Skip to content
Implementation Science at UW

Keywords: David Watkins

✪ Scaling-up and scaling-out the Systems Analysis and Improvement Approach to optimize the hypertension diagnosis and care cascade for HIV infected individuals (SCALE SAIA-HTN): a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial

Authors:

Carmen E. Hazim , Igor Dobe, Stephen Pope, Kristjana H. Ásbjörnsdóttir, Orvalho Augusto, Fernando Pereira Bruno, Sergio Chicumbe, Norberto Lumbandali, Inocêncio Mate, Elso Ofumhan, Sam Patel, Riaze Rafik, Kenneth Sherr, Veronica Tonwe, Onei Uetela, David Watkins, Sarah Gimbel, & Ana O. Mocumbi

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

✪ Open Access

Published: March 2024

Read the full text in the open access journal Implementation Science Communication

Abstract:

Background

Undiagnosed and untreated hypertension is a main driver of cardiovascular disease and disproportionately affects persons living with HIV (PLHIV) in low- and middle-income countries. Across sub-Saharan Africa, guideline application to screen and manage hypertension among PLHIV is inconsistent due to poor service readiness, low health worker motivation, and limited integration of hypertension screening and management within HIV care services. In Mozambique, where the adult HIV prevalence is over 13%, an estimated 39% of adults have hypertension. As the only scaled chronic care service in the county, the HIV treatment platform presents an opportunity to standardize and scale hypertension care services.
Low-cost, multi-component systems-level strategies such as the Systems Analysis and Improvement Approach (SAIA) have been found effective at integrating hypertension and HIV services to improve the effectiveness of hypertension care delivery for PLHIV, reduce drop-offs in care, and improve service quality. To build off lessons learned from a recently completed cluster randomized trial (SAIA-HTN) and establish a robust evidence base on the effectiveness of SAIA at scale, we evaluated a scaled-delivery model of SAIA (SCALE SAIA-HTN) using existing district health management structures to facilitate SAIA across six districts of Maputo Province, Mozambique.

Methods

This study employs a stepped-wedge design with randomization at the district level. The SAIA strategy will be “scaled up” with delivery by district health supervisors (rather than research staff) and will be “scaled out” via expansion to Southern Mozambique, to 18 facilities across six districts in Maputo Province. SCALE SAIA-HTN will be introduced over three, 9-month waves of intensive intervention, where technical support will be provided to facilities and district managers by study team members from the Mozambican National Institute of Health. Our evaluation of SCALE SAIA-HTN will be guided by the RE-AIM framework and will seek to estimate the budget impact from the payer’s perspective.

Discussion

SAIA packages user-friendly systems engineering tools to support decision-making by frontline health workers and to identify low-cost, contextually relevant improvement strategies. By integrating SAIA delivery into routine management structures, this pragmatic trial will determine an effective strategy for national scale-up and inform program planning.

**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**

✪ Monitoring and evaluating the implementation of essential packages of health services

Authors:

Kristen Danforth, Ahsan Maqbool Ahmad, Karl Blanchet, Muhammad Khalid, Arianna Rubin Means, Solomon Tessema Memirie, Ala Alwan & David Watkins

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

✪ Open Access

Published: March 2023

Read the full text in the open access journal BMJ Global Health

Abstract:

Essential packages of health services (EPHS) are a critical tool for achieving universal health coverage, especially in low-income and lower middle-income countries. However, there is a lack of guidance and standards for monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of EPHS implementation. This paper is the final in a series of papers reviewing experiences using evidence from the Disease Control Priorities, third edition publications in EPHS reforms in seven countries. We assess current approaches to EPHS M&E, including case studies of M&E approaches in Ethiopia and Pakistan. We propose a step-by-step process for developing a national EPHS M&E framework. Such a framework would start with a theory of change that links to the specific health system reforms the EPHS is trying to accomplish, including explicit statements about the ‘what’ and ‘for whom’ of M&E efforts. Monitoring frameworks need to consider the additional demands that could be placed on weak and already overstretched data systems, and they must ensure that processes are put in place to act quickly on emergent implementation challenges. Evaluation frameworks could learn from the field of implementation science; for example, by adapting the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance framework to policy implementation. While each country will need to develop its own locally relevant M&E indicators, we encourage all countries to include a set of core indicators that are aligned with the Sustainable Development Goal 3 targets and indicators. Our paper concludes with a call to reprioritise M&E more generally and to use the EPHS process as an opportunity for strengthening national health information systems. We call for an international learning network on EPHS M&E to generate new evidence and exchange best practices.

**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**

✪ Economic evaluation of implementation science outcomes in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review

Authors:

Akash Malhotra, Ryan R. Thompson, Faith Kagoya, Felix Masiye, Peter Mbewe, Mosepele Mosepele, Jane Phiri, Jairos Sambo, Abigail Barker, Drew B. Cameron, Victor G. Davila-Roman, William Effah, Brian Hutchinson, Michael Laxy, Brad Newsome, David Watkins, Hojoon Sohn & David W. Dowdy

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

✪ Open Access

Published: November 2022

Read the full text in the open access journal Implementation Science
BACK TO THE ARCHIVE

Abstract:

Background

Historically, the focus of cost-effectiveness analyses has been on the costs to operate and deliver interventions after their initial design and launch. The costs related to design and implementation of interventions have often been omitted. Ignoring these costs leads to an underestimation of the true price of interventions and biases economic analyses toward favoring new interventions. This is especially true in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where implementation may require substantial up-front investment. This scoping review was conducted to explore the topics, depth, and availability of scientific literature on integrating implementation science into economic evaluations of health interventions in LMICs.

Methods

We searched Web of Science and PubMed for papers published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2021, that included components of both implementation science and economic evaluation. Studies from LMICs were prioritized for review, but papers from high-income countries were included if their methodology/findings were relevant to LMIC settings.

Results

Six thousand nine hundred eighty-six studies were screened, of which 55 were included in full-text review and 23 selected for inclusion and data extraction. Most papers were theoretical, though some focused on a single disease or disease subset, including: mental health (n = 5), HIV (n = 3), tuberculosis (n = 3), and diabetes (n = 2). Manuscripts included a mix of methodology papers, empirical studies, and other (e.g., narrative) reviews. Authorship of the included literature was skewed toward high-income settings, with 22 of the 23 papers featuring first and senior authors from high-income countries. Of nine empirical studies included, no consistent implementation cost outcomes were measured, and only four could be mapped to an existing costing or implementation framework. There was also substantial heterogeneity across studies in how implementation costs were defined, and the methods used to collect them.

Conclusion

A sparse but growing literature explores the intersection of implementation science and economic evaluation. Key needs include more research in LMICs, greater consensus on the definition of implementation costs, standardized methods to collect such costs, and identifying outcomes of greatest relevance. Addressing these gaps will result in stronger links between implementation science and economic evaluation and will create more robust and accurate estimates of intervention costs.

Trial registration/h5>

The protocol for this manuscript was published on the Open Science Framework. It is available at: https://osf.io/ms5fa/ (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/32EPJ).

**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**

✪ A Cost-Effectiveness Tool to Guide the Prioritization of Interventions for Rheumatic Fever and Rheumatic Heart Disease Control in African Nations

Authors:

David Watkins, Solomon J. Lubinga, Bongani Mayosi, Joseph B. Babigumira

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

✪ Open Access

Published: August 2016

Read the full text in the open access journal PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Abstract:

Background

Rheumatic heart disease (RHD) prevalence and mortality rates remain especially high in many parts of Africa. While effective prevention and treatment exist, coverage rates of the various interventions are low. Little is known about the comparative cost-effectiveness of different RHD interventions in limited resource settings. We developed an economic evaluation tool to assist ministries of health in allocating resources and planning RHD control programs.

Methodology/Principal Findings

We constructed a Markov model of the natural history of acute rheumatic fever (ARF) and RHD, taking transition probabilities and intervention effectiveness data from previously published studies and expert opinion. Our model estimates the incremental cost-effectiveness of scaling up coverage of primary prevention (PP), secondary prevention (SP) and heart valve surgery (VS) interventions for RHD. We take a healthcare system perspective on costs and measure outcomes as disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), discounting both at 3%. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses are also built into the modeling tool. We illustrate the use of this model in a hypothetical low-income African country, drawing on available disease burden and cost data. We found that, in our hypothetical country, PP would be cost saving and SP would be very cost-effective. International referral for VS (e.g., to a country like India that has existing surgical capacity) would be cost-effective, but building in-country VS services would not be cost-effective at typical low-income country thresholds.

Conclusions/Significance

Our cost-effectiveness analysis tool is designed to inform priorities for ARF/RHD control programs in Africa at the national or subnational level. In contrast to previous literature, our preliminary findings suggest PP could be the most efficient and cheapest approach in poor countries. We provide our model for public use in the form of a Supplementary File. Our research has immediate policy relevance and calls for renewed efforts to scale up RHD prevention.

Author Summary

Rheumatic heart disease is a major cause of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in Africa. Although there are effective medications and surgical procedures for rheumatic heart disease, they are under-used. What is more, these interventions can be expensive—even if they are feasible and effective. Unfortunately, there are currently very few economic studies on rheumatic heart disease, leaving ministries of health with little guidance on how to choose among various interventions and allocate resources to control programs. Our study describes the methods and data we used to develop a cost-effectiveness analysis tool that was intended specifically for decision-making in African countries. In our study, we also illustrate, in a hypothetical low-income African country, how the tool could be used. In our illustrative example, a prevention-oriented approach would save money in the long term, although other interventions could be cost-effective and feasible if enough financial resources were present. These findings contrast with previous studies and make a strong case that rheumatic heart disease prevention could be a high-priority intervention in Africa. We are making our tool publicly available and anticipate that ministries of health will use it as they develop or expand their rheumatic heart disease control programs.

**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**