The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Economic evaluation in implementation science: Making the business case for implementation strategies
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“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.”
From Translating economic evaluations into financing strategies for implementing evidence-based practices (2021) · cites this paper as [9]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Damschroder, L. J., Aron, D. C., Keith, R. E., Kirsh, S. R., Alexander, J. A., & Lowery, J. C. (2009) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-50 · Cited by 14,496
Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes
Drummond, M. E., Sculpher, M. J., Torrance, G. W., O’Brien, B. J., & Stoddart, G. L. (2005) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198529446.001.0001 · Cited by 13,648
Proctor, E., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., Hovmand, P., Aarons, G., Bunger, A., Griffey, R., & Hensley, M. (2011) · Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research · doi:10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7 · Cited by 8,721
Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine
(1996) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195108248.001.0001 · Cited by 7,193
Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes
Wilson, S. (1987) · Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech.41.4.355-a · Cited by 4,312
Advancing a Conceptual Model of Evidence-Based Practice Implementation in Public Service Sectors
Aarons, G. A., Hurlburt, M., & Horwitz, S. M. (2011) · Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research · doi:10.1007/s10488-010-0327-7 · Cited by 3,240
Sanders, G. D., Neumann, P. J., Basu, A., Brock, D. W., Feeny, D., Krahn, M., Kuntz, K. M., Meltzer, D. O., Owens, D. K., Prosser, L. A., et al. (2016) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2016.12195 · Cited by 3,069
Implementation strategies: recommendations for specifying and reporting
Proctor, E. K., Powell, B. J., & McMillen, J. C. (2013) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-8-139 · Cited by 2,585
Welcome to Implementation Science
Eccles, M. P., & Mittman, B. S. (2006) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-1-1 · Cited by 2,254
An introduction to implementation science for the non-specialist
Bauer, M. S., Damschroder, L. J., Hagedorn, H., Smith, J. L., & Kilbourne, A. M. (2015) · BMC Psychology · doi:10.1186/s40359-015-0089-9 · Cited by 2,168
Self-citation
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Understanding and applying the RE-AIM framework: Clarifications and resources
Holtrop, J. S., Estabrooks, P. A., Gaglio, B., Harden, S. M., Kessler, R. S., King, D. K., Kwan, B. M., Ory, M. G., Rabin, B. A., Shelton, R. C., et al. (2021) · Journal of Clinical and Translational Science · doi:10.1017/cts.2021.789 · Cited by 549
Stover, A. M., Haverman, L., van Oers, H. A., Greenhalgh, J., Potter, C., Ahmed, S., Greenhalgh, J., Gibbons, E. J., Haverman, L., Manalili, K., et al. (2020) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-020-02564-9 · Cited by 313
Reflections on 10 years of effectiveness-implementation hybrid studies
Curran, G. M., Landes, S. J., McBain, S. A., Pyne, J. M., Smith, J. D., Fernandez, M. E., Chambers, D. A., & Mittman, B. S. (2022) · Frontiers in Health Services · doi:10.3389/frhs.2022.1053496 · Cited by 299
Implementation strategies for digital mental health interventions in health care settings.
Graham, A. K., Lattie, E. G., Powell, B. J., Lyon, A. R., Smith, J. D., Schueller, S. M., Stadnick, N. A., Brown, C. H., & Mohr, D. C. (2020) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/amp0000686 · Cited by 236
Beidas, R. S., Dorsey, S., Lewis, C. C., Lyon, A. R., Powell, B. J., Purtle, J., Saldana, L., Shelton, R. C., Stirman, S. W., & Lane-Fall, M. B. (2022) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-022-01226-3 · Cited by 230
Self-citation
Metadata
- 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)
- PMC
- PMC6898762
- OpenAlex
- W2952330955
- Cited by
- 210
- References
- 50
- Citations by year
- 2026: 21 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 12
- FWCI
- 3.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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 › Public Administration › 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
