2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Implementation science issues in understanding, collecting, and using cost estimates: a multi-stakeholder perspective

      letter

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Understanding the resources needed to achieve desired implementation and effectiveness outcomes is essential to implementing and sustaining evidence-based practices (EBPs). Despite this frequent observation, cost and economic measurement and reporting are rare, but becoming more frequent in implementation science, and when present is seldom reported from the perspective of multiple stakeholders (e.g., the organization, supervisory team), including those who will ultimately implement and sustain EBPs.

          Incorporating a multi-level framework is useful for understanding and integrating the perspectives and priorities of the diverse set of stakeholders involved in implementation. Stakeholders across levels, from patients to delivery staff to health systems, experience different economic impacts (costs, benefit, and value) related to EBP implementation and have different perspectives on these issues. Economic theory can aid in understanding multi-level perspectives and approaches to addressing potential conflict across perspectives.

          This paper provides examples of key cost components especially important to different types of stakeholders. It provides specific guidance and recommendations for cost assessment activities that address the concerns of various stakeholder groups, identifies areas of agreement and conflict in priorities, and outlines theoretically informed approaches to understanding conflicts among stakeholder groups and processes to address them. Involving stakeholders throughout the implementation process and presenting economic information in ways that are clear and meaningful to different stakeholder groups can aid in maximizing benefits within the context of limited resources. We posit that such approaches are vital to advancing economic evaluation in implementation science. Finally, we identify directions for future research and application.

          Considering a range of stakeholders is critical to informing economic evaluation that will support appropriate decisions about resource allocation across contexts to inform decisions about successful adoption, implementation, and sustainment. Not all perspectives need to be addressed in a given project but identifying and understanding perspectives of multiple groups of key stakeholders including patients and direct implementation staff not often explicitly considered in traditional economic evaluation are needed in implementation research.

          Related collections

          Most cited references47

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Outcomes for Implementation Research: Conceptual Distinctions, Measurement Challenges, and Research Agenda

          An unresolved issue in the field of implementation research is how to conceptualize and evaluate successful implementation. This paper advances the concept of “implementation outcomes” distinct from service system and clinical treatment outcomes. This paper proposes a heuristic, working “taxonomy” of eight conceptually distinct implementation outcomes—acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, penetration, and sustainability—along with their nominal definitions. We propose a two-pronged agenda for research on implementation outcomes. Conceptualizing and measuring implementation outcomes will advance understanding of implementation processes, enhance efficiency in implementation research, and pave the way for studies of the comparative effectiveness of implementation strategies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact.

            This study proposes methods for blending design components of clinical effectiveness and implementation research. Such blending can provide benefits over pursuing these lines of research independently; for example, more rapid translational gains, more effective implementation strategies, and more useful information for decision makers. This study proposes a "hybrid effectiveness-implementation" typology, describes a rationale for their use, outlines the design decisions that must be faced, and provides several real-world examples. An effectiveness-implementation hybrid design is one that takes a dual focus a priori in assessing clinical effectiveness and implementation. We propose 3 hybrid types: (1) testing effects of a clinical intervention on relevant outcomes while observing and gathering information on implementation; (2) dual testing of clinical and implementation interventions/strategies; and (3) testing of an implementation strategy while observing and gathering information on the clinical intervention's impact on relevant outcomes. The hybrid typology proposed herein must be considered a construct still in evolution. Although traditional clinical effectiveness and implementation trials are likely to remain the most common approach to moving a clinical intervention through from efficacy research to public health impact, judicious use of the proposed hybrid designs could speed the translation of research findings into routine practice.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Recommendations for Conduct, Methodological Practices, and Reporting of Cost-effectiveness Analyses: Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.

              Since publication of the report by the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine in 1996, researchers have advanced the methods of cost-effectiveness analysis, and policy makers have experimented with its application. The need to deliver health care efficiently and the importance of using analytic techniques to understand the clinical and economic consequences of strategies to improve health have increased in recent years.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                aeisman@wayne.edu
                Journal
                Implement Sci
                Implement Sci
                Implementation Science : IS
                BioMed Central (London )
                1748-5908
                3 August 2021
                3 August 2021
                2021
                : 16
                : 75
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.254444.7, ISNI 0000 0001 1456 7807, Community Health, Division of Kinesiology, Health and Sport Studies, College of Education, , Wayne State University, ; 2153 Faculty/Administration Building, 656 West Kirby, Detroit, MI 48202 USA
                [2 ]GRID grid.254444.7, ISNI 0000 0001 1456 7807, Center for Health and Community Impact (CHCI), , Wayne State University, ; Detroit, MI USA
                [3 ]GRID grid.28803.31, ISNI 0000 0001 0701 8607, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, , University of Wisconsin, ; Madison, WI USA
                [4 ]GRID grid.418356.d, ISNI 0000 0004 0478 7015, Veterans Administration Health Economics Resource Center and Center, , VA Palo Healthcare System, ; Menlo Park, CA USA
                [5 ]VA Center for Innovation to Implementation (Ci2i), VA Palo Healthcare System, Menlo Park, CA USA
                [6 ]GRID grid.266100.3, ISNI 0000 0001 2107 4242, UCSD Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, ; San Diego, CA USA
                [7 ]GRID grid.270240.3, ISNI 0000 0001 2180 1622, Hutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research, , Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, ; Seattle, WA USA
                [8 ]GRID grid.430503.1, ISNI 0000 0001 0703 675X, Dissemination and Implementation Science Program of ACCORDS (Adult and Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research and Delivery Science), , University of Colorado School of Medicine, ; Aurora, CO USA
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4100-6543
                Article
                1143
                10.1186/s13012-021-01143-x
                8330022
                34344411
                f2957e52-5019-4d9d-b41c-5a437184347c
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 10 May 2021
                : 6 July 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000026, National Institute on Drug Abuse;
                Award ID: K01DA044279
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100007316, Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute;
                Award ID: P50CA244688
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Commentary
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Medicine
                implementation,costs,stakeholder,perspective,decision-making,context,dissemination,health economics,sustainment

                Comments

                Comment on this article