Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38491542›Full record

ReviewImplementation science communications2024

Economic evaluations performed alongside randomized implementation trials in clinical settings: a systematic review.

Alayna Carrandi, Amy Grove, Helen Skouteris, Angela Melder, Yanan Hu, Michelle Dever, Alisa Higgins

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Implementation science communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

Alayna CarrandiAustralian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre (ANZIC-RC), School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Amy GroveWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK. A.L.Grove@warwick.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8027-7274
Helen SkouterisSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Angela MelderSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Yanan HuMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Clayton, Australia.
Michelle DeverSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Alisa HigginsAustralian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre (ANZIC-RC), School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

NIHR AF 300060
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEconomic evaluations alongside implementation trials compare the outcomes and costs of competing implementation strategies to identify the most efficient strategies. The aims of this systematic review were to investigate how economic evaluations are performed in randomized implementation trials in clinical settings and to assess the quality of these evaluations.

methodsA systematic literature review was conducted on 23 March 2023 to identify studies that reported on economic evaluations embedded in randomized implementation trials in clinical settings. A systematic search was applied across seven databases, and references of relevant reviews were screened for additional studies. The Drummond Checklist was used to assess the quality and risk of bias of included economic evaluations. Study characteristics and quality assessments were tabulated and described.

resultsOf the 6,550 studies screened for eligibility, 10 met the inclusion criteria. Included studies were published between 1990 and 2022 and from North America, the United Kingdom, Europe, and Africa. Most studies were conducted in the primary and out-patient care setting. Implementation costs included materials, staffing, and training, and the most common approach to collecting implementation costs was obtaining expense and budget reports. Included studies scored medium to high in terms of economic methodological quality.

conclusionsEconomic evidence is particularly useful for healthcare funders and service providers to inform the prioritization of implementation efforts in the context of limited resources and competing demands. The relatively small number of studies identified may be due to lack of guidance on how to conduct economic evaluations alongside implementation trials and the lack of standardized terminology used to describe implementation strategies in clinical research. We discuss these methodological gaps and present recommendations for embedding economic evaluations in implementation trials. First, reporting implementation strategies used in clinical trials and aligning these strategies with implementation outcomes and costs are an important advancement in clinical research. Second, economic evaluations of implementation trials should follow guidelines for standard clinical trial economic evaluations and adopt an appropriate costing and data collection approach. Third, hybrid trial designs are recommended to generate evidence for effective and cost-effective implementation strategies alongside clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

trial registrationThe review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023410186).

Indexed as

Clinical trialCost-effectivenessEconomic evaluationImplementation costImplementation economics

Identifiers

PMID38491542
PMCPMC10943844

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.