Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36153575›Full record

ArticleImplementation science communications2022

The economics of adaptations to evidence-based practices.

Ramzi G Salloum, Todd H Wagner, Amanda M Midboe, Sarah I Daniels, Andrew Quanbeck, David A Chambers

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science communications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Using community engagement withContemporary clinical trials communications · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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 at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Ramzi G SalloumDepartment of Health Outcomes and Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, University of Florida, 2004 Mowry Road, Room 2243, Gainesville, FL, 32610, USA. rsalloum@ufl.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8139-2418
Todd H WagnerPalo Alto Health Economics Research Center, Department of Veterans Affairs, Menlo Park, CA, USA.
Amanda M MidboeCenter for Innovation to Implementation, Palo Alto Health Care System, Department of Veterans Affairs, Menlo Park, CA, USA.
Sarah I DanielsCenter for Innovation to Implementation, Palo Alto Health Care System, Department of Veterans Affairs, Menlo Park, CA, USA.
Andrew QuanbeckDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health, School of Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
David A ChambersDivision of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA.
VA Palo Alto Health Care System · USNational Cancer Institute · USStanford University · USUniversity of Florida Health · USUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · US

Funding

Using social networks to map and evaluate team science across CTSA hubsUL1TR001427 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI MITCHELL, DUANE A. · 2015 to 2024
$37.2M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001427NCATS NIH HHS UL1TR001427
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence-based practices (EBPs) are frequently adapted in response to the dynamic contexts in which they are implemented. Adaptation is defined as the degree to which an EBP is altered to fit the setting or to improve fit to local context and can be planned or unplanned. Although adaptations are common and necessary to maximizing the marginal impact of EBPs, little attention has been given to the economic consequences and how adaptations affect marginal costs. DISCUSSION: In assessing the economic consequences of adaptation, one should consider its impact on core components, the planned adaptive periphery, and the unplanned adaptive periphery. Guided by implementation science frameworks, we examine how various economic evaluation approaches accommodate the influence of adaptations and discuss the pros and cons of these approaches. Using the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based interventions (FRAME), mixed methods can elucidate the economic reasons driving the adaptations. Micro-costing approaches are applied in research that integrates the adaptation of EBPs at the planning stage using innovative, adaptive study designs. In contrast, evaluation of unplanned adaptation is subject to confounding and requires sensitivity analysis to address unobservable measures and other uncertainties. A case study is presented using the RE-AIM framework to illustrate the costing of adaptations. In addition to empirical approaches to evaluating adaptation, simulation modeling approaches can be used to overcome limited follow-up in implementation studies.

conclusionsAs implementation science evolves to improve our understanding of the mechanisms and implications of adaptations, it is increasingly important to understand the economic implications of such adaptations, in addition to their impact on clinical effectiveness. Therefore, explicit consideration is warranted of how costs can be evaluated as outcomes of adaptations to the delivery of EBPs.

Indexed as

AdaptationAdaptiveCostEconomic evaluationEconomics

Identifiers

PMID36153575
PMCPMC9509646
OpenAlexW4297147917

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.