Cited by 212Health Policy Implementation ScienceHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeEvaluation and Performance Assessment

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

Open access
Eisman, Andria B., Kilbourne, Amy M., Dopp, Alex R., Saldana, Lisa, Eisenberg, Daniel·2020·Psychiatry Research

Abstract

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 claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.psychres.2019.06.008

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Ongoing work is making economic evaluations more relevant to implementation, e.g., through increased use of budget impact analyses to characterize budget gaps.

    “Ongoing work is making economic evaluations more relevant to implementation (see [9])—e.g., through increased use of budget impact analyses to characterize budget gaps—but additional information is needed by key healthcare delivery and financing decision-makers.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 50 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Edejer T, Baltussen R, Adam T, Hutubessy R, Acharya A, Evans D, & Murray C (Series Ed.). (2003). Making Choices in Health: WHO Guide to Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
  2. Nathan PE, editor., & Gorman JM, editor. (2015). A guide to treatments that work / (Fourth edition., Vols. 1– 1 online resource.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, [2015]. U-M Catalog Search.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Eisman, A. B., Kilbourne, A. M., Dopp, A. R., Saldana, L., & Eisenberg, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • United States Department of Veterans Affairs (US)
  • University of Arkansas at Fayetteville (US)
  • Oregon Social Learning Center (US)
Corresponding author
Eisman, Andria B.
Venue
Psychiatry Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-01
Volume
283
Pages
112433
ISSN
0165-1781 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2952330955
Cited by
210
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 3
FWCI
3.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychiatry Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
Keywords
economic evaluation, implementation science, implementation strategies, return on investment, implementation costs, comparative economic analysis, cognitive behavioral therapy
MeSH terms
Implementation Science, Mental Disorders, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Mental Health, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Evidence-Based Practice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review