Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37072809›Full record

ArticleImplementation science communications2023

Study protocol for an economic evaluation and budget impact of implementation strategies to support routine provision of antenatal care for gestational weight gain: a stepped-wedge cluster trial.

Olivia Wynne, Zoe Szewczyk, Jenna Hollis, Eva Farragher, Emma Doherty, Belinda Tully, Francesco Paolucci, Karen Gillham, Penny Reeves, John Wiggers and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science communications, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Olivia WynnePopulation Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, NSW, 2287, Australia. olivia.wynne@hmri.org.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5238-3080
Zoe SzewczykSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia.
Jenna HollisPopulation Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, NSW, 2287, Australia.
Eva FarragherPopulation Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, NSW, 2287, Australia.
Emma DohertyPopulation Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, NSW, 2287, Australia.
Belinda TullyPopulation Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, NSW, 2287, Australia.
Francesco PaolucciCollege of Human and Social Futures, Newcastle Business School, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Karen GillhamPopulation Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, NSW, 2287, Australia.
Penny ReevesSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia.
John WiggersPopulation Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, NSW, 2287, Australia.
Melanie KingslandPopulation Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, NSW, 2287, Australia.
Hunter Medical Research Institute · AUTamworth Hospital · AUUniversity of Newcastle Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAntenatal clinical practice guidelines recommend routine assessment of weight and provision of advice on recommended weight gain during pregnancy and referral to additional services when appropriate. However, there are barriers to clinicians adopting such best-practice guidelines. Effective, cost-effective, and affordable implementation strategies are needed to ensure the intended benefits of guidelines are realised. This paper describes the protocol for evaluating the efficiency and affordability of implementation strategies compared to the usual practice in public antenatal services.

methodThe prospective trial-based economic evaluation will identify, measure, and value key resource and outcome impacts arising from the implementation strategies compared with usual practice. The evaluation will comprise of (i) costing, (ii) cost-consequence analyses, where a scorecard approach will be used to show the costs and benefits given the multiple primary outcomes included in the trial, and (iii) cost-effectiveness analysis, where the primary outcome will be incremental cost per percent increase in participants reporting receipt of antenatal care for gestational weight gain consistent with the guideline recommendations. Affordability will be evaluated using (iv) budget impact assessment and will estimate the financial implications of adoption and diffusion of this implementation strategy from the perspective of relevant fund-holders. DISCUSSION: Together with the findings from the effectiveness trial, the outcomes of this economic evaluation will inform future healthcare policy, investment allocation, and research regarding the implementation of antenatal care to support healthy gestational weight gain.

trial registrationTrial Registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12621000054819 (22/01/2021) http://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=380680&isReview=true .

Indexed as

AntenatalCost-effectiveness analysisHealth economicsImplementationNutritionPhysical activityPregnancyProtocolStepped-wedge trialWeight

Identifiers

PMID37072809
PMCPMC10114337
OpenAlexW4366275552

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.