Design of Implementation Studies for Quality Improvement Programs: An Effectiveness–Cost-Effectiveness Framework
Open accessAbstract
Translational research applies basic science discoveries in clinical and community settings. Implementation research is often limited by tremendous variability among settings; therefore, generalization of findings may be limited. Adoption of a novel procedure in a community practice is usually a local decision guided by setting-specific knowledge. The conventional statistical framework that aims to produce generalizable knowledge is inappropriate for local quality improvement investigations. We propose an analytic framework based on cost-effectiveness of the implementation study design, taking into account prior knowledge from local experts. When prior knowledge does not indicate a clear preference between the new and standard procedures, local investigation should guide the choice. The proposed approach requires substantially smaller sample sizes than the conventional approach. Sample size formulae and general guidance are provided.
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?
Cheung and colleagues (2015) proposed SMART-AR, which updates strategy randomization probabilities using outcomes from other sites to improve expected outcomes.
“Cheung et al. (2015) propose a SMART design with adaptive randomization (SMART-AR) in which the randomization probabilities of the strategies are updated based on outcomes in other sites, so as to improve the expected outcome (28).”
From An Overview of Research and Evaluation Designs for Dissemination and Implementation (2017) · cites this paper as [28]
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 18 · Cited by 26
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [7]Institute of Medicine Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Heatlh System for the 21st Century Washington, DC National Academies Press 2001 25057539
- Authors
- Cheung, K., & Duan, N.
- Affiliations
- New York State Psychiatric Institute (US)
- Venue
- American Journal of Public Health
- Publisher
- American Public Health Association
- Published
- 2014-01
- Volume
- 104
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- e23-e30
- ISSN
- 0090-0036 (ISSN-L)
- 1541-0048
- PMC
- PMC3880412
- OpenAlex
- W2048505064
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 3.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- American Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (P30MH090322)
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS072127)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Keywords
- implementation research, quality improvement programs, cost-effectiveness, generalizability, translational research, community practice, local decision-making
- MeSH terms
- Cost-Benefit Analysis, Humans, Research Design, Program Development, Evidence-Based Medicine, Translational Research, Biomedical, Quality Improvement
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