Mixed-method approaches to strengthen economic evaluations in implementation research

Implementation Science

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2019, Pages

  Dopp, Alex R ^a   Mundey, Peter ^b   Beasley, Lana O ^c   Silovsky, Jane F ^b   Eisenberg, Daniel ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

Cost benefit; Cost effectiveness; Economic evaluation; Health economics; Mixed methods

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; HUMAN; IMPLEMENTATION SCIENTIST; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; TAXONOMY; CLASSIFICATION; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; METHODOLOGY; PROCEDURES; STANDARDS;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; HUMANS; IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE; QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 85059741169     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17485908     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13012-018-0850-6     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Berwick D, Nolan T, Whittington J. The triple aim: care, cost, and quality. Health Aff. 2008; https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.27.3.759.
2. Hoomans T, Severens JL. Economic evaluation of implementation strategies in health care. Implement Sci. 2014; https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-014-0168-y.
3. Raghavan R. The role of economic evaluation in dissemination and implementation research. In: Brownson RC, Colditz GA, Proctor EK, editors. Dissemination and implementation research in health: translating science to practice. New York: Oxford University Press; 2018. p. 89-106.
4. Bond GR, Drake RE, McHugo GJ, Peterson AE, Jones AM, Williams J. Long-term sustainability of evidence-based practices in community mental health agencies. Adm Policy Ment Hlth. 2014; https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-012-0461-5.
5. Roundfield KD, Lang JM. Costs to community mental health agencies to sustain an evidence-based practice. Psychiatr Serv. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201600193.
6. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
7. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
8. Yates BT. Cost-inclusive evaluation: a banquet of approaches for including costs, benefits, and cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis in your next evaluation. Eval Program Plann. 2009; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.08.007.
9. Onwuegbuzie AJ, Teddlie C. A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research. In: Tashakkori AJ, Teddlie C, editors. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. London: Sage Publications; 2003. p. 351-83.
10. Palinkas LA, Aarons GA, Horwitz S, Chamberlain P, Hurlburt M, Landsverk J. Mixed method designs in implementation research. Adm Policy Ment Hlth. 2011; https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0314-z.
11. Saldana S, Chamberlain P, Bradford WD, Campbell M, Landsverk J. The cost of implementing new strategies (COINS): a method for mapping implementation resources using the stages of implementation completion. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2014; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.10.006.
12. Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: The RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999; https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1322.
13. Johnson KL, Yorkston KM, Klasner ER, Kuehn CM, Johnson E, Amtmann D. The cost and benefits of employment: a qualitative study of experiences of persons with multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehab. 2004; https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-9993(03)00614-2.
14. Rogers PJ, Stevens K, Boymal J. Qualitative cost-benefit evaluation of complex, emergent programs. Eval Program Plann. 2009; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.08.005.
15. Ziller A, Phibbs P. Integrating social impacts into cost-benefit analysis: a participative method: case study: the NSW area assistance scheme. Impact Assess Proj A. 2012; https://doi.org/10.3152/14715460378176636.
16. Bazeley P. Qualitative data analysis: practical strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2013.
17. Patton MQ. Qualitative research & evaluation methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2002.
18. Jefferson T, Austen S, Sharp R, Ong R, Lewin G, Adams V. Mixed-methods research: what's in it for economists? Econ Labour Relat Re. 2014; https://doi.org/10.1177/1035304614530819.
19. Starr MA. Qualitative and mixed-methods research in economics: surprising growth, promising future. J Economic Systems. 2014; https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12004.
20. Geertz C. The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books; 2000.
21. Ruccio D. Economic representations: academic and everyday. London: Routledge; 2008.
22. Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2011.
23. Johnson R, Onwuegbusie AJ, Turner LA. Toward a definition of mixed methods research. J Mix Method Res. 2007; https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224.
24. Shneerson CL, Gale NK. Using mixed methods to identify and answer clinically relevant research questions. Qual Health Res. 2015; https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315580107.
25. Wenger-Trayner B, Wenger-Trayner E, Cameron J, Eryigit-Madzwamuse S, Hart A. Boundaries and boundary objects: an evaluation framework for mixed methods research. J Mix Method Res. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689817732225.
26. Green CA, Duan N, Gibbons RD, Hoagwood KE, Palinkas LA, Wisdom JP. Approaches to mixed methods dissemination and implementation research: methods, strengths, caveats, and opportunities. Adm Policy Ment Hlth. 2015; https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-014-0552-6.
27. Heller S, Lawton J, Amiel S, Cooke D, Mansell P, Brennan A, et al. Improving management of type 1 diabetes in the UK: the dose adjustment for normal eating (DAFNE) programme as a research test-bed. In: Programme Grants for applied research; 2014. https://doi.org/10.3310/pgfar02050.
28. Rise MB, Skagseth M, Klevanger NE, Aasdahl L, Borchgrevink P, Jensen C, et al. Design of a study evaluating the effects, health economics, and stakeholder perspectives of a multi-component occupational rehabilitation program with an added workplace intervention: a study protocol. BMC Public Health. 2018; https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5130-5.
29. Mumford V, Greenfield D, Hinchcliff R, Moldovan M, Forde K, Westbrook JI, et al. Economic evaluation of Australian acute care accreditation (ACCREDIT-CBA (acute)): study protocol for a mixed method research project. BMJ Open. 2013; https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002381.
30. Silovsky JF, Hunter M, Taylor EK. Early intervention for youth with problematic sexual behavior. Journal of Sex Aggress. 2018; https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2018.1507487.
31. Husereau D, Drummond M, Stavros P, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) statement. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation. 2013; https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f1049.
32. Briggs AH, Gray AM. Handling uncertainty in economic evaluations of healthcare interventions. Brit Med J. 1999; https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.319.7210.635.
33. Luke DA, Morshed AB, McKay VR, Combs TB. Systems science methods in dissemination and implementation research. In: Brownson RC, Colditz GA, Proctor EK, editors. Dissemination and implementation research in health: translating science to practice. New York: Oxford University Press; 2018. p. 157-74.
34. Dopp AR, Hanson RF, Saunders BE, Dismuke CE, Moreland AD. Community-based implementation of trauma-focused interventions for youth: economic impact of the learning collaborative model. Psychol Serv. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000131.
35. Corti L, Day A, Backhouse G. Confidentiality and informed consent: issues for consideration in the preservation of and provision of access to qualitative data archives. Forum Qual Soc Res. 2000; https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-1.3.1024.
36. O'Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J. Multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, or dysfunctional? Team working in mixed-methods research. Qual Health Res. 2008; https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732308325535.
37. Darnell D, Dorsey CN, Melvin A, Chi J, Lyon AR, Lewis CC. A content analysis of dissemination and implementation science resource initiatives: what types of resources do they offer to advance the field? Implement Sci. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0673-x.