ReviewApplied health economics and health policy2026
A Reconciled Method for Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Implementation Programmes: Illustrated by Quality Improvement Programmes to Increase the Uptake of Magnesium Sulphate in Preterm Births.
Review in Applied health economics and health policy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating health economics and implementation science: a call to action.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Implementation of national guidelines on antenatal magnesium sulfate for neonatal neuroprotection: extended evaluation of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the National PReCePT Programme in England.BMJ quality & safety · 2026Article
- Demonstrating the value for money of implementing evidence-based treatment: the case for further investment in magnesium sulphate as a neuroprotectant for preterm births.Frontiers in health services · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMethods for the economic evaluation of implementation initiatives to increase the uptake of cost-effective healthcare interventions are not standardised. Value of implementation and policy cost-effectiveness are two proposed approaches. This research aims to compare these two methods and propose a standardised approach. To illustrate this, we evaluated two implementation programmes to increase magnesium sulphate (MgSO
methodsAfter summarising value of implementation and policy cost-effectiveness methods, we explored the extent to which the two methods can be viewed as mathematically equivalent for the purpose of evaluating the NPP (versus pre-existing trends) and the ESP (versus the NPP) calculating their incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, net monetary benefits and their probability of being cost-effective.
resultsWe demonstrate how the value of implementation and policy cost-effectiveness approaches can be expressed in equivalent terms and set out our standardised stepwise method for evaluating the NPP (versus pre-existing trends) and the ESP (versus the NPP). Our method found that the NPP generated a net monetary benefit of £30,247 per maternity unit over 12 months, with a 98% probability of being cost-effective. In contrast, the ESP generated a net monetary loss of £28,682 per unit compared with the NPP, with a 22% probability of being cost-effective. DISCUSSION: Our standardised method could promote a more systematic assessment of the value for money of implementation interventions.
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.