interventions, written a book on UBI, or made other key contributions to scholarly literature and academic and policy debates. This was then supplemented by snowball sampling from recommendations of other invitees. Thus, we did not sample from any definitive population, but rather looked to identify topic experts, as one might in Delphi, Nominal Group Technique, or other consensus-building approaches featuring expert participants.( 23 , 24 ) No reimbursements were given other than for travel and accommodation expenses. The process spanned one afternoon and one morning in Oslo, 23rd and 24th September, 2025. On the first day we held a conference session that was open to all and advertised to the public. Participants were asked to engage in discussion and debate in a series of presentations on experiences and obstacles encountered while delivering past UBI trials, and what is known so far about UBI and health effects (Additional File 1). Having this session with a public audience, allowed the general public and potential user voice to be heard through questions and debate slots after speaker sessions. The second day was then held as a closed session, with identified expert participants and we aimed to include trained user participants. Participants were pseudo-randomly divided into two breakout groups by a facilitator. Within these groups participants generated ideas, which were recorded and summarised by a facilitator. These were then shared, evaluated, and synthesised in plenary. Our approach aligns with concept mapping consensus workshop methods and with established practices in stakeholder research priority‑setting workshops in health, and broadly followed Spencer’s Technology of Participation (ToP) workshop approach.( 25 , 26 ) The ToP workshop comprises five steps; Context, Brainstorm, Ordering, Naming , and Evaluating . Unlike formal concept mapping,( 27 ) and Nominal Group Technique (NGT),( 23 ) no sorting or rating was undertaken; convergence was reached through deliberation. The first step, Context , involved defining the purpose of the workshop, which in this case happened through the invitation for participants to come and consider knowledge gaps and the theoretical design of a UBI trial for improving health outcomes in Norway; the afternoon conference; and the introductory sessions preceding the morning workshop. As part of this step, participants were asked to introduce themselves and comment in general on their impressions of the presentations in the conference on the previous day, and their overarching views on obstacles to running a UBI trial. AHB then gave a priming overview of the benefits system in Norway. Approximately one hour was allocated for this step. In the second step, Brainstorm , the two groups were facilitated by either MU (A), or RF (B). The facilitators had prior experience of conducting other consensus exercises. Each facilitator asked participants to consider knowledge gaps, in a way that was designed to elicit insights from the group, which were then charted on a whiteboard. The intention is that through bringing multiple perspectives to bear on an issue, the issue is cast in many different lights, revealing dimensions that had previously been unrecognised, with each member gaining insight through seeing it through the eyes of each other group member.( 25 ) The facilitator asks for more information until the lists are completed. In the third step, Order , the contributed ideas were ordered into similar nominal ( i.e. unranked) groupings using both rational and intuitive styles of thinking, with an emphasis on the intuitive. In the fourth step, Naming , discernible categories were named through group collaboration. One hour and 15 minutes was allocated for steps two to four. In the final step, Evaluating , the two groups returned to plenary session and each facilitator summarised their named lists. The integration of these lists was collaboratively organised into an implementable plan of research projects that through collaborative discussion, the group prioritised. One hour was allocated for the final step. Unlike Delphi, the ToP workshop process is not anonymous. All workshop participants attending the second day were invited to be co-authors of this paper. The reporting guidelines for the priority setting for health research (REPRISE) checklist was used to inform reporting (Additional File 2).( 28 ) Ethics approval from a research ethics committee was not required, or possible; notwithstanding a semi-structured approach to this debate among experts, research ethics committees in Norway consider this type of work to be ‘ implementation exploration’ , rather than health research, and outside the remit of the Health Research Act.( 29 ) All experts provided written (electronic) consent to participate. Results Thirteen experts were initially identified and invited by the working group. Two did not reply, one nominated a colleague (who accepted the invitation), and one was unable to attend. The remaining experts accepted the invitations. One expert recommended three other people; one of whom accepted, one declined, and the other did not reply. Four people from the working group joined the exercise, which thus comprised 14 experts with experience either primarily on UBI policy or UBI trials or health research. A trained user participant was identified in Oslo region. Unfortunately, the participant could not attend due to sickness. Four staff supported the event but did not participate in the collaborative aspects of the workshop. Table 1 shows the demographics of participants. MG and AHB’s introductory sessions spanned 1hr and 20 mins. Group allocations were made by MU, based loosely on the order in which people were standing, left to right. Eight participants were allocated to group A and six were allocated to group B. Table 1 shows the characteristics of participants, by group. Characteristic Group A Group B Combined N 8 6 14 Age, mean (SD) 57.3 (13.5) 52.2 (9.8) 55.1 (11.9) Sex % female 38% 50% 43% Country (of residence) n (%) Belgium Chile Finland Norway Spain Sweden UK 1 (13%) 1 (13%) 1 (13%) 2 (25%) 1 (13%) - 2 (25%) - - - 2 (33%) - 1 (17%) 3 (50%) 1(7%) 1(7%) 1(7%) 4 (29%) 1(7%) 1(7%) 5 (29%) Principal background n (%) Health Research Politics and Public Policy Sociology and Social Policy 3 (38%) 2 (25%) 3 (38%) 3 (50%) 3 (50%) 6 (43%) 5 (36%) 3 (21%) Years experience in discipline, mean (SD) 30.4 (13.7) 23.8 (9.5) 27.6 (12.1) Years experience in UBI-related or health research, mean (SD) 14.1 (11.2) 12.8 (10.6) 13.5 (10.5) Table 1 – Characteristics of participating experts in ToP workshop In group A, participants were asked to consider knowledge gaps and the shape of an intervention. Participants discussed the need for a theoretical (logic) model, applicable for Norwegian context, and exploring how parts of the logic model would map onto processes in Norway. Participants discussed the need for a core outcome set informed by work of a UK-based team,(30) potentially featuring not only PROMs, but also biomarkers, which may add to objectivity. Participants considered work was needed to understand what level of benefit would change behaviour ( e.g. partial or full basic income); and that some of this may be able to be done through discrete choice experiments to inform trial design, Delphi studies, or qualitative work. It was noted that this could also be done with policy makers and opinion leaders to identify a willingness-to-pay threshold and the degree to which there is any intersection. In terms of trial features, the potential for cluster randomising (rather than individuals) was discussed (although noted as being aspirational). The group noted some concerns around Norway's relatively secure welfare system having the potential to mask income effects of basic income (see Discussion for comparison with a similar methodological challenge in another context). However, the group noted that a Norwegian trial exploring the relationship between income security and health outcomes, and exploring effects on waiting lists in health services, mental health in particular, and disability pensions would provide valuable new knowledge. Exploring whether unconditional payments reduce stigma as well as improve subjective wellbeing and happiness, was also discussed as valuable. In group B, participants were asked to consider knowledge gaps and generate research questions to address those gaps. During the ordering phase it became apparent that these could be ordered by the methodological category of research required to answer the research question, and research questions were ordered as such. It was noted that, in some cases, research questions could be addressed through multiple methodological approaches and as such the same (or slightly modified) question may appear in more than one named list. Naming was then done by research type. Table 2, parts A and B, show the research questions generated ordered nominally by named research type. Systematic reviews Qualitative studies Delphi studies Discrete Choice Experiment Ecological studies A synthesis of Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration/ Statistics Norway material. What do people who deliver social security in Norway think are the mechanisms that affect health? A core set of outcomes for UBI trials. What values do people place on difference components of a UBI intervention? ( e.g. time, amount of transfer, duration, etc). Welfare systems and health by country. Experiences of relationships and trust when working with social workers/civil servants/ NGOs. What do people who deliver social security in Norway think are the mechanisms that influence who receive benefits? Optimal social security design. Qualitative literature on impact of benefit conditions. The experiences of those who have been in prior UBI interventional experiments. What are the economic security conditions of health? Practical experiences of those limited by 16-hours of work. The 1G limit (1 times basic NIC), benefits and health experiences. Experiences of those on disability pensions and those not on disability pensions. Health impacts of sanctions (withdrawal of benefits). Table 2 (a) – research questions by study type (Part 1) Interventional Studies Cohort Cross-sectional studies Case-control Do unconditional cash transfers reduce * stigma, as compared to usual care, for beneficiaries who are navigating between disability benefits and social security benefits? Social welfare relationships/requirements and reported stress/health and well-being. An analytical cross-sectional study of self-efficacy by benefit type. Welfare-related suicides. * It was noted that this outcome could be swapped out for others; e.g. self-efficacy How do economic security conditions affect health over time? Registry data opportunities (e.g. HUNT). Health status by years on benefit. Prior UBI trials – questionnaires where consent permits subsequent approach for research purposes. Health status by sanctions. An analytical cross-sectional study of health effects by sanctions. Being ‘stuck ‘in the system by ICD code. Table 2 (b) – research questions by study type (Part 2) Following breakout sessions, participants reconvened in a plenary session, and the results were summarised. After evaluating each breakout groups’ feedback, the whole group considered that discrete choice experiment (DCE) work would permit understanding of what intervention features and levels of benefit may be effective and cost-effective. Further, a core outcomes set may enable improved comparisons between UBI trials and be useful for future trials. The group agreed that there is a need for new original research, as well as systematic synthesis, to understand health and wider impacts of sanctions (or the threat or fear of sanctions) and conditionality of benefits in Norway (particularly by younger working-age people with mental health problems and older working-age people with MSK health problems). Exploring the health effects of transition to disability pensions may additionally be valuable given prior qualitative reports of improvements in health following the receipt of disability pension. This underpinning work would then inform a logic model for a Norwegian trial design. Discussion Main findings and implications An expert group of UBI researchers and health researchers with experience of delivering clinical trials met within a ToP workshop approach to consider what knowledge gaps would need to be addressed before a credible grant application for a Norwegian randomised controlled trial of a UBI-like intervention for improving health. To inform a logic model for an intervention in Norway, the group considered that discrete choice experiments could be done to quantify values on desirable intervention features and components. Norway has a generous welfare system, but also a system with strict limitations to combine benefits with work. Improving understanding of health effects of the threat of sanctions and conditionality in Norway ( e.g. through qualitative work, and surveys) was also thought a priority. Ahead of further UBI trials in general, and before a new large trial in Norway, a core outcomes set will be advantageous to permit cross-trial comparisons. The group produced a portfolio of research ideas for use generally by researchers working in this area, and for those working in the Norwegian context in particular. This underpinning work will have the potential to define how trials of UBI are evaluated in future and enable the design of a UBI-related intervention specifically tailored for the Norwegian context. Comparisons to existing research These types of approach to underpinning work have previously made impacts in other areas of health research. Deyo et al suggested agreeing core outcomes for use in back pain trials to permit cross trial comparisons.( 31 ) Their initial suggestions have since been modified.( 32 , 33 ) It is now common to recommend core outcomes for trials targeting health changes, often using a Delphi study.( 34 ) The COMET initiative has gone a long way towards helping and encouraging this, as well as setting out a systematic approach to their development.( 35 ) Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) have previously been used in UBI-related research to understand public preferences, and more broadly to inform the design of complex health interventions prior to large scale clinical trial. In 2024, Nettle et al conducted a DCE among 800 UK residents to quantify value attributions on desirable factors of a welfare system. They found that reductions in poverty were valued most highly (of the 10 attributes investigated), and while there was a trade-off for lower income taxes, some income tax rises were considered acceptable within their sample (which they acknowledge may not have been representative of the general population) for sufficiently large reductions in poverty.( 36 ) A smaller DCE, set within mixed methods and feasibility work, suggests that it is feasible to elicit public preferences around income based policies in the UK.( 37 , 38 ) In 2019, Terris-Presholt et al used a DCE approach among 325 Tanzanian men to quantify features of a clinical trial of an intervention to increase demand for voluntary male circumcision to prevent HIV.( 39 ) They report that the DCE identified two key service components. A cluster randomised trial to test the intervention was subsequently funded and conducted across 20 sites in Tanzania. This is a good example of a DCE directly informing a trial that went on to be funded. A large-scale DCE, within a representative sample in Norway, has the potential to be a cost-effective way of informing the design of a UBI trial. Whilst UBI represents an unconditional approach to income support, much existing welfare research has examined the health effects of increasingly punitive conditionality. Evidence from the UK demonstrates salient and worrying health effects of benefit sanctions. Evidence indicates that punitive conditionality and sanctions related to employment programmes are associated with symbolic and material suffering and, in some cases, life-threatening consequences.( 40 , 41 ) A scoping review of international evidence found consistent associations between sanctions and increased material hardship and health problems,( 42 ) other research has highlighted the role of administrative burdens in mediating these harmful effects.( 43 , 44 ) Qualitative evidence from Norway illustrates how conditionality can operate as a barrier to recovery. Among unemployed people with persistent pain navigating the Norwegian welfare system, receipt of disability pension (which removes the conditionality and bureaucratic burden of the work assessment allowance process) was described as a relief that reduced distress and allowed individuals to refocus attention towards recovery and wellbeing.( 45 ) As noted by Group A, trial design in generous welfare state contexts presents particular methodological challenges. The Finnish basic income experiment (2017–2018) provided EUR 560 monthly to 2,000 unemployed individuals, replacing their existing unemployment benefits with an equivalent unconditional payment.( 19 ) As the modest income difference in an already-generous welfare system meant there were few plausible income-related drivers, observed effects were more likely attributable to the removal of conditionality than to additional income, though this also limited the ability to test whether income level itself matters.( 19 ) A Norwegian trial would face similar challenges and would need careful design to disentangle whether observed effects stem from the income boost itself or from the removal of conditionality and associated administrative burdens. Strengths and Limitations Our work brought together experts in UBI research and clinical trials to consider what underpinning work would be needed to inform the design of a UBI trial, focused on health, and specifically for Norway, which may be in a unique position in terms of its ability to use value created from commons and owned by the people to study potential health effects of giving a basic income unconditionally. In this respect, Norway's sovereign wealth fund presents similarities to Alaska's Permanent Fund, which has provided annual dividends to residents since 1982, though the Alaskan payments are irregular in size and relatively modest.( 46 ) It should be noted that macroeconomic effects of a UBI funded through resource dividends would differ from one funded through general taxation, potentially limiting generalisability to other contexts.( 46 ) However, our work has some limitations. Due to the way we approached the identification of experts, it is possible, and likely, that there are other extant expert views that are different to those expressed, relevant, but not captured by this process. This limitation may be able to be addressed in future work, for example through systematic reviews, Delphi studies, or surveys. Our work addressed only the outstanding scientific challenges. Research on the political challenges that may present obstacles to undertaking a UBI trial in Norway is also needed. Recommendations for future research We commend this convergence of opinion on needed underpinning pieces of work for future research by UBI researchers; in particular those working on the Norwegian context. The prioritised pieces of work, i.e. understanding the health effects of sanctions, administrative burdens of conditionality, and doing a discrete choice experiment quantifying values of intervention components for a UBI health trial for Norway, will help underpin the case and design of a future trial in Norway, and agreeing on recommended core sets of outcome measures, building on existing measures work, will facilitate comparisons between UBI trials more generally. Conclusions A group comprising 14 researchers with predominantly either health or UBI research backgrounds met in Oslo to consider what research is needed before the question ' is UBI good value for money as an intervention to improve health? ' can be addressed. The group identified a series of knowledge gaps and research questions to facilitate progress to the point of being able to address the question and prioritised the understanding of the health effects of benefits sanctions and administrative burdens of conditionality in the Norwegian context, doing a discrete choice experiment to quantify value placed on attributes of an intervention for trial in Norway and with a health focus, and recommending a core outcome set for UBI trials. Abbreviations DCE: Discrete Choice Experiment MSK: Musculoskeletal NAV: Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (Arbeids- og velferdsetaten) NGT: Nominal Group Technique PROM: Patient Reported Outcome Measure SSB: Statistics Norway (Statistisk sentralbyrå) ToP: Technology of Participation UBI: Universal Basic Income Declarations Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate: the protocol did not require review by a research ethics committee. All participants consented to participate. Consent for Publication: Not applicable. Availability of Data and Materials: The data supporting the findings of this study are presented in aggregate within this published article and its additional files. Competing Interests: Robert Froud (RF) is Chief Investigator on a research grant from Norwegian Research Council on return-to-work initiatives. RF and MU are shareholders and directors of a University of Warwick spinout company, Clinvivo Limited that provide data collection services for health services research. These services were not used in this study. Martin Underwood (MU) is chief investigator or co-investigator on multiple previous and current research grants from the UK National Institute for Health Research, Arthritis Research UK and is a co-investigator on grants funded by the Australian NHMRC and Norwegian MRC. He was an NIHR Senior Investigator until March 2021. He receives some salary support from University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire. He is a co-investigator on two current and one completed NIHR funded studies that are, or have had, additional support from Stryker Ltd. Until March 2020 he was an editor of the NIHR journal series, and a member of the NIHR Journal Editors Group, for which he received a fee. Jurgen De Wispelaere (JDW) is Acting Chair and Research Coordinator of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN) No other authors have declared any conflicts of interest. Funding: Seed corn funding was provided by Kristiania University of Applied Sciences, Oslo, and Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo. Event funding was provided by the Research Council of Norway (grant number 360379). The funders had no role in the design of the study, collection, analysis, or interpretation of data, or in writing the manuscript. Authors’ Contributions: RF wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors commented on subsequent iterations and approved the final version of the manuscript. Acknowledgements: Thanks are due to Bjønar Berg, Anouk Urhausen, Pål André Amundsen, and Olli Kangas for contributions to the event. Claude (Anthropic) was used during preparation to assist with editing, improving wording, and checking references. The corresponding author reviewed and edited all outputs and takes full responsibility for the content of the publication. References Marmot M. Social determinants of health inequalities. Lancet. 2005;365(9464):1099-104. OECD. Sickness, Disability and Work: Breaking the Barriers – A Synthesis of Findings across OECD Countries. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2010. Available From: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264088856-en Moberg LL. Frafall fra arbeidslivet etter langtidssykefravær. Oslo: Arbeids- og velferdsetaten (NAV); 2025. Available From: https://www.nav.no/_/attachment/inline/aa252ea6-40c7-4c72-8778-c1ef6a5f0ea9:adac70699f0b44e886f31602fc338552c1bd6094/Frafall%20fra%20arbeidslivet%20etter%20langtidssykefrav%C3%A6r.pdf Diseases GBD, Injuries C. Global incidence, prevalence, years lived with disability (YLDs), disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 371 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1990-2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. Lancet. 2024;403(10440):2133-61. Andresen K, Costa-Font J, Reiso KH. Changes in health-related rehabilitation trajectories following a major Norwegian welfare reform. BMC Public Health. 2023;23:1453. Lundberg KG, Syltevik LJ. Welfare stigma in a social democratic welfare regime during a decade of national public debate: production, contestation and continuities. European Societies. 2024;26(5):1572-95. Vik E, Bungum B, Olsen T. Economic composition and income volatility of Norwegian low-income families – a mixed method study of its implications. Nordic Journal of Social Research. 2024;14(1). Ståhl C, De Wispelaere J, MacEachen E. The work disability trap: manifestations, causes and consequences of a policy paradox. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2023;45(11):1916-22. Waddell G, Burton AK. Is work good for your health and well-being? : Department for Work and Pensions; 2006. Available From: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/is-work-good-for-your-health-and-well-being Waddell G, Burton K, Aylward M. Work and common health problems. J Insur Med. 2007;39(2):109-20. De Wispelaere J, Noguera J. On the Political Feasibility of Universal Basic Income: An Analytic Framework In: Caputo RK, editor. Basic Income Guarantee and Politics Exploring the Basic Income Guarantee. New York: Palgrave Macmillan; 2012. Van Parijs P, Vanderborght Y. Basic Income: A Radical Proposal for a Free Society and a Sane Economy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2017. 400 p. Reed HR, Johnson EA, Stark G, Nettle D, Pickett KE, Johnson MT. Estimating the effects of Basic Income schemes on mental and physical health among adults aged 18 and above in the UK: A microsimulation study. PLOS Mental Health. 2024;1(7). Wilson N, McDaid S. The mental health effects of a Universal Basic Income: A synthesis of the evidence from previous pilots. Social Science & Medicine. 2021;287:114374. Urhausen A, Berg B, Rajenderan D, Underwood M, Grotle M, Bay A, et al. A systematic review of the health effects of UBI-like interventions. Unpublished work. 2026. Howard N, Gregory G, Johnson EA, Goodman C, Coates J, Pickett KE, et al. Prospective Health Impacts of a Universal Basic Income: Evidence from Community Engagement in South Tyneside, United Kingdom. International Journal of Social Determinants of Health and Health Services. 2024;54(4):396-404. Widerquist K. A Critical Analysis of Basic Income Experiments for Researchers, Policymakers, and Citizens. New York: Palgrave Macmillan; 2018. Standing G. Basic Income Pilots: Uses, Limitations and Design Principles. Basic Income Studies. 2021;16(1):75-99. Kangas O. Experimenting with Unconditional Basic Income: Lessons from the Finnish BI Experiment 2017–2018. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2021. Research Council of N. HELSEVEL Work Programme 2015–2024 (updated 2019). Oslo: Research Council of Norway; 2019. Available From: https://www.forskningsradet.no/en/about-the-research-council/programmes/helsevel/ Research Council of N. VAM Work Programme 2014–2024. Oslo: Research Council of Norway; 2014. Available From: https://www.forskningsradet.no/en/about-the-research-council/programmes/vam/ Folkehelseinstituttet. Folkehelserapporten – temautgave 2022: Framtidens utfordringer for folkehelsen. Oslo: Folkehelseinstituttet; 2022. Report No.: 978-82-8406-048-3. Available From: https://www.fhi.no/contentassets/1da364574c4d46649008cd300acb4602/folkehelserapporten---temautgave-2022.pdf Froud R, Amundsen P, Bartys S, Battie M, Burton K, Foster N, et al. Opportunities and challenges around adapting supported employment interventions for people with chronic low back pain: modified nominal group technique Disability and Rehabilitation. 2020;3:1-8. Abel G, Froud R, Pitchforth E, Treadgold B, Hocking L, Sussex J, et al. Informing the development of a scoring system for National Health Service Clinical Impact Awards; a Delphi process and simulated scoring exercise. JRSM Open. 2024;15(1):20542704231217887. Spencer LJ. Winning through participation : meeting the challenge of corporate change with the Technology of participation. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Pub. Co.; 1989. Grill C. Involving stakeholders in research priority setting: a scoping review. Res Involv Engagem. 2021;7(1):75. Trochim W. An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning. 1989;12(1):1-16. Tong A, Synnot A, Crowe S, Hill S, Matus A, Scholes-Robertson N, et al. Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE). BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):243. Froud R, Meza TJ, Ernes KO, Slowther AM. Research ethics oversight in Norway: structure, function, and challenges. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):24. Johnson EA, Johnson MT, Kypridemos C, Villadsen A, Pickett KE. Designing a generic, adaptive protocol resource for the measurement of health impact in cash transfer pilot and feasibility studies and trials in high-income countries. Pilot and Feasibility Studies. 2023;9(1):1. Deyo RA, Battie M, Beurskens AJ, Bombardier C, Croft P, Koes B, et al. Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998;23(18):2003-13. Deyo RA, Dworkin SF, Amtmann D, Andersson G, Borenstein D, Carragee E, et al. Report of the NIH Task Force on Research Standards for Chronic Low Back Pain. Journal of Pain. 2014;15(6):569-85. Chiarotto A, Boers M, Deyo RA, Buchbinder R, Corbin TP, Costa LOP, et al. Core outcome measurement instruments for clinical trials in nonspecific low back pain. Pain. 2018;159(3):481-95. Haywood K, Potter R, Froud R, Pearce G, Box B, Muldoon L, et al. Core outcome set for preventive intervention trials in chronic and episodic migraine (COSMIG): an international, consensus-derived and multistakeholder initiative. BMJ Open. 2021;11(11):e043242. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Bagley H, Barnes KL, Blazeby JM, Brookes ST, et al. The COMET Handbook: version 1.0. Trials. 2017;18(Suppl 3):280. Nettle D, Chrisp J, Johnson EA, Johnson MT. What Do People Want From a Welfare System? Conjoint Survey Evidence From UK Adults. Poverty & Public Policy. 2025;17(2). McHugh N, Bomark D, Baker R, Watson V, Craig N, Donaldson C. Trading-off outcomes and policy characteristics of a Universal Basic Income and a Minimum Income Guarantee: Evidence from an exploratory mixed-method preference-based study. Soc Sci Med. 2025;370:117855. McHugh N, Bomark D, Baker R, Watson V, Craig N, Lightbody R, et al. Public preferences for health and non-health outcomes of Universal Basic Income and alternative income-based policies: A mixed-method feasibility study. Public Health Res (Southampt). 2025:1-26. Terris-Prestholt F, Neke N, Grund JM, Plotkin M, Kuringe E, Osaki H, et al. Using discrete choice experiments to inform the design of complex interventions. Trials. 2019;20(1):157. Wright S, Fletcher DR, Stewart ABR. Punitive benefit sanctions, welfare conditionality, and the social abuse of unemployed people in Britain: transforming claimants into offenders? Social Policy & Administration. 2020;54(2):188-211. Haagh L. The case for Universal Basic Income. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2019. Pattaro S, Bailey N, Williams E, Gibson M, Wells V, Tranmer M, et al. The impacts of benefit sanctions: a scoping review of the quantitative research evidence. Journal of Social Policy. 2022;51(3):611-53. Williams E. Punitive welfare reform and claimant mental health: the impact of benefit sanctions on anxiety and depression. Social Policy & Administration. 2020;54(2):157-72. Haagh L, Rohregger B. Universal basic income policies and their potential for addressing health inequities: transformative approaches to a healthy, prosperous life for all. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2019 2019/06. Available From: https://www.who.int/europe/publications/i/item/WHO-EURO-2019-3533-43292-60676 Amundsen PA, Irgens PMS, Burton K, Malmberg-Heimonen I, Froud R. Obstacles and facilitators of return to work among people with persistent pain who receive benefit payments: an in-depth interview study. BMC Public Health. 2025;25(1):3532. Gibson M, Hearty W, Craig P. The public health effects of interventions similar to basic income: a scoping review. The Lancet Public Health. 2020;5(3):e165-e76. Additional Declarations Competing interest reported. Robert Froud (RF) is Chief Investigator on a research grant from Norwegian Research Council on return-to-work initiatives. RF and MU are shareholders and directors of a University of Warwick spinout company, Clinvivo Limited that provide data collection services for health services research. These services were not used in this study. Martin Underwood (MU) is chief investigator or co-investigator on multiple previous and current research grants from the UK National Institute for Health Research, Arthritis Research UK and is a co-investigator on grants funded by the Australian NHMRC and Norwegian MRC. He was an NIHR Senior Investigator until March 2021. He receives some salary support from University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire. He is a co-investigator on two current and one completed NIHR funded studies that are, or have had, additional support from Stryker Ltd. Until March 2020 he was an editor of the NIHR journal series, and a member of the NIHR Journal Editors Group, for which he received a fee. Jurgen De Wispelaere (JDW) is Acting Chair and Research Coordinator of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN) No other authors have declared any conflicts of interest. Supplementary Files AdditionalFile1.pdf Additional File 1: Conference programme. Programme for the public conference session held on 23 September 2025 at Kristiania University of Applied Sciences, Oslo, featuring presentations on experiences and obstacles encountered while delivering past UBI trials and what is known about UBI and health effects. AdditionalFile2.pdf Additional File 2: REPRISE checklist. Completed REPRISE (REporting guideline for PRIority SEtting of health research) checklist showing where each reporting item is addressed in the manuscript. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviews received at journal 15 May, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 05 May, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 22 Apr, 2026 Editor invited by journal 30 Mar, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 26 Mar, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 26 Mar, 2026 First submitted to journal 25 Mar, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9221656","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":631958446,"identity":"f9e1dc14-c65c-4f2c-b2f2-b4cc73530472","order_by":0,"name":"Robert Froud","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kristiania University of Applied Sciences","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Robert","middleName":"","lastName":"Froud","suffix":""},{"id":631958449,"identity":"25ddeffe-7e1b-4448-97b6-42da8e594c01","order_by":1,"name":"Margreth Grotle","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Oslo Metropolitan University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Margreth","middleName":"","lastName":"Grotle","suffix":""},{"id":631958450,"identity":"cf36a092-c407-4333-ba9d-8d0874f9c4ed","order_by":2,"name":"Ann-Helén Bay","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Oslo Metropolitan University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ann-Helén","middleName":"","lastName":"Bay","suffix":""},{"id":631958451,"identity":"ee8122af-2475-4da3-ad39-4f804ca45d9e","order_by":3,"name":"Axel West Pedersen","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"NOVA – Norwegian Social Research, Oslo Metropolitan University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Axel","middleName":"West","lastName":"Pedersen","suffix":""},{"id":631958453,"identity":"3ab7ab2a-3137-4063-91c1-4b00e8310d4c","order_by":4,"name":"Simon Birnbaum","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Södertörn University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Simon","middleName":"","lastName":"Birnbaum","suffix":""},{"id":631958455,"identity":"a69310f3-91cd-44e7-9bbe-ffe9fb191df3","order_by":5,"name":"Bea Cantillon","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Antwerp","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Bea","middleName":"","lastName":"Cantillon","suffix":""},{"id":631958456,"identity":"db554f11-ae29-4a0d-b816-1ce241222851","order_by":6,"name":"Jurgen Wispelaere","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Bath","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jurgen","middleName":"","lastName":"Wispelaere","suffix":""},{"id":631958458,"identity":"967c0f1f-967a-40d4-b4d9-d30438b3873d","order_by":7,"name":"Marcia Gibson","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Glasgow","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Marcia","middleName":"","lastName":"Gibson","suffix":""},{"id":631958460,"identity":"dfa9adf0-c77a-4575-a6f0-d86e9be22dd5","order_by":8,"name":"Louise Haagh","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of York","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Louise","middleName":"","lastName":"Haagh","suffix":""},{"id":631958461,"identity":"f65f533c-acb8-4517-8f47-2dae843a04ee","order_by":9,"name":"Elliott A. Johnson","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Northumbria University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Elliott","middleName":"A.","lastName":"Johnson","suffix":""},{"id":631958462,"identity":"a04dd972-9f36-4061-9527-efd11f19ff5d","order_by":10,"name":"Bru Laín","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universitat de Barcelona","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Bru","middleName":"","lastName":"Laín","suffix":""},{"id":631958463,"identity":"59c257cb-fcac-4910-ba13-dbc2941f9e5e","order_by":11,"name":"Britt Elin Øiestad","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Oslo Metropolitan University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Britt","middleName":"Elin","lastName":"Øiestad","suffix":""},{"id":631958464,"identity":"5df976e0-2cf2-49c3-81cc-a130bab56f74","order_by":12,"name":"Martin Underwood","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Warwick","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Martin","middleName":"","lastName":"Underwood","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-03-25 10:23:19","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9221656/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9221656/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":108492129,"identity":"9e3e2913-659e-4e73-91b5-cdb48f5b9e28","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-05 09:56:56","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":311615,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9221656/v1/8ff4b9ec-7e20-48d2-9d2f-ad092c589277.pdf"},{"id":108229854,"identity":"1916067e-a9f1-4409-8d93-df313425b6d8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-30 17:16:19","extension":"pdf","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":103902,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAdditional File 1: Conference programme. Programme for the public conference session held on 23 September 2025 at Kristiania University of Applied Sciences, Oslo, featuring presentations on experiences and obstacles encountered while delivering past UBI trials and what is known about UBI and health effects.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"AdditionalFile1.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9221656/v1/e9a581825000e24f05b05f67.pdf"},{"id":108229855,"identity":"2096721d-4b14-444f-903b-a6f6a30b617c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-30 17:16:19","extension":"pdf","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":70449,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAdditional File 2: REPRISE checklist. Completed REPRISE (REporting guideline for PRIority SEtting of health research) checklist showing where each reporting item is addressed in the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"AdditionalFile2.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9221656/v1/2a1d2af347a73c9db469d784.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"Competing interest reported. Robert Froud (RF) is Chief Investigator on a research grant from Norwegian Research Council on return-to-work initiatives. RF and MU are shareholders and directors of a University of Warwick spinout company, Clinvivo Limited that provide data collection services for health services research. These services were not used in this study. Martin Underwood (MU) is chief investigator or co-investigator on multiple previous and current research grants from the UK National Institute for Health Research, Arthritis Research UK and is a co-investigator on grants funded by the Australian NHMRC and Norwegian MRC. He was an NIHR Senior Investigator until March 2021. He receives some salary support from University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire. He is a co-investigator on two current and one completed NIHR funded studies that are, or have had, additional support from Stryker Ltd. Until March 2020 he was an editor of the NIHR journal series, and a member of the NIHR Journal Editors Group, for which he received a fee. Jurgen De Wispelaere (JDW) is Acting Chair and Research Coordinator of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN) No other authors have declared any conflicts of interest.","formattedTitle":"Towards a credible trial of the health effects of Universal Basic Income in Norway: research priorities identified from a concept mapping workshop","fulltext":[{"header":"Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eSocioeconomic disadvantage and health conditions may mutually reinforce, creating a self‑perpetuating spiral in which constrained resources, insecure employment and reduced social participation increase the risk, severity and chronicity of illness.(\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEconomic inactivity due to health conditions has long been recognised as a persistent challenge across high-income countries, with musculoskeletal (MSK) and mental health conditions among the leading causes of early labour market exit.(\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e) In Norway, these two condition groups together account for around two thirds of long-term sickness absence resulting in labour market dropout.(\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e) The 2021 Global Burden of Disease study ranks low back pain, and other MSK disorders, first and fifth respectively as the largest contributors to Years Lived with Disability.(\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e) Depressive disorders and anxiety rank second and sixth.(\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e) MSK disorders disproportionately affect those at the older end of the working age distribution, whereas mental health disorders disproportionately affect those at the younger end of the distribution.(\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNorway's welfare system is characterised by contribution-based benefits tied to labour market participation, with stigmatised means-tested social assistance as a safety net for those without work history. Access to generous sickness and disability benefits requires medical certification, creating a pathway where individuals seeking economic support may be channelled toward health-based benefits rather than employment support.(\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e) The system creates poverty traps where combining work with benefits results in benefit withdrawal, discouraging rehabilitation efforts and labour market re-entry.(\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e) These structural features of the welfare system may lock individuals into a work disability trap rather than supporting rehabilitation and return to work, a paradox that Universal Basic Income (UBI) has been proposed as a means of addressing.(\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMany are now caught in a downward spiral of joblessness, which is associated with worsening health.(\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e) Furthermore, leaving or never entering the workforce with potentially many years left to contribute is a double strike for the state: reduced productive economic activity coupled with increased benefit costs.(\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn effective strategy to support people with common health problems, including mental health and MSK problems, could improve prosperity, wellbeing and productivity – benefits with the potential to justify substantial input costs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUBI is defined as a regular cash payment to all, without means test or work requirement.(\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e) For practical purposes, in this paper, we will define \u003cem\u003eall\u003c/em\u003e, as those adults legally resident and entitled to work in a country. There is suggestion from microsimulation that Basic Income schemes could prevent or postpone substantial numbers of cases of mental and physical health problems. A Basic Income health logic model has been proposed showing pathways from unconditional income through poverty reduction and income security to improved individual and community health.(\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e) Further, an ongoing systematic review led by a subset of the authors of this paper, indicates that unconditional income schemes for adults in high income countries might have health benefits.(\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt is not clear whether UBI-related interventions represent good value for money for the state in terms of any such health benefits. In assessing this, a societal perspective that considers health and social care costs, benefit payment costs, administrative costs, and changes in productivity is appropriate. To date, most studies have been framed within specific policy contexts with limited scope, and few have examined cost and health utility (\u003cem\u003ei.e.\u003c/em\u003e overall health-related quality of life) as primary outcomes in experimental settings. Recent community engagement research has begun to explore prospective health impacts,(\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e) though experimental evidence remains limited. We want to test whether providing legal residents in a high-income country with a universal and unconditional income represents good value in terms of the improvement in the overall health of the community. We recognise here that any effects (positive or negative) such a scheme might generate will accrue to both the individual and the community within which they live. Whilst acknowledging ongoing debates about the merits of different experimental approaches,(\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e) to obtain the best evidence on health effects, a randomised controlled trial is an appropriate tool.(\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNorway is in a strong position to host a randomised controlled UBI trial. Although it is a rich country overall, economic inactivity, both in middle-aged people with MSK problems and young people with mental health problems, has been identified as a research and policy priority.(\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e–\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e) Furthermore, resources within its sovereign wealth fund may help to fund a substantial UBI experiment without having an adverse impact on routine government expenditure.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere are substantial scientific, practical and political challenges in setting up such a trial. Here we aimed to focus on scientific challenges. Before we can start addressing our overarching research question, \u003cem\u003e‘is UBI good value for money as an intervention to improve health?\u003c/em\u003e’ we aimed to reach broad convergence of opinion among a group comprising UBI research and health trial experts on research priorities for underpinning work that is needed before health and political science researchers could proceed in preparing a credible grant application in the Norwegian context.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e We used a participatory workshop format. Seed corn funding was provided by Kristiania University of Applied Sciences, Oslo Metropolitan University, and event funding was provided by The Research Council of Norway. The working group formed following a meeting between pain researchers (RF, MG, MU) and those doing UBI-related research (AHB, AWP). Workshop participants were invited by the working group as those authors the group identified had previously done trials of UBI-like interventions, written a book on UBI, or made other key contributions to scholarly literature and academic and policy debates. This was then supplemented by snowball sampling from recommendations of other invitees. Thus, we did not sample from any definitive population, but rather looked to identify topic experts, as one might in Delphi, Nominal Group Technique, or other consensus-building approaches featuring expert participants.(\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e) No reimbursements were given other than for travel and accommodation expenses.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe process spanned one afternoon and one morning in Oslo, 23rd and 24th September, 2025. On the first day we held a conference session that was open to all and advertised to the public. Participants were asked to engage in discussion and debate in a series of presentations on experiences and obstacles encountered while delivering past UBI trials, and what is known so far about UBI and health effects (Additional File 1). Having this session with a public audience, allowed the general public and potential user voice to be heard through questions and debate slots after speaker sessions. The second day was then held as a closed session, with identified expert participants and we aimed to include trained user participants. Participants were pseudo-randomly divided into two breakout groups by a facilitator. Within these groups participants generated ideas, which were recorded and summarised by a facilitator. These were then shared, evaluated, and synthesised in plenary.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e Our approach aligns with concept mapping consensus workshop methods and with established practices in stakeholder research priority‑setting workshops in health, and broadly followed Spencer’s Technology of Participation (ToP) workshop approach.(\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e) The ToP workshop comprises five steps; \u003cem\u003eContext, Brainstorm, Ordering, Naming\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eEvaluating\u003c/em\u003e. Unlike formal concept mapping,(\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e) and Nominal Group Technique (NGT),(\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e) no sorting or rating was undertaken; convergence was reached through deliberation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first step, \u003cem\u003eContext\u003c/em\u003e, involved defining the purpose of the workshop, which in this case happened through the invitation for participants to come and consider knowledge gaps and the theoretical design of a UBI trial for improving health outcomes in Norway; the afternoon conference; and the introductory sessions preceding the morning workshop. As part of this step, participants were asked to introduce themselves and comment in general on their impressions of the presentations in the conference on the previous day, and their overarching views on obstacles to running a UBI trial. AHB then gave a priming overview of the benefits system in Norway. Approximately one hour was allocated for this step.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the second step, \u003cem\u003eBrainstorm\u003c/em\u003e, the two groups were facilitated by either MU (A), or RF (B). The facilitators had prior experience of conducting other consensus exercises. Each facilitator asked participants to consider knowledge gaps, in a way that was designed to elicit insights from the group, which were then charted on a whiteboard. The intention is that through bringing multiple perspectives to bear on an issue, the issue is cast in many different lights, revealing dimensions that had previously been unrecognised, with each member gaining insight through seeing it through the eyes of each other group member.(\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e) The facilitator asks for more information until the lists are completed. In the third step, \u003cem\u003eOrder\u003c/em\u003e, the contributed ideas were ordered into similar nominal (\u003cem\u003ei.e.\u003c/em\u003e unranked) groupings using both rational and intuitive styles of thinking, with an emphasis on the intuitive. In the fourth step, \u003cem\u003eNaming\u003c/em\u003e, discernible categories were named through group collaboration. One hour and 15 minutes was allocated for steps two to four. In the final step, \u003cem\u003eEvaluating\u003c/em\u003e, the two groups returned to plenary session and each facilitator summarised their named lists. The integration of these lists was collaboratively organised into an implementable plan of research projects that through collaborative discussion, the group prioritised. One hour was allocated for the final step.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnlike Delphi, the ToP workshop process is not anonymous. All workshop participants attending the second day were invited to be co-authors of this paper. The reporting guidelines for the priority setting for health research (REPRISE) checklist was used to inform reporting (Additional File 2).(\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e) Ethics approval from a research ethics committee was not required, or possible; notwithstanding a semi-structured approach to this debate among experts, research ethics committees in Norway consider this type of work to be ‘\u003cem\u003eimplementation exploration’\u003c/em\u003e, rather than health research, and outside the remit of the Health Research Act.(\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e) All experts provided written (electronic) consent to participate.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eThirteen experts were initially identified and invited by the working group. Two did not reply, one nominated a colleague (who accepted the invitation), and one was unable to attend. The remaining experts accepted the invitations. One expert recommended three other people; one of whom accepted, one declined, and the other did not reply. Four people from the working group joined the exercise, which thus comprised 14 experts with experience either primarily on UBI policy or UBI trials or health research. A trained user participant was identified in Oslo region. Unfortunately, the participant could not attend due to sickness. Four staff supported the event but did not participate in the collaborative aspects of the workshop. Table 1 shows the demographics of participants. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMG and AHB\u0026rsquo;s introductory sessions spanned 1hr and 20 mins. Group allocations were made by MU, based loosely on the order in which people were standing, left to right. Eight participants were allocated to group A and six were allocated to group B. Table 1 shows the characteristics of participants, by group. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 226px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCharacteristic\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGroup A\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGroup B\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCombined\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 226px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 226px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAge, mean (SD)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57.3 (13.5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e52.2 (9.8)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e55.1 (11.9)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 226px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSex % female\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 226px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCountry (of residence) n (%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBelgium\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eChile\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFinland\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNorway\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSpain\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSweden\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUK\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (13%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (13%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (13%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (25%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (13%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (25%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (33%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (17%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 (50%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1(7%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1(7%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1(7%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4 (29%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1(7%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1(7%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5 (29%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 226px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePrincipal background n (%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHealth Research\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePolitics and Public Policy\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSociology and Social Policy\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 (38%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (25%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 (38%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 (50%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 (50%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6 (43%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5 (36%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 (21%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 226px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eYears experience in discipline, mean (SD)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30.4 (13.7)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23.8 (9.5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27.6 (12.1)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 226px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eYears experience in UBI-related or health research, mean (SD)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.1 (11.2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.8 (10.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.5 (10.5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1 \u0026ndash; Characteristics of participating experts in ToP workshop\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn group A, participants were asked to consider knowledge gaps and the shape of an intervention. Participants discussed the need for a theoretical (logic) model, applicable for Norwegian context, and exploring how parts of the logic model would map onto processes in Norway. Participants discussed the need for a core outcome set informed by \u0026nbsp;work of a UK-based team,(30) potentially featuring not only PROMs, but also biomarkers, which may add to objectivity. Participants considered work was needed to understand what level of benefit would change behaviour (\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e partial or full basic income); and that some of this may be able to be done through discrete choice experiments to inform trial design, Delphi studies, or qualitative work. It was noted that this could also be done with policy makers and opinion leaders to identify a willingness-to-pay threshold and the degree to which there is any intersection. In terms of trial features, the potential for cluster randomising (rather than individuals) was discussed (although noted as being aspirational). The group noted some concerns around Norway\u0026apos;s relatively secure welfare system having the potential to mask income effects of basic income (see Discussion for comparison with a similar methodological challenge in another context). However, the group noted that a Norwegian trial exploring the relationship between income security and health outcomes, and exploring effects on waiting lists in health services, mental health in particular, and disability pensions would provide valuable new knowledge. Exploring whether unconditional payments reduce stigma as well as improve subjective wellbeing and happiness, was also discussed as valuable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn group B, participants were asked to consider knowledge gaps and generate research questions to address those gaps. During the ordering phase it became apparent that these could be ordered by the methodological category of research required to answer the research question, and research questions were ordered as such. It was noted that, in some cases, research questions could be addressed through multiple methodological approaches and as such the same (or slightly modified) question may appear in more than one named list. Naming was then done by research type. Table 2, parts A and B, show the research questions generated ordered nominally by named research type.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 158px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSystematic reviews\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 110px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQualitative studies\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDelphi studies\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDiscrete Choice Experiment\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEcological studies\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 158px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA synthesis of Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration/\u0026nbsp;Statistics Norway material.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 110px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhat do people who deliver social security in Norway think are the mechanisms that affect health?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA core set of outcomes for UBI trials.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhat values do people place on difference components of a UBI intervention? (\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e time, amount of transfer, duration, etc).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWelfare systems and health by country.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 158px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExperiences of relationships and trust when working with social workers/civil servants/ NGOs.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 110px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhat do people who deliver social security in Norway think are the mechanisms that influence who receive benefits?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOptimal social security design.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 158px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQualitative literature on impact of benefit conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 110px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe experiences of those who have been in prior UBI interventional experiments.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 158px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhat are the economic security conditions of health?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 110px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePractical experiences of those limited by 16-hours of work.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 158px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 110px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe 1G limit (1 times basic NIC), benefits and health experiences.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 158px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 110px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExperiences of those on disability pensions and those not on disability pensions.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 158px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 110px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHealth impacts of sanctions (withdrawal of benefits).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2 (a) \u0026ndash; research questions by study type (Part 1)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" class=\"fr-table-selection-hover\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 117px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInterventional Studies\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCohort\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 117px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCross-sectional studies\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCase-control\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 117px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDo unconditional cash transfers reduce *\u003cu\u003estigma,\u003c/u\u003e as compared to usual care, for beneficiaries who are navigating between disability benefits and social security benefits?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial welfare relationships/requirements and reported stress/health and well-being. \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 117px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAn analytical cross-sectional study of self-efficacy by benefit type.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWelfare-related suicides.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 117px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e* It was noted that this outcome could be swapped out for others; \u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e self-efficacy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHow do economic security conditions affect health over time?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 117px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRegistry data opportunities (e.g. HUNT).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHealth status by years on benefit.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 117px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 117px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePrior UBI trials \u0026ndash; questionnaires where consent permits subsequent approach for research purposes.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHealth status by sanctions.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 117px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 117px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAn analytical cross-sectional study of health effects by sanctions.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBeing \u0026lsquo;stuck \u0026lsquo;in the system by ICD code.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2 (b) \u0026ndash; research questions by study type (Part 2)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFollowing breakout sessions, participants reconvened in a plenary session, and the results were summarised. After evaluating each breakout groups\u0026rsquo; feedback, the whole group considered that discrete choice experiment (DCE) work would permit understanding of what intervention features and levels of benefit may be effective and cost-effective. Further, a core outcomes set may enable improved comparisons between UBI trials and be useful for future trials. The group agreed that there is a need for new original research, as well as systematic synthesis, to understand health and wider impacts of sanctions (or the threat or fear of sanctions) and conditionality of benefits in Norway (particularly by younger working-age people with mental health problems and older working-age people with MSK health problems). Exploring the health effects of transition to disability pensions may additionally be valuable given prior qualitative reports of improvements in health following the receipt of disability pension. This underpinning work would then inform a logic model for a Norwegian trial design.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eMain findings and implications\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn expert group of UBI researchers and health researchers with experience of delivering clinical trials met within a ToP workshop approach to consider what knowledge gaps would need to be addressed before a credible grant application for a Norwegian randomised controlled trial of a UBI-like intervention for improving health.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo inform a logic model for an intervention in Norway, the group considered that discrete choice experiments could be done to quantify values on desirable intervention features and components. Norway has a generous welfare system, but also a system with strict limitations to combine benefits with work. Improving understanding of health effects of the threat of sanctions and conditionality in Norway (\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e through qualitative work, and surveys) was also thought a priority. Ahead of further UBI trials in general, and before a new large trial in Norway, a core outcomes set will be advantageous to permit cross-trial comparisons.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe group produced a portfolio of research ideas for use generally by researchers working in this area, and for those working in the Norwegian context in particular. This underpinning work will have the potential to define how trials of UBI are evaluated in future and enable the design of a UBI-related intervention specifically tailored for the Norwegian context.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eComparisons to existing research\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese types of approach to underpinning work have previously made impacts in other areas of health research. Deyo \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e suggested agreeing core outcomes for use in back pain trials to permit cross trial comparisons.(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e) Their initial suggestions have since been modified.(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e) It is now common to recommend core outcomes for trials targeting health changes, often using a Delphi study.(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e) The COMET initiative has gone a long way towards helping and encouraging this, as well as setting out a systematic approach to their development.(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiscrete choice experiments (DCEs) have previously been used in UBI-related research to understand public preferences, and more broadly to inform the design of complex health interventions prior to large scale clinical trial. In 2024, Nettle \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e conducted a DCE among 800 UK residents to quantify value attributions on desirable factors of a welfare system. They found that reductions in poverty were valued most highly (of the 10 attributes investigated), and while there was a trade-off for lower income taxes, some income tax rises were considered acceptable within their sample (which they acknowledge may not have been representative of the general population) for sufficiently large reductions in poverty.(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e) A smaller DCE, set within mixed methods and feasibility work, suggests that it is feasible to elicit public preferences around income based policies in the UK.(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e) In 2019, Terris-Presholt \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e used a DCE approach among 325 Tanzanian men to quantify features of a clinical trial of an intervention to increase demand for voluntary male circumcision to prevent HIV.(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e) They report that the DCE identified two key service components. A cluster randomised trial to test the intervention was subsequently funded and conducted across 20 sites in Tanzania. This is a good example of a DCE directly informing a trial that went on to be funded. A large-scale DCE, within a representative sample in Norway, has the potential to be a cost-effective way of informing the design of a UBI trial.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhilst UBI represents an unconditional approach to income support, much existing welfare research has examined the health effects of increasingly punitive conditionality. Evidence from the UK demonstrates salient and worrying health effects of benefit sanctions. Evidence indicates that punitive conditionality and sanctions related to employment programmes are associated with symbolic and material suffering and, in some cases, life-threatening consequences.(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e) A scoping review of international evidence found consistent associations between sanctions and increased material hardship and health problems,(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e) other research has highlighted the role of administrative burdens in mediating these harmful effects.(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e) Qualitative evidence from Norway illustrates how conditionality can operate as a barrier to recovery. Among unemployed people with persistent pain navigating the Norwegian welfare system, receipt of disability pension (which removes the conditionality and bureaucratic burden of the work assessment allowance process) was described as a relief that reduced distress and allowed individuals to refocus attention towards recovery and wellbeing.(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs noted by Group A, trial design in generous welfare state contexts presents particular methodological challenges. The Finnish basic income experiment (2017\u0026ndash;2018) provided EUR 560 monthly to 2,000 unemployed individuals, replacing their existing unemployment benefits with an equivalent unconditional payment.(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e) As the modest income difference in an already-generous welfare system meant there were few plausible income-related drivers, observed effects were more likely attributable to the removal of conditionality than to additional income, though this also limited the ability to test whether income level itself matters.(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e) A Norwegian trial would face similar challenges and would need careful design to disentangle whether observed effects stem from the income boost itself or from the removal of conditionality and associated administrative burdens.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrengths and Limitations\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur work brought together experts in UBI research and clinical trials to consider what underpinning work would be needed to inform the design of a UBI trial, focused on health, and specifically for Norway, which may be in a unique position in terms of its ability to use value created from commons and owned by the people to study potential health effects of giving a basic income unconditionally. In this respect, Norway's sovereign wealth fund presents similarities to Alaska's Permanent Fund, which has provided annual dividends to residents since 1982, though the Alaskan payments are irregular in size and relatively modest.(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e) It should be noted that macroeconomic effects of a UBI funded through resource dividends would differ from one funded through general taxation, potentially limiting generalisability to other contexts.(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e) However, our work has some limitations. Due to the way we approached the identification of experts, it is possible, and likely, that there are other extant expert views that are different to those expressed, relevant, but not captured by this process. This limitation may be able to be addressed in future work, for example through systematic reviews, Delphi studies, or surveys. Our work addressed only the outstanding scientific challenges. Research on the political challenges that may present obstacles to undertaking a UBI trial in Norway is also needed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecommendations for future research\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe commend this convergence of opinion on needed underpinning pieces of work for future research by UBI researchers; in particular those working on the Norwegian context. The prioritised pieces of work, \u003cem\u003ei.e.\u003c/em\u003e understanding the health effects of sanctions, administrative burdens of conditionality, and doing a discrete choice experiment quantifying values of intervention components for a UBI health trial for Norway, will help underpin the case and design of a future trial in Norway, and agreeing on recommended core sets of outcome measures, building on existing measures work, will facilitate comparisons between UBI trials more generally.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eA group comprising 14 researchers with predominantly either health or UBI research backgrounds met in Oslo to consider what research is needed before the question '\u003cem\u003eis UBI good value for money as an intervention to improve health?\u003c/em\u003e' can be addressed. The group identified a series of knowledge gaps and research questions to facilitate progress to the point of being able to address the question and prioritised the understanding of the health effects of benefits sanctions and administrative burdens of conditionality in the Norwegian context, doing a discrete choice experiment to quantify value placed on attributes of an intervention for trial in Norway and with a health focus, and recommending a core outcome set for UBI trials.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cp\u003eDCE: Discrete Choice Experiment\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMSK: Musculoskeletal\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNAV: Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (Arbeids- og velferdsetaten)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNGT: Nominal Group Technique\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePROM: Patient Reported Outcome Measure\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSSB: Statistics Norway (Statistisk sentralbyr\u0026aring;)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eToP: Technology of Participation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUBI: Universal Basic Income\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eEthics Approval and Consent to Participate: the protocol did not require review by a research ethics committee. All participants consented to participate.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsent for Publication: Not applicable.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAvailability of Data and Materials: The data supporting the findings of this study are presented in aggregate within this published article and its additional files.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCompeting Interests: Robert Froud (RF) is Chief Investigator on a research grant from Norwegian Research Council on return-to-work initiatives. RF and MU are shareholders and directors of a University of Warwick spinout company, Clinvivo Limited that provide data collection services for health services research. These services were not used in this study. Martin Underwood (MU) is chief investigator or co-investigator on multiple previous and current research grants from the UK National Institute for Health Research, Arthritis Research UK and is a co-investigator on grants funded by the Australian NHMRC and Norwegian MRC. He was an NIHR Senior Investigator until March 2021. He receives some salary support from University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire. He is a co-investigator on two current and one completed NIHR funded studies that are, or have had, additional support from Stryker Ltd. Until March 2020 he was an editor of the NIHR journal series, and a member of the NIHR Journal Editors Group, for which he received a fee. Jurgen De Wispelaere (JDW) is Acting Chair and Research Coordinator of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN) No other authors have declared any conflicts of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFunding: Seed corn funding was provided by Kristiania University of Applied Sciences, Oslo, and Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo. Event funding was provided by the Research Council of Norway (grant number 360379). The funders had no role in the design of the study, collection, analysis, or interpretation of data, or in writing the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAuthors\u0026rsquo; Contributions: RF wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors commented on subsequent iterations and approved the final version of the manuscript. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAcknowledgements: Thanks are due to Bj\u0026oslash;nar Berg, Anouk Urhausen, P\u0026aring;l Andr\u0026eacute; Amundsen, and Olli Kangas for contributions to the event. Claude (Anthropic) was used during preparation to assist with editing, improving wording, and checking references. The corresponding author reviewed and edited all outputs and takes full responsibility for the content of the publication.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarmot M. Social determinants of health inequalities. Lancet. 2005;365(9464):1099-104.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOECD. Sickness, Disability and Work: Breaking the Barriers \u0026ndash; A Synthesis of Findings across OECD Countries. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2010. Available From: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264088856-en\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoberg LL. Frafall fra arbeidslivet etter langtidssykefrav\u0026aelig;r. Oslo: Arbeids- og velferdsetaten (NAV); 2025. Available From: https://www.nav.no/_/attachment/inline/aa252ea6-40c7-4c72-8778-c1ef6a5f0ea9:adac70699f0b44e886f31602fc338552c1bd6094/Frafall%20fra%20arbeidslivet%20etter%20langtidssykefrav%C3%A6r.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDiseases GBD, Injuries C. Global incidence, prevalence, years lived with disability (YLDs), disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 371 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1990-2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. Lancet. 2024;403(10440):2133-61.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAndresen K, Costa-Font J, Reiso KH. Changes in health-related rehabilitation trajectories following a major Norwegian welfare reform. BMC Public Health. 2023;23:1453.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLundberg KG, Syltevik LJ. Welfare stigma in a social democratic welfare regime during a decade of national public debate: production, contestation and continuities. European Societies. 2024;26(5):1572-95.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVik E, Bungum B, Olsen T. Economic composition and income volatility of Norwegian low-income families \u0026ndash; a mixed method study of its implications. Nordic Journal of Social Research. 2024;14(1).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSt\u0026aring;hl C, De Wispelaere J, MacEachen E. The work disability trap: manifestations, causes and consequences of a policy paradox. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2023;45(11):1916-22.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWaddell G, Burton AK. Is work good for your health and well-being? : Department for Work and Pensions; 2006. Available From: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/is-work-good-for-your-health-and-well-being\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWaddell G, Burton K, Aylward M. Work and common health problems. J Insur Med. 2007;39(2):109-20.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDe Wispelaere J, Noguera J. On the Political Feasibility of Universal Basic Income: An Analytic Framework In: Caputo RK, editor. Basic Income Guarantee and Politics Exploring the Basic Income Guarantee. New York: Palgrave Macmillan; 2012.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan Parijs P, Vanderborght Y. Basic Income: A Radical Proposal for a Free Society and a Sane Economy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2017. 400 p.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReed HR, Johnson EA, Stark G, Nettle D, Pickett KE, Johnson MT. Estimating the effects of Basic Income schemes on mental and physical health among adults aged 18 and above in the UK: A microsimulation study. PLOS Mental Health. 2024;1(7).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilson N, McDaid S. The mental health effects of a Universal Basic Income: A synthesis of the evidence from previous pilots. Social Science \u0026amp; Medicine. 2021;287:114374.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUrhausen A, Berg B, Rajenderan D, Underwood M, Grotle M, Bay A, et al. A systematic review of the health effects of UBI-like interventions. Unpublished work. 2026.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHoward N, Gregory G, Johnson EA, Goodman C, Coates J, Pickett KE, et al. Prospective Health Impacts of a Universal Basic Income: Evidence from Community Engagement in South Tyneside, United Kingdom. International Journal of Social Determinants of Health and Health Services. 2024;54(4):396-404.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWiderquist K. A Critical Analysis of Basic Income Experiments for Researchers, Policymakers, and Citizens. New York: Palgrave Macmillan; 2018.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStanding G. Basic Income Pilots: Uses, Limitations and Design Principles. Basic Income Studies. 2021;16(1):75-99.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKangas O. Experimenting with Unconditional Basic Income: Lessons from the Finnish BI Experiment 2017\u0026ndash;2018. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2021.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eResearch Council of N. HELSEVEL Work Programme 2015\u0026ndash;2024 (updated 2019). Oslo: Research Council of Norway; 2019. Available From: https://www.forskningsradet.no/en/about-the-research-council/programmes/helsevel/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eResearch Council of N. VAM Work Programme 2014\u0026ndash;2024. Oslo: Research Council of Norway; 2014. Available From: https://www.forskningsradet.no/en/about-the-research-council/programmes/vam/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFolkehelseinstituttet. Folkehelserapporten \u0026ndash; temautgave 2022: Framtidens utfordringer for folkehelsen. Oslo: Folkehelseinstituttet; 2022. Report No.: 978-82-8406-048-3. Available From: https://www.fhi.no/contentassets/1da364574c4d46649008cd300acb4602/folkehelserapporten---temautgave-2022.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFroud R, Amundsen P, Bartys S, Battie M, Burton K, Foster N, et al. Opportunities and challenges around adapting supported employment interventions for people with chronic low back pain: modified nominal group technique Disability and Rehabilitation. 2020;3:1-8.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbel G, Froud R, Pitchforth E, Treadgold B, Hocking L, Sussex J, et al. Informing the development of a scoring system for National Health Service Clinical Impact Awards; a Delphi process and simulated scoring exercise. JRSM Open. 2024;15(1):20542704231217887.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpencer LJ. Winning through participation : meeting the challenge of corporate change with the Technology of participation. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Pub. Co.; 1989.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrill C. Involving stakeholders in research priority setting: a scoping review. Res Involv Engagem. 2021;7(1):75.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTrochim W. An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning. 1989;12(1):1-16.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTong A, Synnot A, Crowe S, Hill S, Matus A, Scholes-Robertson N, et al. Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE). BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):243.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFroud R, Meza TJ, Ernes KO, Slowther AM. Research ethics oversight in Norway: structure, function, and challenges. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):24.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJohnson EA, Johnson MT, Kypridemos C, Villadsen A, Pickett KE. Designing a generic, adaptive protocol resource for the measurement of health impact in cash transfer pilot and feasibility studies and trials in high-income countries. Pilot and Feasibility Studies. 2023;9(1):1.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDeyo RA, Battie M, Beurskens AJ, Bombardier C, Croft P, Koes B, et al. Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998;23(18):2003-13.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDeyo RA, Dworkin SF, Amtmann D, Andersson G, Borenstein D, Carragee E, et al. Report of the NIH Task Force on Research Standards for Chronic Low Back Pain. Journal of Pain. 2014;15(6):569-85.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChiarotto A, Boers M, Deyo RA, Buchbinder R, Corbin TP, Costa LOP, et al. Core outcome measurement instruments for clinical trials in nonspecific low back pain. Pain. 2018;159(3):481-95.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHaywood K, Potter R, Froud R, Pearce G, Box B, Muldoon L, et al. Core outcome set for preventive intervention trials in chronic and episodic migraine (COSMIG): an international, consensus-derived and multistakeholder initiative. BMJ Open. 2021;11(11):e043242.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilliamson PR, Altman DG, Bagley H, Barnes KL, Blazeby JM, Brookes ST, et al. The COMET Handbook: version 1.0. Trials. 2017;18(Suppl 3):280.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNettle D, Chrisp J, Johnson EA, Johnson MT. What Do People Want From a Welfare System? Conjoint Survey Evidence From UK Adults. Poverty \u0026amp; Public Policy. 2025;17(2).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcHugh N, Bomark D, Baker R, Watson V, Craig N, Donaldson C. Trading-off outcomes and policy characteristics of a Universal Basic Income and a Minimum Income Guarantee: Evidence from an exploratory mixed-method preference-based study. Soc Sci Med. 2025;370:117855.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcHugh N, Bomark D, Baker R, Watson V, Craig N, Lightbody R, et al. Public preferences for health and non-health outcomes of Universal Basic Income and alternative income-based policies: A mixed-method feasibility study. Public Health Res (Southampt). 2025:1-26.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTerris-Prestholt F, Neke N, Grund JM, Plotkin M, Kuringe E, Osaki H, et al. Using discrete choice experiments to inform the design of complex interventions. Trials. 2019;20(1):157.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWright S, Fletcher DR, Stewart ABR. Punitive benefit sanctions, welfare conditionality, and the social abuse of unemployed people in Britain: transforming claimants into offenders? Social Policy \u0026amp; Administration. 2020;54(2):188-211.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHaagh L. The case for Universal Basic Income. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2019.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePattaro S, Bailey N, Williams E, Gibson M, Wells V, Tranmer M, et al. The impacts of benefit sanctions: a scoping review of the quantitative research evidence. Journal of Social Policy. 2022;51(3):611-53.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilliams E. Punitive welfare reform and claimant mental health: the impact of benefit sanctions on anxiety and depression. Social Policy \u0026amp; Administration. 2020;54(2):157-72.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHaagh L, Rohregger B. Universal basic income policies and their potential for addressing health inequities: transformative approaches to a healthy, prosperous life for all. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2019 2019/06. Available From: https://www.who.int/europe/publications/i/item/WHO-EURO-2019-3533-43292-60676\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAmundsen PA, Irgens PMS, Burton K, Malmberg-Heimonen I, Froud R. Obstacles and facilitators of return to work among people with persistent pain who receive benefit payments: an in-depth interview study. BMC Public Health. 2025;25(1):3532.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGibson M, Hearty W, Craig P. The public health effects of interventions similar to basic income: a scoping review. The Lancet Public Health. 2020;5(3):e165-e76. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-public-health","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"pubh","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Public Health](http://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/pubh/default.aspx","title":"BMC Public Health","twitterHandle":"@BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Consensus workshop, Universal Basic Income, Trials, Benefit Sanctions, Discrete Choice Experiments, Core Outcome Sets","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9221656/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9221656/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocioeconomic disadvantage and health conditions may mutually reinforce. Musculoskeletal and mental health conditions are among the leading causes of early labour market exit and together account for around two-thirds of long-term sickness absence resulting in labour market dropout in Norway. Universal Basic Income (UBI) has been proposed as an intervention that may help address social determinants of these conditions. Norway may be well-placed to host a trial of UBI effects on health, but context-specific underpinning work is needed before a credible grant application can be made. As a first step, we convened a group of health and UBI researchers to consider what underpinning work is needed and what factors may influence trial design.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eHealth and UBI researchers were invited to attend a conference and workshop, during which a Technology of Participation workshop approach was used to facilitate convergence of opinion on knowledge gaps and recommend research priorities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFourteen researchers attended a workshop in Oslo and found broad convergence of opinion on priorities. Commended underpinning work included research in a Norwegian context to better understand health effects of reductions in benefit income due to sanctions or conditionality (\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e through qualitative work or surveys), undertaking a discrete choice experiment to quantify value attributes of desirable components of a future health-focused trial of UBI in Norway (\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e through conjoint analysis), and agreeing on a core set of outcome measures (\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e within a Delphi study) to commend for use in UBI trials more generally.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBetter understanding the health effects of social benefit sanctions and the values placed on intervention components in a Norwegian context may support a case for doing a health-focused trial of UBI in Norway, and understanding values placed on different intervention components will help inform the design of such a trial. Recommending core outcome sets would facilitate cross-comparisons between trials.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Towards a credible trial of the health effects of Universal Basic Income in Norway: research priorities identified from a concept mapping workshop","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-04-30 17:16:09","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9221656/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-05-15T12:11:26+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"125202229399651089011369760911688282107","date":"2026-05-05T07:45:47+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-04-22T15:45:03+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2026-03-30T15:11:48+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-03-26T10:02:43+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-03-26T10:01:50+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Public Health","date":"2026-03-25T10:09:50+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-public-health","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"pubh","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Public Health](http://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/pubh/default.aspx","title":"BMC Public Health","twitterHandle":"@BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"8074a9b9-8c67-4c81-a5ae-e0001512dd0a","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 30th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-05-15T12:11:26+00:00","index":70,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"125202229399651089011369760911688282107","date":"2026-05-05T07:45:47+00:00","index":69,"fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-30T17:16:09+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-04-30 17:16:09","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9221656","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9221656","identity":"rs-9221656","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}