Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33005901›Full record

ArticleImplementation science communications2020

Collaborating with health economists to advance implementation science: a qualitative study.

Miya L Barnett, Alex R Dopp, Corinna Klein, Susan L Ettner, Byron J Powell, Lisa Saldana

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science communications, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The Evolving Economics of Implementation.BMJ quality & safety · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Future Directions in Lay Health Worker Involvement in Children's Mental Health Services in the U.S.Journal of clinical child and adolescent psychology : the official journal for the Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, American Psychological Association, Division 53
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Miya L BarnettDepartment of Counseling, Clinical, & School Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, 93106-9490 USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2359-9998
Alex R DoppDepartment of Behavioral and Policy Sciences, RAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 USA.
Corinna KleinDepartment of Counseling, Clinical, & School Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, 93106-9490 USA.
Susan L EttnerDivision of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA.
Byron J PowellBrown School, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive, Campus Box 1196, St. Louis, MO 63130 USA.
Lisa SaldanaOregon Social Learning Center, 10 Shelton McMurphey Blvd, Eugene, OR 97401 USA.

Funding

Facilitating Sustainment Through Implementation Feedback: The SIC Coaching ModelR01DA044745 · NIDA · OREGON SOCIAL LEARNING CENTER, INC. · PI SALDANA, LISA · 2018 to 2022
$3.8M
IMPROVING THE IMPLEMENTATION AND SUSTAINMENT OF EBPS IN MENTAL HEALTH: DEVELOPING AND PILOTING THE COLLABORATIVE ORGANIZATIONAL APPROACH TO SELECTING AND TAILORING IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES (COAST-ISK01MH113806 · NIMH · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI POWELL, BYRON JAMES · 2017 to 2020
$697k
Lay Health Worker Mobilization to Address Disparities in Parent Training ServicesK01MH110608 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA · PI BARNETT, MIYA · 2017 to 2020
$600k
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA044745NIMH NIH HHS K01 MH110608NIMH NIH HHS K01 MH113806
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImplementation research infrequently addresses economic factors, despite the importance of understanding the costs of implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs). Though partnerships with health economists have the potential to increase attention to economic factors within implementation science, barriers to forming these collaborations have been noted. This study investigated the experiences of health economists and implementation researchers who have partnered across disciplines to inform strategies to increase such collaborations.

methodsA purposeful sampling approach was used to identify eight health economists and eight implementation researchers with experience participating in cross-disciplinary research. We used semi-structured interviews to gather information about participants' experiences with collaborative research. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify core themes related to facilitators and barriers to collaborations.

resultsHealth economists and implementation researchers voiced different perspectives on collaborative research, highlighting the importance of increasing cross-disciplinary understanding. Implementation researchers described a need to measure costs in implementation studies, whereas many health economists described that they seek to collaborate on projects that extend beyond conducting cost analyses. Researchers in both disciplines articulated motivations for collaborative research and identified strategies that promote successful collaboration, with varying degrees of convergence across these themes. Shared motivations included improving methodological rigor of research and making a real-world impact. Strategies to improve collaboration included starting partnerships early in the study design period, having a shared interest, and including health economists in the larger scope of the research.

conclusionsHealth economists and implementation researchers both conduct research with significant policy implications and have the potential to inform one another's work in ways that might more rapidly advance the uptake of EBPs. Collaborative research between health economists and implementation science has the potential to advance the field; however, researchers will need to work to bridge disciplinary differences. By beginning to develop strong working relationships; increasing their understanding of one another's disciplinary culture, methodology, and language; and increasing the role economists have within research design and execution, both implementation researchers and health economists can support successful collaborations and robust and informative research.

Indexed as

Economic evaluationHealth economicsTeam science

Identifiers

PMID33005901
PMCPMC7523377

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.