Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35768106›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Scoping review of costs of implementation strategies in community, public health and healthcare settings.

Tzeyu L Michaud, Emiliane Pereira, Gwenndolyn Porter, Caitlin Golden, Jennie Hill, Jungyoon Kim, Hongmei Wang, Cindy Schmidt, Paul A Estabrooks

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Improvements in Capacity Among Community Coalitions Receiving Technical Assistance Through the Coalition Check-Up.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Cost-Effectiveness of Youth-Friendly Health Services in Health Post Settings in Jimma Zone, Ethiopia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

9 authors.

Tzeyu L MichaudDepartment of Health Promotion, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA tzeyu.michaud@unmc.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-2053-3942
Emiliane PereiraDepartment of Health Promotion, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
Gwenndolyn PorterDepartment of Health Promotion, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
Caitlin GoldenDepartment of Health Promotion, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
Jennie HillDepartment of Population Health Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Jungyoon KimDepartment of Health Services Research and Administration, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
Hongmei WangDepartment of Health Services Research and Administration, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
Cindy SchmidtMcGoogan Health Sciences Library, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
Paul A EstabrooksDepartment of Health and Kinesiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo identify existing evidence concerning the cost of dissemination and implementation (D&I) strategies in community, public health and health service research, mapped with the 'Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change' (ERIC) taxonomy.

designScoping review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify any English language reports that had been published between January 2008 and December 2019 concerning the cost of D&I strategies. DATA EXTRACTION: We matched the strategies identified in each article using ERIC taxonomies; further classified them into five areas (eg, dissemination, implementation, integration, capacity building and scale-up); and extracted the corresponding costs (total costs and cots per action target and per evidence-based programme (EBP) participant). We also recorded the reported level of costing methodology used for cost assessment of D&I strategies.

resultsOf the 6445 articles identified, 52 studies were eligible for data extraction. Lack of D&I strategy cost data was the predominant reason (55% of the excluded studies) for study exclusion. Predominant topic, setting, country and research design in the included studies were mental health (19%), primary care settings (44%), the US (35%) and observational (42%). Thirty-five (67%) studies used multicomponent D&I strategies (ranging from two to five discrete strategies). The most frequently applied strategies were

conclusionsThe quantity of published D&I strategy cost analyses is increasing, yet guidance on conducting and reporting of D&I strategy cost analysis is necessary to facilitate and promote the application of comparative economic evaluation in the field of D&I research.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CarePublic HealthCost-Benefit AnalysisHumanshealth economicsprotocols & guidelinespublic health

Identifiers

PMID35768106
PMCPMC9240875

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.