Skip to content
Implementation Science at UW

Keywords: Economic Evaluation

✪ Cost of an Audit and Feedback intervention to increase uptake of maternal and child health services in Mozambique’s Primary health care

Authors:

Ermyas Birru, Aneth Dinis, Jonny Crocker, Quinhas Fernandes, Sarah Gimbel, Steve Gloyd, Artur Gremu, Lisa R. Hirschhorn, Isaías Ramiro, Stelio Tembe, Orvalho Augusto & Kenneth Sherr

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

✪ Open Access

Published: March 2026

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

Abstract:

Introduction

Despite high coverage of facility-based maternal and child health (MCH) services in Mozambique, preventable maternal and neonatal deaths remain among the highest globally. To address this, the Integrated District Evidence-to-Action (IDEAs) program was implemented from 2016 to 2020 in central Mozambique as a facility-level Audit and Feedback (A&F) strategy. IDEAs adapted traditional A&F into three components: 1) biannual facility readiness assessments, 2) A&F meetings to develop action plans, and 3) supportive supervision with funding for implementation. This study estimates total and component-specific implementation costs of IDEAs and compares them to average district health budgets.

Methods

Costs were estimated from a payer perspective following CHEERS guidelines, using both Gross and Microcosting methods. Costs were annualized over five years (2016–2020) with a 3% discount rate and are reported in 2020 USD. Staff time estimates were based on program staff consultations and national salary data. Outcomes include average cost per district and total annual cost by intervention component. We conducted a deterministic sensitivity analysis to identify cost drivers with the most significant impact on the overall cost.

Results

The IDEAs programs total (2016–2020) incurred total costs were $2,224,341 (2020 USD), with $1,702,648 (76.5%) for recurrent expenses and $495,323 (22.3%) for Capital expenses. Average annual district-level costs were $41,967, including A&F meetings ($10,893; 26.0%), Capital expenditures ($8255; 19.7%), targeted support ($9323; 22.2%) which includes $5700 (13.6%) for district-level cash transfers and $3623 (8.6%) for facility supervision, and readiness assessments ($6351; 15.1%).Per diems accounted for 52.0% of A&F meeting costs. IDEAs represented approximately 6.6% of the average district health budget. Implementation involved 33 participants with 2560 h yearly per district. Capital expenses were highly sensitive to when applying a standard 25% increase or decrease compared to other cost categories.

Conclusion

Our findings offer practical guidance for district-level planners to adapt and scale IDEAs. Policymakers and donors should integrate recurring costs into budgets and explore cost-saving strategies like virtual tools or streamlined meetings to improve sustainability. Future research must assess long-term integration into government programs and test alternative approaches across diverse low-resource settings to guide scaling.

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

✪ A pragmatic approach to estimating the cost to deliver and participate in implementation strategies

Authors:

Hannah Cheng, Maryam Abdel Magid, Mark P. McGovern, James H. Ford II, Veena Manja, Hélène Chokron Garneau & Todd H. Wagner

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

✪ Open Access

Published: October 2025

Read the full text in the open access journal Implementation Science

Abstract:

The Healing Experiences of Adversity Among Latinos (HEALthy4You; H4Y) study was a multi-sector partnership between an academic research institution, a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC), and a multi-sector collective impact coalition focused on childhood obesity prevention. The goal of HEALthy4You was to develop community-centered and culturally appropriate precision interventions within FQHCs for Latino families to address predictors of adverse child experiences and treat childhood obesity. A multidisciplinary and multi-sector research, clinical, and community team (N = 29) was formed in September 2020 to co-design the study, which launched in June 2022. The team utilized a co-creation approach combined with the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment framework to facilitate a collaborative design process. We conducted an internal and retrospective process evaluation in March 2023 to identify antecedents and situational factors associated with project formation, with a focus on understanding tensions and challenges with a broad partnership structure. We outline the team's co-creation process and describe internal challenges and pitfalls that emerged when developing the project. We sought to better understand the impact of differing perspectives, priorities, and goals between disciplines, sectors, and roles; differing approaches to evidence and evidence production; and team strategies to mitigate and manage competing pressures and priorities. This case report describes lessons learned, intending to share insights to support future development of best practices in project, partner, and team formation between researchers, clinicians, and community members. More specifically, these lessons could help inform community-led research endeavors between academic institutions, FQHCs, and community-based organizations (CBOs).

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

✪ Study protocol for a hybrid type 3 effectiveness-implementation trial of a team-based implementation strategy to support educators’ use of a social engagement intervention

Authors:

Jill Locke, Aksheya Sridhar, Wendy Shih, Stephanie Shire, Andria B. Eisman, Emily Kim, Adora Du, Christine Espeland, & Connie Kasari

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

✪ Open Access

Published: January 2025

Read the full text in the open access journal Implementation Science

Abstract:

Background

Remaking Recess (RR) is a school-based evidence-based peer social engagement intervention for autistic students. RR involves direct training and coaching with educators; however, educators face several barriers to implementation at both the individual- and organizational-levels. This protocol paper describes a multi-site study that will test whether an educator-level implementation strategy, coaching, with or without a school-level implementation strategy, school-based teams, will maximize educators’ use (fidelity and sustainment) of RR for autistic students and their peers who are socially-isolated, rejected, or peripheral and may need additional support during recess.

Methods

This study will employ a hybrid type-3 effectiveness-implementation trial. Fifty-five elementary schools will be recruited as well as 121 educators (e.g., classroom assistants, aides), 55 general and special educator teachers, and 83–138 other school personnel (e.g., administrators). Additionally, at least 118 autistic students and allistic or non-autistic classmates will be recruited as RR recipients. Participants will complete baseline assessments at the beginning of the year, and all schools will be provided RR training. Schools will be randomized to coaching with or without school-based teams. This study will measure RR fidelity (primary outcome), RR sustainment, as well as peer engagement, social network inclusion, and social skills (secondary outcomes). It is expected that coaching with school-based teams will improve both RR fidelity and social network inclusion, while coaching with and without school-based teams will result in improved peer engagement and social skills.

Discussion

Previous research has documented barriers to RR implementation at both the individual- (provider) and organization-level (school). Using multi-level implementation strategies such as coaching with school-based teams may address these barriers and support RR implementation in schools. Findings from this study may guide future efforts to scale up tailored implementation strategies for use in public school districts, with the ultimate goal of increasing intervention access and improving student outcomes.

Trial registration

Name of the Registry: clinicaltrials.gov.
Trial Registration: Clinical Trials ID: NCT06559267.
Date of Registration: August 15, 2024. Prospectively registered.

Contributions to the literature

Remaking Recess (RR) is an intervention that improves peer engagement and classroom inclusion in autistic students. Educators, who play an important role in supporting autistic youth and their peers who are socially-isolated, rejected, or peripheral during the school day and at recess, can deliver RR.
Schools face many challenges, at both the individual- (i.e., educator) and organizational-levels (i.e., school), when implementing new interventions.
This study will evaluate the impact of two implementation strategies on the fidelity and sustainment of RR: (a) individual direct coaching for educators (coaching), and (b) supporting a team of school personnel (school-based teams) in addition to coaching.

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

✪ Econometric evaluation of implementing a behavioral health integration intervention in primary care settings

Authors:

Zsolt Nagykaldi, Benjamin Littenberg, Levi Bonnell, Ryan Breshears, Jessica Clifton, Abigail Crocker, Juvena Hitt, Rodger Kessler, Brenda Mollis, Robin E S Miyamoto, and Constance van Eeghen

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

✪ Open Access

Published: August 2023

Read the full text in the open access journal Translational Behavioral Medicine

Abstract:

Integrated behavioral health (IBH) is an approach to patient care that brings medical and behavioral health providers (BHPs) together to address both behavioral and medical needs within primary care settings. A large, pragmatic, national study aimed to test the effectiveness and measure the implementation costs of an intervention to improve IBH integration within primary care practices (IBH-PC). Assess the time and cost to practices of implementing a comprehensive practice-level intervention designed from the perspective of clinic owners to move behavioral service integration from co-location toward full integration as part of the IBH-PC study. IBH-PC program implementation costs were estimated in a representative sample of 8 practices using standard micro-econometric evaluation of activities outlined in the implementation workbook, including program implementation tasks, remote quality improvement coaching services, educational curricula, and learning community activities, over a 24-month period. The total median cost of implementing the IBH-PC program across all stages was $20,726 (range: $12,381 - $60,427). The median cost of the Planning Stage was $10,258 (range: $4,625 - $14,840), while the median cost of the Implementation Stage was $9,208 (range: $6,017 – 49,993). There were no statistically significant differences in practice or patient characteristics between the 8 selected practices and the larger IBH-PC practice sample (N=34). This study aimed to quantify the relative costs associated with integrating behavioral health into primary care. Although the cost assessment approach did not include all costs (fixed, variable, operational, and opportunity costs), the study aimed to develop a replicable and pragmatic measurement process with flexibility to adapt to emerging developments in each practice environment, providing a reasonable ballpark estimate of costs associated with implementation to help guide future executive decisions.

**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**

✪ Enhancing the Impact of Implementation Strategies in Healthcare: A Research Agenda

Authors:

Byron J. Powell, Maria E. Fernandez, Nathaniel J. Williams, Gregory A. Aarons, Rinad S. Beidas, Cara C. Lewis, Sheena M. McHugh and Bryan J. Weiner

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

Published: January 2019

Read the full text in the open access journal Frontiers in Public Health

Abstract:

The field of implementation science was developed to better understand the factors that facilitate or impede implementation and generate evidence for implementation strategies. In this article, we briefly review progress in implementation science, and suggest five priorities for enhancing the impact of implementation strategies.

Specifically, we suggest the need to:

  1. enhance methods for designing and tailoring implementation strategies;
  2. specify and test mechanisms of change;
  3. conduct more effectiveness research on discrete, multi-faceted, and tailored implementation strategies;
  4. increase economic evaluations of implementation strategies; and
  5. improve the tracking and reporting of implementation strategies.

We believe that pursuing these priorities will advance implementation science by helping us to understand when, where, why, and how implementation strategies improve implementation effectiveness and subsequent health outcomes.

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

More in Tailored Implementation

More in Implementation Strategies

More in Economic Evaluation

More in Mechanisms

✪ 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**