Systematic review of economic evaluations and cost analyses of guideline implementation strategies

Improving cancer prevention and control through implementing academic-local public health department partnerships - protocol for a cluster-randomized implementation trial using a positive deviance approach

BACKGROUND

Local public health departments in the United States are responsible for implementing cancer-related programs and policies in their communities; however, many staff have not been trained to use evidence-based processes, and the organizational climate may be unsupportive of evidence-based processes. A promising approach to address these gaps is through academic-public health department (AHD) partnerships, in which practitioners and academics collaborate to improve public health practice and education through joint research projects and educational opportunities. Prior research has demonstrated the benefits of AHD partnerships to public health practice and education. However, knowledge about how AHD partnerships should be structured to support implementation of programs and policies is sparse.

METHODS

This is a mixed methods, two-phase study, guided by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) Framework, in which AHD partnerships are a relational type of bridging factor. A positive deviance approach will be used to understand how AHD partnerships are best structured and supported. In the formative phase, we will survey academics and local health department staff (n = 500) to characterize AHD partnerships and understand contextual influences. We will conduct in-depth interviews with eight AHD partnerships (four high and four low engagement), to identify differences between high and low engagement partnerships. The second, experimental phase will be a paired group randomized trial with 28 AHD partnerships (n = 14 randomized to implementation arm and n = 14 to the control arm). A menu of strategies will be refined through survey and interview findings, literature, and our team's previous work. The trial will assess whether these strategies can be used to strengthen partnerships and improve adoption of cancer prevention and control programs and policies. We will evaluate changes in AHD partnership engagement and implementation of evidence-based programs and policies.

DISCUSSION

This first-of-its-kind study will focus on collaborations that leverage complementary expertise of health department staff and academics to improve public health practice. Our results can impact the field by identifying new, sustainable models for how public health practitioners and academics can work together to meet common goals, increase the use of evidence-based programs and policies, and expand our understanding of bridging factors within the EPIS framework.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Prospective registered on 9/17/2024 at clinicaltrials.gov no. NCT06605196 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06605196 ).

Nonpharmacological Spine Pain Management in Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Systematic Review Using AGREE II and AGREE-REX Tools

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the content and critically appraise the quality and applicability of recent clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for nonpharmacological, nonsurgical management of spine pain. DESIGN: Systematic review of CPGs. LITERATURE SEARCH: Six databases and seven guideline clearinghouses. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Included de novo CPGs for nonpharmacological, nonsurgical management of spine pain designed for any primary health care providers, published in English, Arabic, French, or traditional Chinese within the past 12 years. DATA SYNTHESIS: Five reviewers independently appraised the guidelines using AGREE II and AGREE-REX. Interrater agreements were calculated for each domain and the total score of these tools using the intraclass correlation coefficient (2, 1) with absolute agreement. RESULTS: We included 30 CPGs, primarily (90%) developed in Western countries, which contained 404 recommendations. High-quality CPGs consistently recommended exercise therapy and multimodal care, encompassing a combination of exercises, mobilization/manipulation, education, alternative medicine, and cognitive-behavioral treatments. Generally, CPGs did not recommend assistive (eg, corsets and orthosis) devices or electro/thermotherapies (eg, therapeutic ultrasound and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation). Approximately half of the CPGs demonstrated good methodological quality according to AGREE II, whereas the rest were of poor quality. On the AGREE-REX assessment, one third of the recommendations were of excellent quality. CONCLUSION: Although recent guidelines frequently recommended exercise therapy and multimodal care for the management of spine pain, their recommendations often overlooked demographics and comorbidities. Despite methodological improvements, most CPGs lacked simple clinical applicability and considerations of knowledge users' values. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2025;55(1):1-14. Epub 4 November 2024. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12729.

What methods are currently available for incorporating implementation considerations within the economic evaluation of health technologies? A scoping review

BACKGROUND

When clinically effective, cost-effective health interventions are not fully implemented in clinical practice, population health suffers. Economic factors are among the most commonly cited reasons for suboptimal implementation. Despite this, implementation and economic evaluation are not routinely performed in conjunction with one another. This review sought to identify and describe what methods are available for researchers to incorporate implementation within economic evaluation, how these methods differ, when they should be used, and where gaps remain.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review using systematic methods. A pearl-growing approach was used to identify studies. References and citations were identified using Web of Science and Scopus. We included for review any study that contained terms relating to economic evaluation and a series of implementation-related terms in the title or abstract. The search was conducted and validated using two independent researchers.

RESULTS

Our review identified 42 unique studies that included a methodology for combining implementation and economic evaluation. The methods identified could be categorized into four broad themes: (i) policy cost-effectiveness approach (11 studies), (ii) value of information and value of implementation approach (16 studies), (iii) mixed methods approach (6 studies), and (iv) costing approach (9 studies). We identified a trend over time from methods that adopted the policy cost-effectiveness approach to methods that considered the trade-off between the value of information and value of implementation. More recently, mixed methods approaches to incorporate economic evaluation and implementation have been developed, alongside methods to define, measure and cost individual components of the implementation process for use in economic evaluation.

CONCLUSION

Our review identified a range of methods currently available for researchers considering implementation alongside economic evaluation. There is no single method or tool that can incorporate all the relevant issues to fully incorporate implementation within an economic evaluation. Instead, there are a suite of tools available, each of which can be used to answer a specific question relating to implementation. Researchers, reimbursement agencies and national and local decision-makers need to consider how best to utilize these tools to improve implementation.

The Price of Practice Change: Assessing the Cost of Integrating Research Findings Into Clinical Practice

BACKGROUND

Clinicians, health care administrators, and implementation scientists know that it takes intentional effort, resources, and implementation strategies to integrate research findings into routine clinical practice. An oft-cited concern for those considering whether and how to implement an evidence-based program is how much it will cost to implement the change. Yet information about the cost of implementation is not often available to health care decision-makers. Teams that received Implementation Award funding from PCORI are conducting implementation projects to promote the uptake of evidence-based practices in health care settings. As part of their implementation efforts, a number of teams have examined the costs of implementation. In this Topical Collection, 5 teams will report their findings on implementation costs and discuss their methods for data collection and analysis.

DISCUSSION

The teams' costing efforts provide specific information about the costs sites can expect to incur in promoting the uptake of specific evidence-based programs. In addition, the papers illuminate 3 key features of the teams' approaches to measuring the cost of implementation: (1) the use of specific micro-costing methods with time-driven activity-based costing serving as the most popular method; (2) different ways to categorize and organize costs, including a site-based and non-site-based framework; and (3) cost collection challenges experienced by the teams.

CONCLUSION

The cost of implementation is a critical consideration for organizations seeking to improve practice in accordance with research findings. This Topical Collection describes detailed approaches to providing this type of cost information and highlights insights to be gained from a rigorous focus on implementation cost.

Reporting of costs and economic impacts in randomized trials of de-implementation interventions for low-value care: a systematic scoping review

BACKGROUND

De-implementation of low-value care can increase health care sustainability. We evaluated the reporting of direct costs of de-implementation and subsequent change (increase or decrease) in health care costs in randomized trials of de-implementation research.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and Scopus databases without any language restrictions up to May 2021. We conducted study screening and data extraction independently and in duplicate. We extracted information related to study characteristics, types and characteristics of interventions, de-implementation costs, and impacts on health care costs. We assessed risk of bias using a modified Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.

RESULTS

We screened 10,733 articles, with 227 studies meeting the inclusion criteria, of which 50 included information on direct cost of de-implementation or impact of de-implementation on health care costs. Studies were mostly conducted in North America (36%) or Europe (32%) and in the primary care context (70%). The most common practice of interest was reduction in the use of antibiotics or other medications (74%). Most studies used education strategies (meetings, materials) (64%). Studies used either a single strategy (52%) or were multifaceted (48%). Of the 227 eligible studies, 18 (8%) reported on direct costs of the used de-implementation strategy; of which, 13 reported total costs, and 12 reported per unit costs (7 reported both). The costs of de-implementation strategies varied considerably. Of the 227 eligible studies, 43 (19%) reported on impact of de-implementation on health care costs. Health care costs decreased in 27 studies (63%), increased in 2 (5%), and were unchanged in 14 (33%).

CONCLUSION

De-implementation randomized controlled trials typically did not report direct costs of the de-implementation strategies (92%) or the impacts of de-implementation on health care costs (81%). Lack of cost information may limit the value of de-implementation trials to decision-makers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

OSF (Open Science Framework): https://osf.io/ueq32 .

Study protocol for an economic evaluation and budget impact of implementation strategies to support routine provision of antenatal care for gestational weight gain: a stepped-wedge cluster trial

BACKGROUND

Antenatal clinical practice guidelines recommend routine assessment of weight and provision of advice on recommended weight gain during pregnancy and referral to additional services when appropriate. However, there are barriers to clinicians adopting such best-practice guidelines. Effective, cost-effective, and affordable implementation strategies are needed to ensure the intended benefits of guidelines are realised. This paper describes the protocol for evaluating the efficiency and affordability of implementation strategies compared to the usual practice in public antenatal services.

METHOD

The prospective trial-based economic evaluation will identify, measure, and value key resource and outcome impacts arising from the implementation strategies compared with usual practice. The evaluation will comprise of (i) costing, (ii) cost-consequence analyses, where a scorecard approach will be used to show the costs and benefits given the multiple primary outcomes included in the trial, and (iii) cost-effectiveness analysis, where the primary outcome will be incremental cost per percent increase in participants reporting receipt of antenatal care for gestational weight gain consistent with the guideline recommendations. Affordability will be evaluated using (iv) budget impact assessment and will estimate the financial implications of adoption and diffusion of this implementation strategy from the perspective of relevant fund-holders.

DISCUSSION

Together with the findings from the effectiveness trial, the outcomes of this economic evaluation will inform future healthcare policy, investment allocation, and research regarding the implementation of antenatal care to support healthy gestational weight gain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trial Registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12621000054819 (22/01/2021) http://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=380680&isReview=true .

Cost-Utility Analysis of Major System Change in Specialist Cancer Surgery in London, England, Using Linked Patient-Level Electronic Health Records and Difference-in-Differences Analysis

BACKGROUND

Studies have shown that centralising surgical treatment for some cancers can improve patient outcomes, but there is limited evidence of the impact on costs or health-related quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

We report the results of a cost-utility analysis of the RESPECT-21 study using difference-in-differences, which investigated the reconfiguration of specialist surgery services for four cancers in an area of London, compared to the Rest of England (ROE).

METHODS

Electronic health records data were obtained from the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service for patients diagnosed with one of the four cancers of interest between 2012 and 2017. The analysis for each tumour type used a short-term decision tree followed by a 10-year Markov model with 6-monthly cycles. Costs were calculated by applying National Health Service (NHS) Reference Costs to patient-level hospital resource use and supplemented with published data. Cancer-specific preference-based health-related quality-of-life values were obtained from the literature to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Total costs and QALYs were calculated before and after the reconfiguration, in the London Cancer (LC) area and in ROE, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to illustrate the uncertainty in the results.

RESULTS

At a threshold of £30,000/QALY gained, LC reconfiguration of prostate cancer surgery services had a 79% probability of having been cost-effective compared to non-reconfigured services using difference-in-differences. The oesophago-gastric, bladder and renal reconfigurations had probabilities of 62%, 49% and 12%, respectively, of being cost-effective at the same threshold. Costs and QALYs per surgical patient increased over time for all cancers across both regions to varying degrees. Bladder cancer surgery had the smallest patient numbers and changes in costs, and QALYs were not significant. The largest improvement in outcomes was in renal cancer surgery in ROE, making the relative renal improvements in LC appear modest, and the probability of the LC reconfiguration having been cost-effective low.

CONCLUSIONS

Prostate cancer reconfigurations had the highest probability of being cost-effective. It is not clear, however, whether the prostate results can be considered in isolation, given the reconfigurations occurred simultaneously with other system changes, and healthcare delivery in the NHS is highly networked and collaborative. Routine collection of quality-of-life measures such as the EQ-5D-5L would have improved the analysis.

Scoping review of costs of implementation strategies in community, public health and healthcare settings

OBJECTIVES

To identify existing evidence concerning the cost of dissemination and implementation (D&I) strategies in community, public health and health service research, mapped with the 'Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change' (ERIC) taxonomy.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify any English language reports that had been published between January 2008 and December 2019 concerning the cost of D&I strategies.

DATA EXTRACTION

We matched the strategies identified in each article using ERIC taxonomies; further classified them into five areas (eg, dissemination, implementation, integration, capacity building and scale-up); and extracted the corresponding costs (total costs and cots per action target and per evidence-based programme (EBP) participant). We also recorded the reported level of costing methodology used for cost assessment of D&I strategies.

RESULTS

Of the 6445 articles identified, 52 studies were eligible for data extraction. Lack of D&I strategy cost data was the predominant reason (55% of the excluded studies) for study exclusion. Predominant topic, setting, country and research design in the included studies were mental health (19%), primary care settings (44%), the US (35%) and observational (42%). Thirty-five (67%) studies used multicomponent D&I strategies (ranging from two to five discrete strategies). The most frequently applied strategies were Conduct ongoing training (50%) and Conduct educational meetings (23%). Adoption (42%) and reach (27%) were the two most frequently assessed outcomes. The overall costs of Conduct ongoing training ranged from $199 to $105 772 ($1-$13 973 per action target and $0.02-$412 per EBP participant); whereas the cost of Conduct educational meetings ranged from $987 to $1.1-$2.9 million/year ($33-$54 869 per action target and $0.2-$146 per EBP participant). The wide range of costs was due to the varying scales of the studies, intended audiences/diseases and the complexities of the strategy components. Most studies presented limited information on costing methodology, making interpretation difficult.

CONCLUSIONS

The quantity of published D&I strategy cost analyses is increasing, yet guidance on conducting and reporting of D&I strategy cost analysis is necessary to facilitate and promote the application of comparative economic evaluation in the field of D&I research.

Understanding implementation costs of a pediatric weight management intervention: an economic evaluation protocol

Background

Understanding the cost and/or cost-effectiveness of implementation strategies is crucial for organizations to make informed decisions about the resources needed to implement and sustain evidence-based interventions (EBIs). This economic evaluation protocol describes the methods and processes that will be used to assess costs and cost-effectiveness across implementation strategies used to improve the reach, adoption, implementation, and organizational maintenance of an evidence-based pediatric weight management intervention- Building Health Families (BHF).

Methods

A within-trial cost and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) will be completed as part of a hybrid type III effectiveness-implementation trial (HEI) designed to examine the impact of an action Learning Collaborative (LC) strategy consisting of network weaving, consultee-centered training, goal-setting and feedback, and sustainability action planning to improve the adoption, implementation, organizational maintenance, and program reach of BHF in micropolitan and surrounding rural communities in the USA, over a 12-month period. We discuss key features of implementation strategy components and the associated cost collection and outcome measures and present brief examples on what will be included in the CEA for each discrete implementation strategy and how the results will be interpreted. The cost data will be collected by identifying implementation activities associated with each strategy and using a digital-based time tracking tool to capture the time associated with each activity. Costs will be assessed relative to the BHF program implementation and the multicomponent implementation strategy, included within and external to a LC designed to improve reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM) of BHF. The CEA results will be reported by RE-AIM outcomes, using the average cost-effectiveness ratio or incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. All the CEAs will be performed from the community perspective.

Discussion

The proposed costing approach and economic evaluation framework for dissemination and implementation strategies and EBI implementation will contribute to the evolving but still scant literature on economic evaluation of implementation and strategies used and facilitate the comparative economic analysis.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04719442. Registered on January 22, 2021.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s43058-022-00287-1.

Cost, cost-consequence and cost-effectiveness evaluation of a practice change intervention to increase routine provision of antenatal care addressing maternal alcohol consumption

Background

Implementation of antenatal clinical guideline recommendations for addressing maternal alcohol consumption is sub-optimal. There is a complete absence of evidence of the cost and cost-effectiveness of delivering practice change interventions addressing maternal alcohol consumption amongst women accessing maternity services. The study sought to determine the cost, cost-consequence and cost-effectiveness of developing and delivering a multi-strategy practice change intervention in three sectors of a health district in New South Wales, Australia.

Methods

The trial-based economic analyses compared the costs and outcomes of the intervention to usual care over the 35-month period of the stepped-wedge trial. A health service provider perspective was selected to focus on the cost of delivering the practice change intervention, rather than the cost of delivering antenatal care itself. All costs are reported in Australian dollars ($AUD, 2019). Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed the effect of variation in intervention effect and costs.

Results

The total cost of delivering the practice change intervention across all three sectors was $367,646, of which $40,871 (11%) were development costs and $326,774 (89%) were delivery costs. Labour costs comprised 70% of the total intervention delivery cost. A single practice change strategy, ‘educational meetings and educational materials’ contributed 65% of the delivery cost. Based on the trial’s primary efficacy outcome, the incremental cost effectiveness ratio was calculated to be $32,570 (95% CI: $32,566–$36,340) per percent increase in receipt of guideline recommended care. Based on the number of women attending the maternity services during the trial period, the average incremental cost per woman who received all guideline elements was $591 (Range: $329 - $940) . The average cost of the intervention per eligible clinician was $993 (Range: $640-$1928).

Conclusion

The intervention was more effective than usual care, at an increased cost. Healthcare funders’ willingness to pay for this incremental effect is unknown. However, the strategic investment in systems change is expected to improve the efficiency of the practice change intervention over time. Given the positive trial findings, further research and monitoring is required to assess the sustainability of intervention effectiveness and whether economies of scale, or reduced costs of intervention delivery can be achieved without impact on outcomes.

Trial registration

The trial was prospectively registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, No. ACTRN12617000882325 (date registered: 16/06/2017).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-021-01180-6.

How to Cost the Implementation of Major System Change for Economic Evaluations: Case Study Using Reconfigurations of Specialist Cancer Surgery in Part of London, England

BACKGROUND

Studies have been published regarding the impact of major system change (MSC) on care quality and outcomes, but few evaluate implementation costs or include them in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). This is despite large potential costs of MSC: change planning, purchasing or repurposing assets, and staff time. Implementation costs can influence implementation decisions. We describe our framework and principles for costing MSC implementation and illustrate them using a case study.

METHODS

We outlined MSC implementation stages and identified components, using a framework conceived during our work on MSC in stroke services. We present a case study of MSC of specialist surgery services for prostate, bladder, renal and oesophagogastric cancers, focusing on North Central and North East London and West Essex. Health economists collaborated with qualitative researchers, clinicians and managers, identifying key reconfiguration stages and expenditures. Data sources (n = approximately 100) included meeting minutes, interviews, and business cases. National Health Service (NHS) finance and service managers and clinicians were consulted. Using bottom-up costing, items were identified, and unit costs based on salaries, asset costs and consultancy fees assigned. Itemised costs were adjusted and summed.

RESULTS

Cost components included options appraisal, bidding process, external review; stakeholder engagement events; planning/monitoring boards/meetings; and making the change: new assets, facilities, posts. Other considerations included hospital tariff changes; costs to patients; patient population; and lifetime of changes. Using the framework facilitated data identification and collection. The total adjusted implementation cost was estimated at £7.2 million, broken down as replacing robots (£4.0 million), consultancy fees (£1.9 million), staff time costs (£1.1 million) and other costs (£0.2 million).

CONCLUSIONS

These principles can be used by funders, service providers and commissioners planning MSC and researchers evaluating MSC. Health economists should be involved early, alongside qualitative and health-service colleagues, as retrospective capture risks information loss. These analyses are challenging; many cost factors are difficult to identify, access and measure, and assumptions regarding lifetime of the changes are important. Including implementation costs in CEA might make MSC appear less cost effective, influencing future decisions. Future work will incorporate this implementation cost into the full CEAs of the London Cancer MSC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable.

Costing a population health management approach for participant recruitment to a diabetes prevention study

Limited research has reported the economic feasibility-from both a research and practice perspective-of efforts to recruit and enroll an intended audience in evidence-based approaches for disease prevention. We aimed to retrospectively assess and estimate the costs of a population health management (PHM) approach to identify, engage, and enroll patients in a Type 1 Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation (HEI), diabetes-prevention trial. We used activity-based costing to estimate the recruitment costs of a PHM approach integrated within an HEI trial. We took the perspective of a healthcare system that may adopt, and possibly sustain, the strategy in the typical practice. We also estimated replication costs based on how the strategy could be applied in healthcare systems interested in referring patients to a local diabetes prevention program from a payer perspective. The total recruitment and enrollment costs were $360,424 to accrue 599 participants over approximately 15 months. The average cost per screened and enrolled participant was $263 and $620, respectively. Translating to the typical settings, total recruitment costs for replication were estimated as $193,971 (range: $43,827-$210,721). Sensitivity and scenario analysis results indicated replication costs would be approximately $283-$444 per patient enrolled if glucose testing was necessary, based on the Medicare-covered services. From a private payer perspective, and without glucose testing, per-participant assessed costs were estimated at $31. A PHM approach can be used to accrue a large number of participants in a short period of time for an HEI trial, at a comparable cost per participant.

A micro costing analysis of the development of a primary care intervention to improve the uptake of diabetic retinopathy screening

Background

The application of economic analysis within implementation science is still developing and the cost of intervention development, which differs markedly from the costs of initial implementation and maintenance, is often overlooked. Our aim was to retrospectively cost the development of a multifaceted intervention in primary care to improve attendance at diabetic retinopathy screening.

Methods

A retrospective micro costing of developing the intervention from the research funder perspective was conducted. It was based on a systematic intervention development process involving analysis of existing audit data and interviews with patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs), conducting consensus meetings with patients and HCPs, and using these data together with a rapid review of the effectiveness of interventions, to inform the final intervention. Both direct (non-personnel, e.g. travel, stationary, room hire) and indirect (personnel) costs were included. Data sources included researcher time logs, payroll data, salary scales, an online financial management system, invoices and purchase orders. Personnel involved in the intervention development were consulted to determine the activities they conducted and the duration of their involvement. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted to estimate uncertainty around parameters and scope.

Results

The total cost of intervention development (July 2014–January 2019) was €40,485 of which 78% were indirect (personnel) costs (€31,451). In total, personnel contributed 1368 h to intervention development. Highest cost activities were the patient interviews, and consensus process, contributing 23% and 34% of the total cost. Varying estimated time spent on intervention development activities by + 10% increased total intervention development cost by 6% to €42,982.

Conclusions

Our results highlight that intervention development requires a significant amount of human capital input, combining research experience, patient and public experience, and expert knowledge in relevant fields. The time committed to intervention development is critical but has a significant opportunity cost. With limited resources for research on developing and implementing interventions, capturing intervention development costs and incorporating them as part of assessment of cost-effective interventions, could inform research priority and resource allocation decisions.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-021-01085-4.

Cost-effectiveness of the Adaptive Implementation of Effective Programs Trial (ADEPT): approaches to adopting implementation strategies

BACKGROUND

Theory-based methods to support the uptake of evidence-based practices (EBPs) are critical to improving mental health outcomes. Implementation strategy costs can be substantial, and few have been rigorously evaluated. The purpose of this study is to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis to identify the most cost-effective approach to deploying implementation strategies to enhance the uptake of Life Goals, a mental health EBP.

METHODS

We used data from a previously conducted randomized trial to compare the cost-effectiveness of Replicating Effective Programs (REP) combined with external and/or internal facilitation among sites non-responsive to REP. REP is a low-level strategy that includes EBP packaging, training, and technical assistance. External facilitation (EF) involves external expert support, and internal facilitation (IF) augments EF with protected time for internal staff to support EBP implementation. We developed a decision tree to assess 1-year costs and outcomes for four implementation strategies: (1) REP only, (2) REP+EF, (3) REP+EF add IF if needed, (4) REP+EF/IF. The analysis used a 1-year time horizon and assumed a health payer perspective. Our outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The economic outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). We conducted deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA).

RESULTS

Our results indicate that REP+EF add IF is the most cost-effective option with an ICER of $593/QALY. The REP+EF/IF and REP+EF only conditions are dominated (i.e., more expensive and less effective than comparators). One-way sensitivity analyses indicate that results are sensitive to utilities for REP+EF and REP+EF add IF. The PSA results indicate that REP+EF, add IF is the optimal strategy in 30% of iterations at the threshold of $100,000/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that the most cost-effective implementation support begins with a less intensive, less costly strategy initially and increases as needed to enhance EBP uptake. Using this approach, implementation support resources can be judiciously allocated to those clinics that would most benefit. Our results were not robust to changes in the utility measure. Research is needed that incorporates robust and relevant utilities in implementation studies to determine the most cost-effective strategies. This study advances economic evaluation of implementation by assessing costs and utilities across multiple implementation strategy combinations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02151331 , 05/30/2014.

The cost of improving care: a multisite economic analysis of hospital resource use for implementing recommended postpartum contraception programmes

BACKGROUND

The costs of quality improvement efforts in real-world settings are often unquantified. Better understanding could guide appropriate resource utilisation and drive efficiency. Immediate postpartum contraceptive care (ie, placement of an intrauterine device or contraceptive implant during hospitalisation for childbirth) represents an excellent case study for examining costs, because recommended services are largely unavailable and adoption requires significant effort. We therefore evaluated the cost of implementing immediate postpartum contraceptive services at four academic centres and one private hospital in USA.

METHODS

In this mixed-methods cost analysis, implementation activities were retrospectively identified using standardised data collection. Activities were categorised as preimplementation activities (infrastructure building, tool creation and stakeholder engagement) or execution activities (workforce training and process refinement). Costs were assigned based on national median salaries for the roles of individuals involved. Cross-case comparison and rapid qualitative analysis guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research were used to identify factors driving cost variation observed across sites.

RESULTS

On average, implementation activities required 204 hours (range 119-368), with this time costing $14 433.94 (range $9955.61-$23 690.49), and involving 9 (range 7-11) key team members per site. Preimplementation activities required more resources than execution activities (preimplementation: average 173 hours, $11 573.25; execution: average 31 hours, $2860.67). Sites that used lower-cost employees (eg, shifting tasks from a physician to a project manager) observed lower costs per hour for implementation activities. Implementation activities and costs were associated with local contextual factors, including stakeholder acceptance, integration of employees and infrastructure readiness for the change effort.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings provide the first estimates of health system costs for adopting recommended contraceptive care in maternity units in USA. More broadly, our findings suggest that the budget impact of improvement efforts may vary widely depending on local context.

Conducting Value for Money Analyses for Non-randomised Interventional Studies Including Service Evaluations: An Educational Review with Recommendations

This article provides an educational review covering the consideration of conducting ‘value for money’ analyses as part of non-randomised study designs including service evaluations. These evaluations represent a vehicle for producing evidence such as value for money of a care intervention or service delivery model. Decision makers including charities and local and national governing bodies often rely on evidence from non-randomised data and service evaluations to inform their resource allocation decision-making. However, as randomised data obtained from randomised controlled trials are considered the ‘gold standard’ for assessing causation, the use of this alternative vehicle for producing an evidence base requires careful consideration. We refer to value for money analyses, but reflect on methods associated with economic evaluations as a form of analysis used to inform resource allocation decision-making alongside a finite budget. Not all forms of value for money analysis are considered a full economic evaluation with implications for the information provided to decision makers. The type of value for money analysis to be conducted requires considerations such as the outcome(s) of interest, study design, statistical methods to control for confounding and bias, and how to quantify and describe uncertainty and opportunity costs to decision makers in any resulting value for money estimates. Service evaluations as vehicles for producing evidence present different challenges to analysts than what is commonly associated with research, randomised controlled trials and health technology appraisals, requiring specific study design and analytic considerations. This educational review describes and discusses these considerations, as overlooking them could affect the information provided to decision makers who may make an ‘ill-informed’ decision based on ‘poor’ or ‘inaccurate’ information with long-term implications. We make direct comparisons between randomised controlled trials relative to non-randomised data as vehicles for assessing causation; given ‘gold standard’ randomised controlled trials have limitations. Although we use UK-based decision makers as examples, we reflect on the needs of decision makers internationally for evidence-based decision-making specific to resource allocation. We make recommendations based on the experiences of the authors in the UK, reflecting on the wide variety of methods available, used as documented in the empirical literature. These methods may not have been fully considered relevant to non-randomised study designs and/or service evaluations, but could improve and aid the analysis conducted to inform the relevant value for money decision problem.

Economic evaluation in implementation science: Making the business case for implementation strategies

Implementation researchers have made notable progress in developing and testing implementation strategies (i.e., highly-specified methods used to help providers improve uptake of mental health evidence-based practices: EBPs). Yet, implementation strategies are not widely applied in healthcare organizations to improve delivery of EBPs. Economic considerations are a key factor influencing the use of implementation strategies to deliver and sustain mental health evidence-based practices, in part because many health care leaders are reluctant to invest in ongoing implementation strategy support without knowing the return-on-investment. Comparative economic evaluation of implementation strategies provides critical information for payers, policymakers, and providers to make informed decisions if specific strategies are an efficient use of scarce organizational resources. Currently, few implementation studies include implementation cost data and even fewer conduct comparative economic analyses of implementation strategies. This summary will introduce clinicians, researchers and other health professionals to the economic evaluation in implementation science. We provide an overview of different economic evaluation methods, discuss differences between economic evaluation in health services and implementation science. We also highlight approaches and frameworks to guide economic evaluation of implementation, provide an example for a cognitive-behavioral therapy program and discuss recommendations.

The impact of basic vs. enhanced Go NAPSACC on child care centers' healthy eating and physical activity practices: protocol for a type 3 hybrid effectiveness-implementation cluster-randomized trial

BACKGROUND

To prevent childhood obesity and promote healthy development, health authorities recommend that child care programs use the evidence-based practices that foster healthy eating and physical habits in children. Go NAPSACC is an intervention shown to improve use of these recommended practices, but it is known to encounter barriers that limit its impact and widespread use.

METHODS

This study will use a type 3 hybrid effectiveness-implementation cluster-randomized trial to compare effectiveness and implementation outcomes achieved from Go NAPSACC delivered with a basic or enhanced implementation approach. Participants will include approximately 25 coaches from Child Care Aware of Kentucky (serving four geographic regions), 97 child care centers with a director and teacher from each and two cross-sectional samples of 485 3-4-year-old children (one recruitment at baseline, another at follow-up). Coaches will be randomly assigned to deliver Go NAPSACC using either the basic or enhanced implementation approach. "Basic Go NAPSACC" represents the traditional way of delivering Go NAPSACC. "Enhanced Go NAPSACC" incorporates preparatory and support activities before and during their Go NAPSACC work, which are guided by the Quality Implementation Framework and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Data will be collected primarily at baseline and post-intervention, with select measures continuing through 6, 12, and 24 months post-intervention. Guided largely by RE-AIM, outcomes will assess change in centers' use of evidence-based nutrition and physical activity practices (primary, measured via observation); centers' adoption, implementation, and maintenance of the Go NAPSACC program (assessed via website use); center directors', teachers', and coaches' perceptions of contextual factors (assessed via self-report surveys); children's eating and physical activity behaviors at child care (measured via observation and accelerometers); and cost-effectiveness (assessed via logs and expense tracking). The hypotheses anticipate that "Enhanced Go NAPSACC" will have greater effects than "Basic Go NAPSACC."

DISCUSSION

This study incorporates many lessons gleaned from the growing implementation science field, but also offers opportunities to address the field's research priorities, including applying a systematic method to tailor implementation strategies, examining the processes and mechanisms through which implementation strategies produce their effects, and conducting an economic evaluation of implementation strategies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03938103, Registered April 8, 2019.

Implementation of simulation modelling to improve service planning in specialist orthopaedic and neurosurgical outpatient services

BACKGROUND

Advanced physiotherapist-led services have been embedded in specialist orthopaedic and neurosurgical outpatient departments across Queensland, Australia, to ameliorate capacity constraints. Simulation modelling has been used to inform the optimal scale and professional mix of services required to match patient demand. The context and the value of simulation modelling in service planning remain unclear. We aimed to examine the adoption, context and costs of using simulation modelling recommendations to inform service planning.

METHODS

Using an implementation science approach, we undertook a prospective, qualitative evaluation to assess the use of discrete event simulation modelling recommendations for service re-design and to explore stakeholder perspectives about the role of simulation modelling in service planning. Five orthopaedic and neurosurgical services in Queensland, Australia, were selected to maximise variation in implementation effectiveness. We used the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) to guide the facilitation and analysis of the stakeholder focus group discussions. We conducted a prospective costing analysis in each service to estimate the costs associated with using simulation modelling to inform service planning.

RESULTS

Four of the five services demonstrated adoption by inclusion of modelling recommendations into proposals for service re-design. Four CFIR constructs distinguished and two CFIR constructs did not distinguish between high versus mixed implementation effectiveness. We identified additional constructs that did not map onto CFIR. The mean cost of implementation was AU$34,553 per site (standard deviation = AU$737).

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the first time the context of implementing simulation modelling recommendations in a health care setting, using a validated framework, has been examined. Our findings may provide valuable insights to increase the uptake of healthcare modelling recommendations in service planning.

Economic evaluation of guideline implementation in primary care: a systematic review

Purpose

To review the economic evaluation of the guideline implementation in primary care.

Data sources

Medline and Embase.

Study selection

Electronic search was conducted on April 1, 2019, focusing on studies published in the previous ten years in developed countries about guidelines of non-communicable diseases of adult (≥18 years) population, the interventions targeting the primary care provider. Data extraction was performed by two independent researchers using a Microsoft Access based form.

Results of data synthesis

Among the 1338 studies assessed by title or abstract, 212 qualified for full text reading. From the final 39 clinically eligible studies, 14 reported economic evaluation. Cost consequences analysis, presented in four studies, provided limited information. Cost-benefit analysis was reported in five studies. Patient mediated intervention, and outreach visit applied in two studies showed no saving. Audit resulted significant savings in lipid lowering medication. Audit plus financial intervention was estimated to reduce referrals into secondary care. Analysis of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios was applied in four studies. Educational meeting evaluated in a simulated practice was cost-effective. Educational meeting extended with motivational interview showed no improvement; likewise two studies of multifaceted intervention. Cost-utility analysis of educational meeting supported with other educational materials showed unfavourable outcome.

Conclusion

Only a minor proportion of studies reporting clinical effectiveness of guideline implementation interventions included any type of economic evaluation. Rigorous and standardized cost-effectiveness analysis would be required, supporting decision-making between simple and multifaceted interventions through comparability.

Costs of Preparing to Implement a Family-Based Intervention to Prevent Pediatric Obesity in Primary Care: a Budget Impact Analysis

The costs associated with implementing evidence-based programs for pediatric obesity contribute to a lack of widespread adoption. This study examined the costs of preparing to implement the Family Check-Up 4 Health (FCU4Health), a family-centered behavioral program for the prevention of pediatric obesity and excess weight gain in primary care. Budget impact analysis was used to estimate the cost of preparing to implement FCU4Health (i.e., the activities to prepare for, but prior to, offering the service to families). Electronic cost capture methods were used to prospectively track personnel time associated with implementation preparation activities. We also estimated the cost of replicating these preparatory activities to inform future decisions to adopt the program and associated budgetary planning. The total cost of FCU4Health implementation preparation in three clinics and developing delivery materials and infrastructure was $181,768, for an average of $60,589 per clinic. Over two thirds of the total cost were personnel related, the largest of which was associated with the time spent developing automated fidelity coding for monitoring (20%), developing and tailoring clinical materials (16%), and training FCU4Health coordinators (15%). Due to these development costs associated with an initial implementation, that we anticipate would not be repeated in full, we estimated the cost to prepare FCU4Health for implementation in a future initiative will range from $15,195 to $17,912 per clinic. This study is a critical step towards equipping decision-makers with comprehensive short-term information about expected costs that are incurred immediately after choosing to adopt an evidence-based program.

Barriers and Facilitators to Implementing a Short-Term Transdiagnostic Mental Health Treatment for Homeless Persons

Despite the significant mental health needs and comorbidity in homeless individuals, there is a "science-practice gap" between the available evidence-based treatments (EBTs) and their lack of use in community health centers servicing homeless populations. To address this gap, it is imperative to evaluate and attend to the contextual factors that influence the implementation process of EBTs before their integration into routine care. The study aims to evaluate the barriers and facilitators to implementing a transdiagnostic EBT in a community health center serving homeless individuals. The results of the thematic analyses (7 focus groups, 67 participants) yielded 8 themes for barriers and 10 themes for facilitators to implementation. The findings of the current study highlight common tensions faced by community programs and clinicians when working toward integrating EBTs across different types of populations, and those unique to homeless persons. Results can inform subsequent strategies used in implementing EBTs.

Practical solutions for sustaining long-term academic-community partnerships

The science-practice gap in the treatment of mental health is most pronounced in community settings, where clients with the highest needs often receive their care. Implementation science and community-based participatory research strategies aim to effectively address this gap by establishing partnerships that focus on scientifically rigorous, as well as clinically and socially relevant, research. Despite significant benefits, the community-based participatory research implementation framework has a unique set of challenges. The current article describes evidence-supported implementation strategies that were deployed to address various barriers to the implementation and long-term sustainability of an innovative cognitive-behavioral theory (CBT) life skills program identified during a feasibility trial. Through the committed work of an established partnership between a community-based nonprofit organization and researchers, barriers and the strategies for mitigating these obstacles were jointly identified. Specific challenges included fidelity (variability in staff's CBT competency and delivery), sustainability, and the cost of guideline implementation (data collection, time, and resources) of the CBT curriculum. We also provide details on the partnership's solutions to these major obstacles, including the development of an intensive 3-month training and coaching phase. The results of this rigorous training suggest improvement in staff's overall CBT competency and fidelity, increased participant engagement in the CBT curriculum, and enhanced data-collection procedures; yet, sustainability difficulties remained. General recommendations for long-term community research partnerships include early organizational buy-in; comprehensive needs assessments, including the organization's research building capacity; and sustained training and coaching models. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Enhancing the Impact of Implementation Strategies in Healthcare: A Research Agenda

The field of implementation science was developed to better understand the factors that facilitate or impede implementation and generate evidence for implementation strategies. In this article, we briefly review progress in implementation science, and suggest five priorities for enhancing the impact of implementation strategies. Specifically, we suggest the need to: (1) enhance methods for designing and tailoring implementation strategies; (2) specify and test mechanisms of change; (3) conduct more effectiveness research on discrete, multi-faceted, and tailored implementation strategies; (4) increase economic evaluations of implementation strategies; and (5) improve the tracking and reporting of implementation strategies. We believe that pursuing these priorities will advance implementation science by helping us to understand when, where, why, and how implementation strategies improve implementation effectiveness and subsequent health outcomes.

Economic evaluation of the NET intervention versus guideline dissemination for management of mild head injury in hospital emergency departments

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based guidelines for the management of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) in the emergency department (ED) are now widely available, and yet, clinical practice remains inconsistent with the guidelines. The Neurotrauma Evidence Translation (NET) intervention was developed to increase the uptake of guideline recommendations and improve the management of minor head injury in Australian emergency departments (EDs). However, the adoption of this type of intervention typically entails an upfront investment that may or may not be fully offset by improvements in clinical practice, health outcomes and/or reductions in health service utilisation. The present study estimates the cost and cost-effectiveness of the NET intervention, as compared to the passive dissemination of the guideline, to evaluate whether any improvements in clinical practice or health outcomes due to the NET intervention can be obtained at an acceptable cost.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Study setting: The NET cluster randomised controlled trial [ACTRN12612001286831].

STUDY SAMPLE

Seventeen EDs were randomised to the control condition and 14 to the intervention. One thousand nine hundred forty-three patients were included in the analysis of clinical practice outcomes (NET sample). A total of 343 patients from 14 control and 10 intervention EDs participated in follow-up interviews and were included in the analysis of patient-reported health outcomes (NET-Plus sample).

OUTCOME MEASURES

Appropriate post-traumatic amnesia (PTA) screening in the ED (primary outcome). Secondary clinical practice outcomes: provision of written information on discharge (INFO) and safe discharge (defined as CT scan appropriately provided plus PTA plus INFO). Secondary patient-reported, post-discharge health outcomes: anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), post-concussive symptoms (Rivermead), and preference-based health-related quality of life (SF6D).

METHODS

Trial-based economic evaluations from a health sector perspective, with time horizons set to coincide with the final follow-up for the NET sample (2 months post-intervention) and to 1-month post-discharge for the NET-Plus sample.

RESULTS

Intervention and control groups were not significantly different in health service utilisation received in the ED/inpatient ward following the initial mTBI presentation (adjusted mean difference $23.86 per patient; 95%CI - $106, $153; p = 0.719) or over the longer follow-up in the NET-plus sample (adjusted mean difference $341.78 per patient; 95%CI - $58, $742; p = 0.094). Savings from lower health service utilisation are therefore unlikely to offset the significantly higher upfront cost of the intervention (mean difference $138.20 per patient; 95%CI $135, $141; p < 0.000). Estimates of the net effect of the intervention on total cost (intervention cost net of health service utilisation) suggest that the intervention entails significantly higher costs than the control condition (adjusted mean difference $169.89 per patient; 95%CI $43, $297, p = 0.009). This effect is larger in absolute magnitude over the longer follow-up in the NET-plus sample (adjusted mean difference $505.06; 95%CI $96, $915; p = 0.016), mostly due to additional health service utilisation. For the primary outcome, the NET intervention is more costly and more effective than passive dissemination; entailing an additional cost of $1246 per additional patient appropriately screened for PTA ($169.89/0.1363; Fieller's 95%CI $525, $2055). For NET to be considered cost-effective with 95% confidence, decision-makers would need to be willing to trade one quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for 25 additional patients appropriately screened for PTA. While these results reflect our best estimate of cost-effectiveness given the data, it is possible that a NET intervention that has been scaled and streamlined ready for wider roll-out may be more or less cost-effective than the NET intervention as delivered in the trial.

CONCLUSIONS

While the NET intervention does improve the management of mTBI in the ED, it also entails a significant increase in cost and-as delivered in the trial-is unlikely to be cost-effective at currently accepted funding thresholds. There may be a scope for a scaled-up and streamlined NET intervention to achieve a better balance between costs and outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12612001286831 , date registered 12 December 2012.

Synchronizing Watches: The Challenge of Aligning Implementation Science and Public Systems

This special issue of Administration and Policy in Mental Health explores the complexities of the outer system context in implementation science research. In this commentary, we highlight areas of asynchrony between implementation science research and policy realities of public systems. Timing is a critical factor for many aspects of system-level implementation including when and how evidence-based practice initiatives are launched, short and inconsistent timeframes for funding and support, need for early indicators of success and demonstrating return on investment. Greater consideration for the timing that drives change in public systems will strengthen efforts to implement and sustain EBPs in community settings.

The value of theory in programmes to implement clinical guidelines: Insights from a retrospective mixed-methods evaluation of a programme to increase adherence to national guidelines for chronic disease in primary care

BACKGROUND

Programmes have had limited success in improving guideline adherence for chronic disease. Use of theory is recommended but is often absent in programmes conducted in 'real-world' rather than research settings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This mixed-methods study tested a retrospective theory-based approach to evaluate a 'real-world' programme in primary care to improve adherence to national guidelines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Qualitative data, comprising analysis of documents generated throughout the programme (n>300), in-depth interviews with planners (clinicians, managers and improvement experts involved in devising, planning, and implementing the programme, n = 14) and providers (practice clinicians, n = 14) were used to construct programme theories, experiences of implementation and contextual factors influencing care. Quantitative analyses comprised controlled before-and-after analyses to test 'early' and evolved' programme theories with comparators grounded in each theory. 'Early' theory predicted the programme would reduce emergency hospital admissions (EHA). It was tested using national analysis of standardized borough-level EHA rates between programme and comparator boroughs. 'Evolved' theory predicted practices with higher programme participation would increase guideline adherence and reduce EHA and costs. It was tested using a difference-in-differences analysis with linked primary and secondary care data to compare changes in diagnosis, management, EHA and costs, over time and by programme participation.

RESULTS

Contrary to programme planners' predictions in 'early' and 'evolved' programme theories, admissions did not change following the programme. However, consistent with 'evolved' theory, higher guideline adoption occurred in practices with greater programme participation.

CONCLUSIONS

Retrospectively constructing theories based on the ideas of programme planners can enable evaluators to address some limitations encountered when evaluating programmes without a theoretical base. Prospectively articulating theory aided by existing models and mid-range implementation theories may strengthen guideline adoption efforts by prompting planners to scrutinise implementation methods. Benefits of deriving programme theory, with or without the aid of mid-range implementation theories, however, may be limited when the evidence underpinning guidelines is flawed.

Accessibility and implementation in the UK NHS services of an effective depression relapse prevention programme: learning from mindfulness-based cognitive therapy through a mixed-methods study

Background

Depression affects as many as one in five people in their lifetime and often runs a recurrent lifetime course. Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) is an effective psychosocial approach that aims to help people at risk of depressive relapse to learn skills to stay well. However, there is an ‘implementation cliff’: access to those who could benefit from MBCT is variable and little is known about why that is the case, and how to promote sustainable implementation. As such, this study fills a gap in the literature about the implementation of MBCT.

Objectives

To describe the existing provision of MBCT in the UK NHS, develop an understanding of the perceived costs and benefits of MBCT implementation, and explore the barriers and critical success factors for enhanced accessibility. We aimed to synthesise the evidence from multiple data sources to create an explanatory framework of the how and why of implementation, and to co-develop an implementation resource with key stakeholders.

Design

A two-phase qualitative, exploratory and explanatory study, which was conceptually underpinned by the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework.

Setting

UK NHS services.

Methods

Phase 1 involved interviews with participants from 40 areas across the UK about the current provision of MBCT. Phase 2 involved 10 case studies purposively sampled with differing degrees of MBCT provision, and from each UK country. Case study methods included interviews with key stakeholders, including commissioners, managers, MBCT practitioners and teachers, and service users. Observations were conducted and key documents were also collected. Data were analysed using a modified approach to framework analysis. Emerging findings were verified through stakeholder discussions and workshops.

Results

Phase 1: access to and the format of MBCT provision across the NHS remains variable. NHS services have typically adapted MBCT to their context and its integration into care pathways was also highly variable even within the same trust or health board. Participants’ accounts revealed stories of implementation journeys that were driven by committed individuals that were sometimes met by management commitment. Phase 2: a number of explanations emerged that explained successful implementation. Critically, facilitation was the central role of the MBCT implementers, who were self-designated individuals who ‘championed’ implementation, created networks and over time mobilised top-down organisational support. Our explanatory framework mapped out a prototypical implementation journey, often over many years. This involved implementers working through grassroots initiatives and over time mobilising top-down organisational support, and a continual fitting of evidence, with the MBCT intervention, contextual factors and the training/supervision of MBCT teachers. Key pivot points in the journey provided windows of challenge or opportunity.

Limitations

The findings are largely based on informants’ accounts and, therefore, are at risk of the bias of self-reporting.

Conclusions

Although access to MBCT across the UK is improving, it remains very patchy. This study provides an explanatory framework that helps us understand what facilitates and supports sustainable MBCT implementation.

Future work

The framework and stakeholder workshops are being used to develop online implementation guidance.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Emergent Challenges in Determining Costs for Economic Evaluations

This paper describes methods of determining costs for economic evaluations of healthcare and considers how cost determination is being affected by recent developments in healthcare. The literature was reviewed to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the four principal methods of cost determination: micro-costing, activity-based costing, charge-based costing, and gross costing. A scoping review was conducted to identify key trends in healthcare delivery and to identify costing issues associated with these changes. Existing guidelines provide information on how to implement various costing methods. Bottom-up costing is needed when accuracy is paramount, but top-down approaches are often the only feasible approach. We describe six healthcare trends that have important implications for costing methodology: (1) reform in payment mechanisms; (2) care delivery in less restrictive settings; (3) the growth of telehealth interventions; (4) the proliferation of new technology; (5) patient privacy concerns; and (6) growing efforts to implement guidelines. Some costs are difficult to measure and have been overlooked. These include physician services for inpatients, facility costs for outpatient services, the cost of developing treatment innovations, patient and caregiver costs, and the indirect costs of organizational interventions. Standardized methods are needed to determine social welfare and productivity costs. In the future, cost determination will be facilitated by technological advances but hindered by the shift to capitated payment, to the provision of care in less restrictive settings, and by heightened concern for medical record privacy.

Appraising the methodological quality of the clinical practice guideline for diabetes mellitus using the AGREE II instrument: a methodological evaluation

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the methodological quality of the Palestinian Clinical Practice Guideline for Diabetes Mellitus using the Translated Arabic Version of the AGREE II.

DESIGN

Methodological evaluation. A cross-cultural adaptation framework was followed to translate and develop a standardised Translated Arabic Version of the AGREE II.

SETTING

Palestinian Primary Healthcare Centres.

PARTICIPANTS

Sixteen appraisers independently evaluated the Clinical Practice Guideline for Diabetes Mellitus using the Translated Arabic Version of the AGREE II.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Methodological quality of diabetic guideline.

RESULTS

The Translated Arabic Version of the AGREE II showed an acceptable reliability and validity. Internal consistency ranged between 0.67 and 0.88 (Cronbach's α). Intra-class coefficient among appraisers ranged between 0.56 and 0.88. The quality of this guideline is low. Both domains 'Scope and Purpose' and 'Clarity of Presentation' had the highest quality scores (66.7% and 61.5%, respectively), whereas the scores for 'Applicability', 'Stakeholder Involvement', 'Rigour of Development' and 'Editorial Independence' were the lowest (27%, 35%, 36.5%, and 40%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that the quality of this Clinical Practice Guideline is disappointingly low. To improve the quality of current and future guidelines, the AGREE II instrument is extremely recommended to be incorporated as a gold standard for developing, evaluating or updating the Palestinian Clinical Practice Guidelines. Future guidelines can be improved by setting specific strategies to overcome implementation barriers with respect to economic considerations, engaging of all relevant end-users and patients, ensuring a rigorous methodology for searching, selecting and synthesising the evidences and recommendations, and addressing potential conflict of interests within the development group.

The cost-effectiveness of quality improvement projects: a conceptual framework, checklist and online tool for considering the costs and consequences of implementation-based quality improvement

In resource constrained systems, decision makers should be concerned with the efficiency of implementing improvement techniques and technologies. Accordingly, they should consider both the costs and effectiveness of implementation as well as the cost-effectiveness of the innovation to be implemented. An approach to doing this effectively is encapsulated in the 'policy cost-effectiveness' approach. This paper outlines some of the theoretical and practical challenges to assessing policy cost-effectiveness (the cost-effectiveness of implementation projects). A checklist and associated (freely available) online application are also presented to help services develop more cost-effective implementation strategies.

Acute low back pain management in primary care: a simulated patient approach

BACKGROUND

Recent medical guidelines for acute low back pain (aLBP) are unevenly followed. Based on financial criteria or associated with a desirability bias, studies incompletely describe the actual management provided by general practitioners (GPs) in terms of diagnosis, treatment and prevention of progression towards chronicity.

OBJECTIVE

To compare actual practices of French GPs for aLBP management with clinical guidelines.

METHODS

A young simulated patient (SP) consulted, using a single scenario of aLBP, in 30 primary care practices in the Paris region.

RESULTS

Heterogeneous data were collected according to the grid items: during the questioning, 29 GPs (97%) asked for age and 1 GP (3%) for pregnancy; during the clinical examination, 21 GPs (70%) asked for spinal stiffness and 3 GPs (10%) for cauda equina syndrome. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were prescribed by 27 GPs (90%). Imaging (2 GPs or 7%) and physiotherapy (3 GPs or 10%) was rarely prescribed. A sick leave was prescribed by 22 GPs (73%). Twenty-seven GPs (90%) reassured the patient.

CONCLUSION

aLBP management was in line with international guidelines in terms of clinical examination, physiotherapy and imaging prescriptions and some risk factors for chronicity were taken into account. However, patient questioning was brief, and drug and sick leave prescriptions did not meet international guidelines. The SP approach seems to be a useful tool for assessing actual GP practices.

Identifying priorities in knowledge translation from the perspective of trainees: results from an online survey

Background

The need to identify priorities to help shape future directions for research and practice increases as the knowledge translation (KT) field advances. Since many KT trainees are developing their research programs, understanding their concerns and KT research and practice priorities is important to supporting the development and advancement of KT as a field. Our purpose was to identify research and practice priorities in the KT field from the perspectives of KT researcher/practitioner trainees.

Findings

Survey response rate was 62 % (44/71). Participants were mostly Canadian graduate students, post-doctoral fellows, residents, and learners from various disciplines; the majority was from Ontario (44 %) and Quebec (20 %). Seven percent (5/71) were from other countries including USA, UK, and Switzerland. Seven main KT priority themes were identified: determining the effectiveness of KT strategies, technology use, increased key stakeholder involvement, context, theory, expand ways of inquiry, and sustainability.

Conclusions

Overall, the priorities identified by the trainees correspond with KT literature and with KT experts’ views. The trainees appeared to push the boundaries of current KT literature with respect to creative use of communication technologies research.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0282-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cost and feasibility: an exploratory case study comparing use of a literature review method with questionnaires, interviews and focus groups to identify barriers for a behaviour-change intervention

BACKGROUND

It is often recommended that behaviour-change interventions be tailored to barriers. There is a scarcity of research into the best method of barrier identification, although combining methods has been suggested to be beneficial. This paper compares the feasibility and costs of three different methods of barrier identification used in three implementation projects conducted in primary care.

METHODS

Underpinned by a theory-base, project one used a questionnaire and interviews; project two used a single focus group and questionnaire, and project three used a literature review of published barriers. The feasibility of each project, as experienced by the research team, and labour costs are summarised.

RESULTS

The literature review of published barriers was the least costly and most feasible method, being quick to conduct and avoiding the challenges of recruitment experienced when using interviews or a questionnaire. The feasibility of using questionnaires was further reduced by the time taken to develop the instruments. Conducting a single focus group was also found to be a more feasible method, taking less time than interviews to collect and analyse the barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the ease of recruitment, time required and cost of the different methods to collect barriers is crucial at the start of implementation studies. The literature review method is the least costly and most feasible method. Use of a single focus group was found to be more feasible than conducting individual interviews or administering a questionnaire, with less recruitment challenges experienced, and quicker data collection. Future research would benefit from comparing the robustness of the methods in terms of the comprehensiveness of barriers identified.

A detailed report of the resource use and costs associated with implementation of a short stay programme for breast cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Despite the increased attention for assessing the effectiveness of implementation strategies, most implementation studies provide little or no information on its associated costs. The focus of the current study was to provide a detailed report of the resource use and costs associated with implementation of a short stay programme for breast cancer surgery in four Dutch hospitals.

METHODS

The analysis was performed alongside a multi-centre implementation study. The process of identification, measurement and valuation of the implementation activities was based on recommendations for the design, analysis and reporting of health technology assessments. A scoring form was developed to prospectively determine the implementation activities at professional and implementation expert level. A time horizon of 5 years was used to calculate the implementation costs per patient.

RESULTS

Identified activities were consisted of development and execution of the implementation strategy during the implementation project. Total implementation costs over the four hospitals were €83.293. Mean implementation costs, calculated for 660 patients treated over a period of 5 years, were €25 per patient. Subgroup analyses showed that the implementation costs ranged from €3.942 to €32.000 on hospital level. From a local hospital perspective, overall implementation costs were €21 per patient, after exclusion of the costs made by the expert centre.

CONCLUSIONS

We provided a detailed case description of how implementation costs can be determined. Notable differences in implementation costs between hospitals were observed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN

ISRCTN77253391.

Critical Appraisal of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Age-Related Macular Degeneration

Purpose. To evaluate the methodological quality of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Methods. AMD CPGs published by the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) and Royal College of Ophthalmologists (RCO) were appraised by independent reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument, which comprises six domains (Scope and Purpose, Stakeholder Involvement, Rigor of Development, Clarity of Presentation, Applicability, and Editorial Independence), and an Overall Assessment score summarizing methodological quality across all domains. Results. Average domain scores ranged from 35% to 83% for the AAO CPG and from 17% to 83% for the RCO CPG. Intraclass correlation coefficients for the reliability of mean scores for the AAO and RCO CPGs were 0.74 and 0.88, respectively. The strongest domains were Scope and Purpose and Clarity of Presentation. The weakest were Stakeholder Involvement (AAO) and Editorial Independence (RCO). Conclusions. Future AMD CPGs can be improved by involving all relevant stakeholders in guideline development, ensuring transparency of guideline development and review methodology, improving guideline applicability with respect to economic considerations, and addressing potential conflict of interests within the development group.

Implementation science: a reappraisal of our journal mission and scope

The implementation of research findings into healthcare practice has become increasingly recognised as a major priority for researchers, service providers, research funders and policymakers over the past decade. Nine years after its establishment, Implementation Science, an international online open access journal, currently publishes over 150 articles each year. This is fewer than 30% of those submitted for publication. The majority of manuscript rejections occur at the point of initial editorial screening, frequently because we judge them to fall outside of journal scope. There are a number of common reasons as to why manuscripts are rejected on grounds of scope. Furthermore, as the field of implementation research has evolved and our journal submissions have risen, we have, out of necessity, had to become more selective in what we publish. We have also expanded our scope, particularly around patient-mediated and population health interventions, and will monitor the impact of such changes. We hope this editorial on our evolving priorities and common reasons for rejection without peer review will help authors to better judge the relevance of their papers to Implementation Science.

Clinical guidelines on hyperlipidaemia: recent developments, future challenges and the need for an Australian review

Large reductions in cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality have been achieved over the last 50 years in developed countries. The health policies that have contributed so much to this success have largely been coordinated by means of expert guidelines for the management of the classic modifiable risk factors such as blood pressure, diabetes and blood lipids. National and international guidelines for lipid management have demonstrated a high degree of consistency between numerous sets of recommendations. It has been argued that some important components of the consensus that has been established over the past decade have been challenged by the latest guidelines of the American Heart Association - American College of Cardiologists (AHA-ACC). Clinicians can be reassured that continued reliance on extensive scientific evidence has reaffirmed the importance of lipid metabolism as a modifiable risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. On the other hand, the recent AHA-ACC guidelines suggest changes in the strategies by which metabolic risk factors may be modified. This small number of important changes should not be sensationalised because these differences usefully reflect the need for guidelines to evolve to accommodate different contexts and changing perspectives as well as emerging issues and new information for which clinical trial evidence is incomplete. This article will consider the recent policies and responses of national and supranational organisations on topics including components of CVD risk assessment, sources of CVD risk information and re-appraisal of lipid-lowering interventions. Timely review of Australian lipid management guidelines will require consideration of these issues because they are creating a new context within which new guidelines must evolve.

Economic evaluation of implementation strategies in health care

Economic evaluations can inform decisions about the efficiency and allocation of resources to implementation strategies—strategies explicitly designed to inform care providers and patients about the best available research evidence and to enhance its use in their practices. These strategies are increasingly popular in health care, especially in light of growing concerns about quality of care and limits on resources. But such concerns have hardly motivated health authorities and other decision-makers to spend on some form of economic evaluation in their assessments of implementation strategies. This editorial addresses the importance of economic evaluation in the context of implementation science—particularly, how these analyses can be most efficiently incorporated into decision-making processes about implementation strategies.

Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC): protocol for a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Identifying feasible and effective implementation strategies that are contextually appropriate is a challenge for researchers and implementers, exacerbated by the lack of conceptual clarity surrounding terms and definitions for implementation strategies, as well as a literature that provides imperfect guidance regarding how one might select strategies for a given healthcare quality improvement effort. In this study, we will engage an Expert Panel comprising implementation scientists and mental health clinical managers to: establish consensus on a common nomenclature for implementation strategy terms, definitions and categories; and develop recommendations to enhance the match between implementation strategies selected to facilitate the use of evidence-based programs and the context of certain service settings, in this case the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) mental health services.

METHODS/DESIGN

This study will use purposive sampling to recruit an Expert Panel comprising implementation science experts and VA mental health clinical managers. A novel, four-stage sequential mixed methods design will be employed. During Stage 1, the Expert Panel will participate in a modified Delphi process in which a published taxonomy of implementation strategies will be used to establish consensus on terms and definitions for implementation strategies. In Stage 2, the panelists will complete a concept mapping task, which will yield conceptually distinct categories of implementation strategies as well as ratings of the feasibility and effectiveness of each strategy. Utilizing the common nomenclature developed in Stages 1 and 2, panelists will complete an innovative menu-based choice task in Stage 3 that involves matching implementation strategies to hypothetical implementation scenarios with varying contexts. This allows for quantitative characterizations of the relative necessity of each implementation strategy for a given scenario. In Stage 4, a live web-based facilitated expert recommendation process will be employed to establish expert recommendations about which implementations strategies are essential for each phase of implementation in each scenario.

DISCUSSION

Using a novel method of selecting implementation strategies for use within specific contexts, this study contributes to our understanding of implementation science and practice by sharpening conceptual distinctions among a comprehensive collection of implementation strategies.

A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review examines experimental studies that test the effectiveness of strategies intended to integrate empirically supported mental health interventions into routine care settings. Our goal was to characterize the state of the literature and to provide direction for future implementation studies.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using electronic databases and a manual search.

RESULTS

Eleven studies were identified that tested implementation strategies with a randomized (n = 10) or controlled clinical trial design (n = 1). The wide range of clinical interventions, implementation strategies, and outcomes evaluated precluded meta-analysis. However, the majority of studies (n = 7; 64%) found a statistically significant effect in the hypothesized direction for at least one implementation or clinical outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a clear need for more rigorous research on the effectiveness of implementation strategies, and we provide several suggestions that could improve this research area.

Reducing patients' suicide ideation through training mental health teams in the application of the Dutch multidisciplinary practice guideline on assessment and treatment of suicidal behavior: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial

Background

To strengthen suicide prevention skills in mental health care in The Netherlands, multidisciplinary teams throughout the country are trained in the application of the new Dutch guideline on the assessment and treatment of suicidal behavior. Previous studies have shown beneficial effects of additional efforts for guideline implementation on professionals’ attitude, knowledge, and skills. However, the effects on patients are equally important, but are rarely measured. The main objective of this study is to examine whether patients of multidisciplinary teams who are trained in guideline application show greater recovery from suicide ideation than patients of untrained teams.

Methods/Design

This is a multicentre cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT), in which multidisciplinary teams from mental health care institutions are matched in pairs, and randomly allocated to either the experimental or control condition. In the experimental condition, next to the usual dissemination of the guideline (internet, newsletter, books, publications, and congresses), teams will be trained in the application of the guideline via a 1-day small interactive group training program supported by e-learning modules. In the control condition, no additional actions next to usual dissemination of the guideline will be undertaken.

Assessments at patient level will start when the experimental teams are trained. Assessments will take place upon admission and after 3 months, or earlier if the patient is discharged. The primary outcome is suicide ideation. Secondary outcomes are non-fatal suicide attempts, level of treatment satisfaction, and societal costs. Both a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis will be performed. The effects of the intervention will be examined in multilevel models.

Discussion

The strengths of this study are the size of the study, RCT design, training of complete multidisciplinary teams, and the willingness of both management and staff to participate.

Trial registration

Netherlands trial register: NTR3092

Economic evaluation of active implementation versus guideline dissemination for evidence-based care of acute low-back pain in a general practice setting

INTRODUCTION

The development and publication of clinical practice guidelines for acute low-back pain has resulted in evidence-based recommendations that have the potential to improve the quality and safety of care for acute low-back pain. Development and dissemination of guidelines may not, however, be sufficient to produce improvements in clinical practice; further investment in active implementation of guideline recommendations may be required. Further research is required to quantify the trade-off between the additional upfront cost of active implementation of guideline recommendations for low-back pain and any resulting improvements in clinical practice.

METHODS

Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside the IMPLEMENT trial from a health sector perspective to compare active implementation of guideline recommendations via the IMPLEMENT intervention (plus standard dissemination) against standard dissemination alone.

RESULTS

The base-case analysis suggests that delivery of the IMPLEMENT intervention dominates standard dissemination (less costly and more effective), yielding savings of $135 per x-ray referral avoided (-$462.93/3.43). However, confidence intervals around point estimates for the primary outcome suggest that--irrespective of willingness to pay (WTP)--we cannot be at least 95% confident that the IMPLEMENT intervention differs in value from standard dissemination.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrate that moving beyond development and dissemination to active implementation entails a significant additional upfront investment that may not be offset by health gains and/or reductions in health service utilization of sufficient magnitude to render active implementation cost-effective.

The nursing work of hospital-based clinical practice guideline implementation: an explanatory systematic review using Normalisation Process Theory

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the dynamics of nurses' work in implementing Clinical Practice Guidelines.

DESIGN

Hybrid: systematic review techniques used to identify qualitative studies of clinical guideline implementation; theory-led and structured analysis of textual data.

DATA SOURCES

CINAHL, CSA Illumina, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Sociological Abstracts.

METHODS

Systematic review of qualitative studies of the implementation of Clinical Practice Guidelines, analysed using Directed Content Analysis, and interpreted in the light of Normalisation Process Theory.

RESULTS

Seven studies met the inclusion criteria of the review. These revealed that clinical practice guidelines are disposed to normalisation when: (a) They are associated with activities that practitioners can make workable in practice, and practitioners are able to integrate it into their collective workflow. (b) When they are differentiated from existing clinical practice by its proponents, and when claims of differentiation are regarded as legitimate by their potential users. (c) When they are associated with an emergent community of practice, and when members of that community of practice enrol each other into group processes that specify their engagement with it. (d) When they are associated with improvements in the collective knowledge of its users, and when users are able to integrate the application of that knowledge into their individual workflow. And, (e) when nurses can minimise disruption to behaviour norms and agreed professional roles, and mobilise structural and cognitive resources in ways that build shared commitments across professional boundaries.

CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrates the feasibility and benefits of theory-led review of studies of nursing practice, and proposes a dynamic model of implementation. Normalisation Process Theory supports the analysis of nursing work. It characterises mechanisms by which work is made coherent and meaningful, is formed around sets of relational commitments, is enacted and contextualised, and is appraised and reconfigured. It facilitates such analysis from within the frame of nursing knowledge and practice itself.

Assessing the effectiveness of strategies to implement clinical guidelines for the management of chronic diseases at primary care level in EU Member States: a systematic review

PURPOSE AND SETTING

This review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of strategies to implement clinical guidelines for chronic disease management in primary care in EU Member States.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of interventional studies assessing the implementation of clinical guidelines. We searched five databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Eppi-Centre and Clinicaltrials.gov) following a strict Cochrane methodology. We included studies focusing on the management of chronic diseases in adults in primary care.

RESULTS

A total of 21 studies were found. The implementation strategy was fully effective in only four (19%), partially effective in eight (38%), and not effective in nine (43%). The probability that an intervention would be effective was only slightly higher with multifaceted strategies, compared to single interventions. However, effect size varied across studies; therefore it was not possible to determine the most successful strategy. Only eight studies evaluated the impact on patients' health and only two of those showed significant improvement, while in five there was an improvement in the process of care which did not translate into an improvement in health outcomes. Only four studies reported any data on the cost of the implementation but none undertook a cost-effectiveness analysis. Only one study presented data on the barriers to the implementation of guidelines, noting a lack of awareness and agreement about clinical guidelines.

CONCLUSION

Our results reveal that there are only a few rigorous studies which assess the effectiveness of a strategy to implement clinical guidelines in Europe. Moreover, the results are not consistent in showing which strategy is the most appropriate to facilitate their implementation. Therefore, further research is needed to develop more rigorous studies to evaluate health outcomes associated with the implementation of clinical guidelines; to assess the cost-effectiveness of implementing clinical guidelines; and to investigate the perspective of service users and health service staff.

A multifaceted intervention to improve the quality of care of children in district hospitals in Kenya: a cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

To improve care for children in district hospitals in Kenya, a multifaceted approach employing guidelines, training, supervision, feedback, and facilitation was developed, for brevity called the Emergency Triage and Treatment Plus (ETAT+) strategy. We assessed the cost effectiveness of the ETAT+ strategy, in Kenyan hospitals. Further, we estimate the costs of scaling up the intervention to Kenya nationally and potential cost effectiveness at scale.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Our cost-effectiveness analysis from the provider's perspective used data from a previously reported cluster randomized trial comparing the full ETAT+ strategy (n = 4 hospitals) with a partial intervention (n = 4 hospitals). Effectiveness was measured using 14 process measures that capture improvements in quality of care; their average was used as a summary measure of quality. Economic costs of the development and implementation of the intervention were determined (2009 US$). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were defined as the incremental cost per percentage improvement in (average) quality of care. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to assess uncertainty. The cost per child admission was US$50.74 (95% CI 49.26-67.06) in intervention hospitals compared to US$31.1 (95% CI 30.67-47.18) in control hospitals. Each percentage improvement in average quality of care cost an additional US$0.79 (95% CI 0.19-2.31) per admitted child. The estimated annual cost of nationally scaling up the full intervention was US$3.6 million, approximately 0.6% of the annual child health budget in Kenya. A "what-if" analysis assuming conservative reductions in mortality suggests the incremental cost per disability adjusted life year (DALY) averted by scaling up would vary between US$39.8 and US$398.3.

CONCLUSION

Improving quality of care at scale nationally with the full ETAT+ strategy may be affordable for low income countries such as Kenya. Resultant plausible reductions in hospital mortality suggest the intervention could be cost-effective when compared to incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of other priority child health interventions.

FIRE (Facilitating Implementation of Research Evidence): a study protocol

BACKGROUND

Research evidence underpins best practice, but is not always used in healthcare. The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework suggests that the nature of evidence, the context in which it is used, and whether those trying to use evidence are helped (or facilitated) affect the use of evidence. Urinary incontinence has a major effect on quality of life of older people, has a high prevalence, and is a key priority within European health and social care policy. Improving continence care has the potential to improve the quality of life for older people and reduce the costs associated with providing incontinence aids.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to advance understanding about the contribution facilitation can make to implementing research findings into practice via: extending current knowledge of facilitation as a process for translating research evidence into practice; evaluating the feasibility, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of two different models of facilitation in promoting the uptake of research evidence on continence management; assessing the impact of contextual factors on the processes and outcomes of implementation; and implementing a pro-active knowledge transfer and dissemination strategy to diffuse study findings to a wide policy and practice community.

SETTING AND SAMPLE

Four European countries, each with six long-term nursing care sites (total 24 sites) for people aged 60 years and over with documented urinary incontinence

METHODS AND DESIGN

Pragmatic randomised controlled trial with three arms (standard dissemination and two different programmes of facilitation), with embedded process and economic evaluation. The primary outcome is compliance with the continence recommendations. Secondary outcomes include proportion of residents with incontinence, incidence of incontinence-related dermatitis, urinary tract infections, and quality of life. Outcomes are assessed at baseline, then at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after the start of the facilitation interventions. Detailed contextual and process data are collected throughout, using interviews with staff, residents and next of kin, observations, assessment of context using the Alberta Context Tool, and documentary evidence. A realistic evaluation framework is used to develop explanatory theory about what works for whom in what circumstances.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11598502.

Harnessing the prevention benefits of antiretroviral therapy to address HIV and tuberculosis

After 30 years we are still struggling to address a devastating HIV pandemic in which over 25 million people have died. In 2010, an estimated 34 million people were living with HIV, around 70% of whom live in sub-Saharan Africa. Furthermore, in 2009 there were an estimated 1.2 million new HIV-associated TB cases, and tuberculosis (TB) accounted for 24% of HIV-related deaths. By the end of 2010, 6.6 million people were taking antiretroviral therapy (ART), around 42% of those in need as defined by the 2010 World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. Despite this achievement, around 9 million people were eligible and still in need of treatment, and new infections (approximately 2.6 million in 2010 alone) continue to add to the future caseload. This combined with the international fiscal crisis has led to a growing concern regarding weakening of the international commitment to universal access and delivery of the Millennium Development Goals by 2015. The recently launched UNAIDS/WHO Treatment 2.0 platform calls for accelerated simplification of ART, in line with a public health approach, to achieve and sustain universal access to ART, including maximizing the HIV and TB preventive benefit of ART by treating people earlier, in line with WHO 2010 normative guidance. The potential individual and public health prevention benefits of using treatment in the prevention of HIV and TB enhance the value of the universal access pledge from a life-saving initiative, to a strategic investment aimed at ending the HIV epidemic. This review analyzes the gaps and summarizes the evidence regarding ART in the prevention of HIV and TB.