Costing the implementation of public health interventions in resource-limited settings: a conceptual framework.
Costs of implementation
Decision-making
Economic evaluation
Implementation strategies
Tuberculosis
Journal
Implementation science : IS
ISSN: 1748-5908
Titre abrégé: Implement Sci
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101258411
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 09 2020
29 09 2020
Historique:
received:
06
04
2020
accepted:
16
09
2020
entrez:
30
9
2020
pubmed:
1
10
2020
medline:
3
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Failing to account for the resources required to successfully implement public health interventions can lead to an underestimation of costs and budget impact, optimistic cost-effectiveness estimates, and ultimately a disconnect between published evidence and public health decision-making. We developed a conceptual framework for assessing implementation costs. We illustrate the use of this framework with case studies involving interventions for tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS in resource-limited settings. Costs of implementing public health interventions may be conceptualized as occurring across three phases: design, initiation, and maintenance. In the design phase, activities include developing intervention components and establishing necessary infrastructure (e.g., technology, standard operating procedures). Initiation phase activities include training, initiation of supply chains and quality assurance procedures, and installation of equipment. Implementation costs in the maintenance phase include ongoing technical support, monitoring and evaluation, and troubleshooting unexpected obstacles. Within each phase, implementation costs can be incurred at the site of delivery ("site-specific" costs) or more centrally ("above-service" or "central" costs). For interventions evaluated in the context of research studies, implementation costs should be classified as programmatic, research-related, or shared research/program costs. Purely research-related costs are often excluded from analysis of programmatic implementation. In evaluating public health interventions in resource-limited settings, accounting for implementation costs enables more realistic estimates of budget impact and cost-effectiveness and provides important insights into program feasibility, scale-up, and sustainability. Assessment of implementation costs should be planned prospectively and performed in a standardized manner to ensure generalizability.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Failing to account for the resources required to successfully implement public health interventions can lead to an underestimation of costs and budget impact, optimistic cost-effectiveness estimates, and ultimately a disconnect between published evidence and public health decision-making.
METHODS
We developed a conceptual framework for assessing implementation costs. We illustrate the use of this framework with case studies involving interventions for tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS in resource-limited settings.
RESULTS
Costs of implementing public health interventions may be conceptualized as occurring across three phases: design, initiation, and maintenance. In the design phase, activities include developing intervention components and establishing necessary infrastructure (e.g., technology, standard operating procedures). Initiation phase activities include training, initiation of supply chains and quality assurance procedures, and installation of equipment. Implementation costs in the maintenance phase include ongoing technical support, monitoring and evaluation, and troubleshooting unexpected obstacles. Within each phase, implementation costs can be incurred at the site of delivery ("site-specific" costs) or more centrally ("above-service" or "central" costs). For interventions evaluated in the context of research studies, implementation costs should be classified as programmatic, research-related, or shared research/program costs. Purely research-related costs are often excluded from analysis of programmatic implementation.
CONCLUSIONS
In evaluating public health interventions in resource-limited settings, accounting for implementation costs enables more realistic estimates of budget impact and cost-effectiveness and provides important insights into program feasibility, scale-up, and sustainability. Assessment of implementation costs should be planned prospectively and performed in a standardized manner to ensure generalizability.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32993713
doi: 10.1186/s13012-020-01047-2
pii: 10.1186/s13012-020-01047-2
pmc: PMC7526415
doi:
Types de publication
Letter
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
86Subventions
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : R01 AI116787
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : R01 AI147681
Pays : United States
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : R01 HL138728
Pays : United States
Organisme : National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (US)
ID : R01HL138728
Pays : International
Références
Bull World Health Organ. 2014 Feb 1;92(2):126-38
pubmed: 24623906
Am J Public Health. 2011 Nov;101(11):2059-67
pubmed: 21940916
S Afr Med J. 2012 Sep 07;102(10):805-7
pubmed: 23034211
PLoS One. 2014 Sep 09;9(9):e106582
pubmed: 25203052
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2017 Jul 1;21(7):746-752
pubmed: 28633698
Lancet Glob Health. 2014 Sep;2(9):e531-e540
pubmed: 25304420
ERJ Open Res. 2019 Jul 29;5(3):
pubmed: 31367636
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2018 Sep 1;22(9):1082-1087
pubmed: 30092876
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 May 10;(5):CD011420
pubmed: 27163343
Implement Sci. 2019 Jul 15;14(1):72
pubmed: 31307489
Implement Sci. 2014 Dec 18;9:168
pubmed: 25518730
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013 Jul;63 Suppl 2:S221-7
pubmed: 23764639
N Engl J Med. 2019 Jul 18;381(3):207-218
pubmed: 31314965
Nurs Hist Rev. 2019 Jan;27(1):156-158
pubmed: 30567799
Lancet Glob Health. 2019 Feb;7(2):e200-e208
pubmed: 30683239
Lancet. 2011 Nov 5;378(9803):1643-52
pubmed: 21993161
Front Public Health. 2019 Mar 29;7:64
pubmed: 30984733