ArticleImplementation science communications2021
Moving beyond Aim Three: a need for a transdisciplinary approach to build capacity for economic evaluations in implementation science.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating health economics and implementation science: a call to action.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Investing in Infrastructure: A Mixed-Methods Cost Analysis of Implementation Strategies to Address Emerging Youth Drug Trends.Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs · 2026Article
- Using implementation mapping to optimize the impact of Universal School meals: a type III hybrid implementation-effectiveness study protocol.Implementation science communications · 2025Article
- Efficiency in health care: connecting economic evaluations with implementation objectives.Implementation science communications · 2025Article
- Development of an instrument (Cost-IS) to estimate costs of implementation strategies for digital health solutions: a modified e-Delphi study.Implementation science : IS · 2025Article
- Implementation Feasibility and Hidden Costs of Statewide Scaling of Evidence-Based Therapies for Children and Adolescents.Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) · 2024Review
- Using decision analysis to support implementation planning in research and practice.Implementation science communications · 2022Article
- Understanding implementation costs of a pediatric weight management intervention: an economic evaluation protocol.Implementation science communications · 2022Article
- Making Implementation Costing More Accessible: Initial Transdisciplinary Guidance for Researchers and Practitioners.Implementation research and practiceArticle
- Integrating Decision Science and Implementation Science to Inform Policy Decision Making.MDM policy & practiceReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.