Collaborating with health economists to advance implementation science: a qualitative study

Abstract

Background Implementation research infrequently addresses economic factors, despite the importance of understanding the costs of implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs). Though partnerships with health economists have the potential to increase attention to economic factors within implementation science, barriers to forming these collaborations have been noted. This study investigated the experiences of health economists and implementation researchers who have partnered across disciplines to inform strategies to increase such collaborations. Methods A purposeful sampling approach was used to identify eight health economists and eight implementation researchers with experience participating in cross-disciplinary research. We used semi-structured interviews to gather information about participants’ experiences with collaborative research. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify core themes related to facilitators and barriers to collaborations. Results Health economists and implementation researchers voiced different perspectives on collaborative research, highlighting the importance of increasing cross-disciplinary understanding. Implementation researchers described a need to measure costs in implementation studies, whereas many health economists described that they seek to collaborate on projects that extend beyond conducting cost analyses. Researchers in both disciplines articulated motivations for collaborative research and identified strategies that promote successful collaboration, with varying degrees of convergence across these themes. Shared motivations included improving methodological rigor of research and making a real-world impact. Strategies to improve collaboration included starting partnerships early in the study design period, having a shared interest, and including health economists in the larger scope of the research. Conclusions Health economists and implementation researchers both conduct research with significant policy implications and have the potential to inform one another’s work in ways that might more rapidly advance the uptake of EBPs. Collaborative research between health economists and implementation science has the potential to advance the field; however, researchers will need to work to bridge disciplinary differences. By beginning to develop strong working relationships; increasing their understanding of one another’s disciplinary culture, methodology, and language; and increasing the role economists have within research design and execution, both implementation researchers and health economists can support successful collaborations and robust and informative research.

A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance

“…Economic evaluation—the comparative analysis of alternative courses of action in terms of both costs (resource use) and consequences (outcomes, effects)—should be a core component of all phases of intervention research. Early engagement of economic expertise will help identify the scope of costs and benefits to assess in order to answer questions that matter most to decision makers 50. Broad ranging approaches such as cost benefit analysis or cost consequence analysis, which seek to capture the full range of health and non-health costs and benefits across different sectors,51 will often be more suitable for an economic evaluation of a complex intervention than narrower approaches such as cost effectiveness or cost utility analysis.…”

Value of peer mentoring for early career professional, research, and personal development: a case study of implementation scientists

“…Based on our collective experiences, we offer examples of how peer mentoring activities have benefitted the authors, their institutions, and funders. We consulted and collaborated with one another around the development and submission of multiple published manuscripts and grant proposals that have been submitted or funded (e.g., Barnett et al 2020, 22 Dickson et al, 2020, 23 Graham et al, 2020 24 ). We also supported other professional development activities, including serving as guest lecturers or invited speakers at each other's institutions, nominating one another for professional awards and leadership roles in professional societies, and presenting together at conferences.…”

Future Directions in Lay Health Worker Involvement in Children’s Mental Health Services in the U.S.

“…Others have proposed bundled payments, which focus on quality rather than quantity care within a system as a way to cover LHW salary and benefits (Srivastav et al, 2017). Research on financing strategies for LHWs likely requires a team science approach, with expertise from implementation science, health services, and health economics (Barnett, Dopp, et al, 2020). This area of research is urgent because without financing solutions, it is unlikely that LHW models of care will be able to adopted and sustained to a level that impacts public health.…”