Trial reportImplementation science : IS2025
A pragmatic approach to estimating the cost to deliver and participate in implementation strategies.
Trial report in Implementation science : IS, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05343793 (Stagewise Implementation-To-Target- Medications for Addiction Treatment), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Stagewise Implementation-To-Target- Medications for Addiction Treatment (SITT-MAT)
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Agile nudge implementation to improve minority recruitment in community-based research.Frontiers in health services · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundImplementation costs-the combined costs of delivering expert support and participating in an implementation endeavor-are often omitted from economic evaluations. When included, delivery and participation costs are usually combined, even though these may be covered by different funders. We propose a pragmatic micro-costing approach that separates the delivery and participation costs as well as outlines practical considerations for measuring implementation costs.
methodsSixty-four specialty addiction treatment programs and primary care clinics participated in a stepped sequence of implementation strategies focused on improving access to buprenorphine and naltrexone for persons with opioid use disorder. The implementation strategies deployed were: audit and feedback (A&F), a two-day workshop, internal facilitation, and external facilitation. Our micro-costing approach separately measured the cost to deliver and participate in implementation strategies, as demonstrated through the A&F case example, which was the first of four implementation strategies deployed. We applied the following practical considerations to maximize the precision and accuracy of cost data: 1) Balance the frequency and length of cost survey, 2) Cost tracking training, 3) Regular survey reminders, 4) Tailor cost surveys, 5) Perform frequent cost data validation, 6) Iterative evaluation and refinement.
resultsIn A&F, the implementation setup cost was $32,266, and the annual recurring costs were $4,231 per clinic. While the majority of the setup cost (99%) can be attributed to A&F delivery, over half of the annual recurring costs (63%) were attributed to clinic participation in A&F.
conclusionsThis micro-costing approach appears both pragmatic and meaningful. By understanding the total cost implications of implementation, decision-makers can better select the most suitable strategy based on the context, goals, and budget constraints to efficiently optimize the pace and desired outcome of an implementation endeavor.
trial registrationThe trial protocol is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05343793).
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.