ArticleImplementation science communications2025
Efficiency in health care: connecting economic evaluations with implementation objectives.
Article in Implementation science communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating two implementation approaches to support a nationally mandated caregiver skills training in veterans affairs: a type III hybrid implementation-effectiveness randomized controlled trial.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
- Economic evidence of alternative formulations and routes of administration for identical active pharmaceutical ingredient: a systematic review.Health economics review · 2026Review
- Effect of multi-domain interventions delivered via a smart-care platform on intrinsic capacity in older adults: a randomized controlled trial protocol.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- The Business Case for Family Caregiver Skills Training: Results From a Multisite Trial in the Veterans Health Care System.Journal of the American Medical Directors Association · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionEconomic evaluations are helpful for efficient resource use. This paper aims to clarify the relationship between economic evaluation methods and two types of health care efficiency, aiding implementation scientists in selecting the appropriate approach for their research.
methodsWe clarify the connection between cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and allocative efficiency, and explain how budget impact analysis (BIA) more closely connects with productive efficiency. We also discuss other methods that researchers can use to analyze an organization's productive efficiency, given increasing pressure for health care organizations to be efficient.
resultsAllocative efficiency seeks to maximize social welfare through optimal resource distribution. Productive efficiency focuses on an organization's ability to maximize its output given its resource constraints. CEA, particularly when incorporating a societal perspective, assesses allocative efficiency. BIA, which often has a short time horizon and more focused perspective, assesses productive efficiency. When organizational leaders ask implementation scientists for an economic evaluation, it is important to determine whether they want a CEA or a BIA, given they answer different questions, often employing different methods. We also present other methods for measuring efficiency and causes of inefficiency stemming from fixed costs, scale, scope, regulations, labor, and decision-making.
conclusionsImplementation scientists must recognize that CEA and BIA serve distinct purposes and are not interchangeable. Choosing the right economic evaluation tool is crucial for answering specific research questions and building research teams. Future implementation work will also need to measure efficiency so that it is sustainable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.