Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34863315›Full record

ArticleImplementation science communications2021

Moving beyond Aim Three: a need for a transdisciplinary approach to build capacity for economic evaluations in implementation science.

Miya L Barnett, Nicole A Stadnick, Enola K Proctor, Alex R Dopp, Lisa Saldana

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science communications, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

5 authors.

Miya L BarnettDepartment of Counseling, Clinical, & School Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, 93106-9490, USA. mbarnett@ucsb.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2359-9998
Nicole A StadnickDepartment of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 92093, USA.
Enola K ProctorBrown School, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive, Campus Box 1196, St. Louis, MO, 63130, USA.
Alex R DoppDepartment of Behavioral and Policy Sciences, RAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA, 90401, 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
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA044745
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnderstanding the costs and economic benefits of implementation has been identified by policymakers and researchers as critical to increase the uptake and sustainment of evidence-based practices, but this topic remains relatively understudied. Conducting team science with health economists has been proposed as a solution to increase economic evaluation in implementation science; however, these recommendations ignore the differences in goals and perspectives in these two fields. Our recent qualitative research identified that implementation researchers predominantly approach health economists to examine costs, whereas the majority of health economists expressed limited interest in conducting economic evaluations and a desire to be more integrated within implementation science initiatives. These interviews pointed to challenges in establishing fruitful partnerships when health economists are relegated to the "Third Aim" (i.e., lowest-priority research objective) in implementation science projects by their research partners. DISCUSSION: In this debate paper, we argue that implementation researchers and health economists need to focus on team science research principles to expand capacity to address pressing research questions that cut across the two fields. Specifically, we use the four-phase model of transdisciplinary research to outline the goals and processes needed to build capacity in this area (Hall et al., Transl Behav Med 2:415-30, 2012). The first phase focuses on the development of transdisciplinary research teams, including identifying appropriate partners (e.g., considering policy or public health researchers in addition to health economists) and building trust. The conceptual phase focuses on strategies to consider when developing joint research questions and methodology across fields. In the implementation phase, we outline the effective processes for conducting research projects, such as team learning. Finally, in the translation phase, we highlight how a transdisciplinary approach between health economists and implementation researchers can impact real-world practice and policy. The importance of investigating the economic impact of evidence-based practice implementation is widely recognized, but efforts have been limited due to the challenges in conducting team science across disciplines. Training in team science can help advance transdisciplinary efforts, which has the potential to increase the rigor and impact of economic evaluations in implementation science while expanding the roles taken by health economists.

Indexed as

Capacity buildingEconomic evaluationHealth economicsTeam science

Identifiers

PMID34863315
PMCPMC8642890

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.