Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40055802›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2025

Development of an instrument (Cost-IS) to estimate costs of implementation strategies for digital health solutions: a modified e-Delphi study.

Thomasina Donovan, Bridget Abell, Steven M McPhail, Hannah E Carter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

4 authors.

Thomasina DonovanAustralian Centre for Health Services Innovation and Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health and Social Work, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. thomasina.donovan@qut.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-0127-0091
Bridget AbellAustralian Centre for Health Services Innovation and Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health and Social Work, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Steven M McPhail *Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation and Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health and Social Work, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Hannah E Carter *Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation and Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health and Social Work, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is important to determine the relative value of health innovations when allocating limited healthcare resources. Implementation strategies require and consume healthcare resources yet are often excluded from published economic evaluations. This paper reports on the development of a pragmatic implementation costing instrument to assist with the planning, delivery, and evaluation of digital health implementation strategies.

methodsA modified e-Delphi process was adopted to develop an implementation costing instrument. Purposive sampling was used to recruit a panel of experts in implementation science, health economic evaluations and/or digital health from the academic, government, clinical or health service sectors. In each round, participants were sent an electronic questionnaire and a prototype of the implementation costing instrument. The prototype in the initial round was informed from a literature review and qualitative interview findings. The prototype was updated iteratively between rounds in response to the panel's feedback. In subsequent rounds, participants also received the anonymous results of items that did not reach consensus in the previous round. Termination occurred once consensus was reached on integral questions (those pertaining specifically to the instrument design) or when three rounds were completed, to prevent sample fatigue. Consensus was defined as at least 75% of experts in agreement for any item.

resultsConsensus was reached on the core components and design of the instrument from a panel of twelve experts in implementation science, health economic evaluations and/or digital health. Areas where consensus was not reached included users' level of implementation science knowledge, specificity of the tool to digital health and accessibility via digital formats.

conclusionsCost-IS is a pragmatic data collection instrument designed to estimate the costs of implementation strategies for digital health solutions. Further piloting of Cost-IS is required to establish its feasibility and generalisability.

Indexed as

Delphi TechniqueTelemedicineCost-Benefit AnalysisDigital HealthHumansImplementation ScienceSurveys and QuestionnairesDigital healthHealth economicsImplementation costsImplementation science

Identifiers

PMID40055802
PMCPMC11889902

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.