Cost data in implementation science: categories and approaches to costing
Open accessAbstract
A lack of cost information has been cited as a barrier to implementation and a limitation of implementation research. This paper explains how implementation researchers might optimize their measurement and inclusion of costs, building on traditional economic evaluations comparing costs and effectiveness of health interventions. The objective of all economic evaluation is to inform decision-making for resource allocation and to measure costs that reflect opportunity costs—the value of resource inputs in their next best alternative use, which generally vary by decision-maker perspective(s) and time horizon(s). Analyses that examine different perspectives or time horizons must consider cost estimation accuracy, because over longer time horizons, all costs are variable; however, with shorter time horizons and narrower perspectives, one must differentiate the fixed and variable costs, with fixed costs generally excluded from the evaluation. This paper defines relevant costs, identifies sources of cost data, and discusses cost relevance to potential decision-makers contemplating or implementing evidence-based interventions. Costs may come from the healthcare sector, informal healthcare sector, patient, participant or caregiver, and other sectors such as housing, criminal justice, social services, and education. Finally, we define and consider the relevance of costs by phase of implementation and time horizon, including pre-implementation and planning, implementation, intervention, downstream, and adaptation, and through replication, sustainment, de-implementation, or spread.
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
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?
The review did not include implementation costs as an outcome because reporting guidelines have not been standardized.
“Further, we did not include implementation costs as an outcome because reporting guidelines have not been standardized [38, 39].”
From A systematic review of experimentally tested implementation strategies across health and human service settings: evidence from 2010-2022 (2024) · cites this paper as [39]
Rogal and colleagues documented that VA hospitals implementing a new evidence-based hepatitis C treatment chose more than 20 strategies, when multiple years of data linking strategies to outcomes showed that 1-3 specific strategies would have yielded the same outcome.
“Rogal and colleagues documented that VA hospitals implementing a new evidence-based hepatitis C treatment chose >20 strategies, when multiple years of data linking strategies to outcomes showed that 1-3 specific strategies would have yielded the same outcome [39].”
From A systematic review of experimentally tested implementation strategies across health and human service settings: evidence from 2010-2022 (2024) · cites this paper as [39]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 53 · Cited by 152
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [22]Neumann PJ Sanders GD Russell LB Siegel JE Ganiats TG Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine 2017 2 New York Oxford University Press
- [51]National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013: Process and Methods. 2013. https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/resources/guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pdf-2007975843781. Accessed 17 May 2021. 27905712
- Authors
- Gold, H. T., McDermott, C., Hoomans, T., & Wagner, T. H.
- Affiliations
- NYU Langone Health (US)
- University of Washington (US)
- London School of Economics and Political Science (GB)
- Stanford University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Gold, Heather T.
- Venue
- Implementation Science
- Published
- 2022-01-28
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 11-11
- ISSN
- 1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC8796347
- OpenAlex
- W4210269023
- Cited by
- 152
- References
- 53
- Citations by year
- 2026: 26 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 19
- FWCI
- 35.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (acceptedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Division of Cancer Control & Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute (75N91020P00665)
- 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
- cost data, implementation research, economic evaluation, opportunity cost, cost estimation accuracy, cost perspective, time horizon, fixed and variable costs, informal care, evidence-based interventions, implementation stages, de-implementation
- MeSH terms
- Implementation Science, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Criminal Law, Data Collection, Delivery of Health Care, Humans
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