Economic evaluation of implementation science outcomes in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review

Abstract

Background Historically, the focus of cost-effectiveness analyses has been on the costs to operate and deliver interventions after their initial design and launch. The costs related to design and implementation of interventions have often been omitted. Ignoring these costs leads to an underestimation of the true price of interventions and biases economic analyses toward favoring new interventions. This is especially true in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where implementation may require substantial up-front investment. This scoping review was conducted to explore the topics, depth, and availability of scientific literature on integrating implementation science into economic evaluations of health interventions in LMICs. Methods We searched Web of Science and PubMed for papers published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2021, that included components of both implementation science and economic evaluation. Studies from LMICs were prioritized for review, but papers from high-income countries were included if their methodology/findings were relevant to LMIC settings. Results Six thousand nine hundred eighty-six studies were screened, of which 55 were included in full-text review and 23 selected for inclusion and data extraction. Most papers were theoretical, though some focused on a single disease or disease subset, including: mental health (n = 5), HIV (n = 3), tuberculosis (n = 3), and diabetes (n = 2). Manuscripts included a mix of methodology papers, empirical studies, and other (e.g., narrative) reviews. Authorship of the included literature was skewed toward high-income settings, with 22 of the 23 papers featuring first and senior authors from high-income countries. Of nine empirical studies included, no consistent implementation cost outcomes were measured, and only four could be mapped to an existing costing or implementation framework. There was also substantial heterogeneity across studies in how implementation costs were defined, and the methods used to collect them. Conclusion A sparse but growing literature explores the intersection of implementation science and economic evaluation. Key needs include more research in LMICs, greater consensus on the definition of implementation costs, standardized methods to collect such costs, and identifying outcomes of greatest relevance. Addressing these gaps will result in stronger links between implementation science and economic evaluation and will create more robust and accurate estimates of intervention costs. Trial registration The protocol for this manuscript was published on the Open Science Framework. It is available at: https://osf.io/ms5fa/ (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/32EPJ).

A cost description of the setup costs of community-owned maternity waiting homes in rural Zambia

“…A recently published review detailed the dearth of economic analyses for implementation science research. There is very little published knowledge about implementation cost descriptions and outcomes [ 39 ]. Prior to this study, there has been little research or guidance for implementers on the initial investment costs needed to set up MWHs, or the costs per outcome.…”

Developing a Program Costs Checklist of Digital Health Interventions: A Scoping Review and Empirical Case Study

“…Similarly, frameworks developed for complex interventions have also not sufficiently addressed program cost estimation [ 17 – 20 ]. Methodological guidance is emerging for specific cost components, such as implementation costs of public health programs [ 21 , 22 ], but this cannot account for the full breadth of program costs of DHIs. Therefore, the existing scientific literature is insufficient to help standardize the estimation and reporting of program costs of DHIs.…”

Psychometric testing of the Chinese National Health Service Sustainability Model as an instrument to assess innovation in Chinese nursing settings

“…Healthcare organizations are constantly using EBP to enhance the quality of care and improve patient outcomes (Lennox et al, 2018; Zhao et al, 2022). Nevertheless, a scoping review has pointed out that implementing improvements or innovations in low‐ and middle‐income countries requires a substantial investment of resources (Malhotra et al, 2022). Some studies have suggested that most improvements or innovations decline over time, resulting in wasted benefits including time and financial investment (Lennox et al, 2020; Proctor et al, 2015).…”