Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40597322›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2025

Economic evaluations of scaling up strategies of evidence-based health interventions: a systematic review.

Adissa Bankolé, Blanchard Conombo, France Légaré, Maude Laberge

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2025. 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
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  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

4 authors.

Adissa BankoléDépartement de médecine sociale et préventive, Faculté de Médecine, Université Laval, Québec, Canada.
Blanchard ConomboDépartement de médecine sociale et préventive, Faculté de Médecine, Université Laval, Québec, Canada.
France LégaréVITAM Centre de recherche en santé durable - Université Laval, Québec, Québec, Canada.
Maude LabergeDépartement de médecine sociale et préventive, Faculté de Médecine, Université Laval, Québec, Canada. maude.laberge@fmed.ulaval.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundScaling seeks to extend the benefits of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to larger populations, and often with the hope of achieving economies of scale. However, little is known about scaling costs. Our goal was to find scaling studies that focused on economic evaluations of scaling, their characteristics and the methods they applied.

methodsWe performed a systematic review informed by the Joanna Briggs Institute and PRISMA reporting guidelines. We included all studies that conducted a full or partial economic evaluation of scaling an EBI in healthcare, applicable to any individual or organization in any country and setting. We included all study designs and imposed no restrictions on language. We conducted searches in Medline, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library Database, PEDE, EconLIT, INHATA from their inception until November 12, 2024, including grey literature. Pairs of independent reviewers identified eligible studies and extracted data on study characteristics, scaling strategies, characteristics of economic evaluations and methods used. The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated using the British Medical Journal Checklist. Results were summarized using narrative synthesis.

resultsOf 8,936 unique citations, thirteen studies meet our inclusion criteria: ten cost-effectiveness and three cost-analysis studies. Studies were performed in lower- or middle-income countries (LMIC) as well as in high-income countries and covered EBIs for infectious diseases, mental health, and colorectal cancer. All reported direct costs (e.g., health professional training costs) and indirect costs (e.g., capital costs) associated with scaling strategies. Four studies were of high quality, eight of moderate quality and one of poor quality.

conclusionWith the increased interest in scaling EBIs in health, there is an urgent need for more evaluations of costs associated with scaling, both in LMIC and in high-income countries, and a need for rigour in how these evaluations are performed.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisEvidence-Based PracticeHumansCost-effectivenessEconomic evaluationEvidence-basedScaling

Identifiers

PMID40597322
PMCPMC12210681

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.