Collaborating with health economists to advance implementation science: a qualitative study.
Economic evaluation
Health economics
Team science
Journal
Implementation science communications
ISSN: 2662-2211
Titre abrégé: Implement Sci Commun
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101764360
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
20
04
2020
accepted:
14
09
2020
entrez:
2
10
2020
pubmed:
3
10
2020
medline:
3
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Implementation research infrequently addresses economic factors, despite the importance of understanding the costs of implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs). Though partnerships with health economists have the potential to increase attention to economic factors within implementation science, barriers to forming these collaborations have been noted. This study investigated the experiences of health economists and implementation researchers who have partnered across disciplines to inform strategies to increase such collaborations. A purposeful sampling approach was used to identify eight health economists and eight implementation researchers with experience participating in cross-disciplinary research. We used semi-structured interviews to gather information about participants' experiences with collaborative research. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify core themes related to facilitators and barriers to collaborations. Health economists and implementation researchers voiced different perspectives on collaborative research, highlighting the importance of increasing cross-disciplinary understanding. Implementation researchers described a need to measure costs in implementation studies, whereas many health economists described that they seek to collaborate on projects that extend beyond conducting cost analyses. Researchers in both disciplines articulated motivations for collaborative research and identified strategies that promote successful collaboration, with varying degrees of convergence across these themes. Shared motivations included improving methodological rigor of research and making a real-world impact. Strategies to improve collaboration included starting partnerships early in the study design period, having a shared interest, and including health economists in the larger scope of the research. Health economists and implementation researchers both conduct research with significant policy implications and have the potential to inform one another's work in ways that might more rapidly advance the uptake of EBPs. Collaborative research between health economists and implementation science has the potential to advance the field; however, researchers will need to work to bridge disciplinary differences. By beginning to develop strong working relationships; increasing their understanding of one another's disciplinary culture, methodology, and language; and increasing the role economists have within research design and execution, both implementation researchers and health economists can support successful collaborations and robust and informative research.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Implementation research infrequently addresses economic factors, despite the importance of understanding the costs of implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs). Though partnerships with health economists have the potential to increase attention to economic factors within implementation science, barriers to forming these collaborations have been noted. This study investigated the experiences of health economists and implementation researchers who have partnered across disciplines to inform strategies to increase such collaborations.
METHODS
METHODS
A purposeful sampling approach was used to identify eight health economists and eight implementation researchers with experience participating in cross-disciplinary research. We used semi-structured interviews to gather information about participants' experiences with collaborative research. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify core themes related to facilitators and barriers to collaborations.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Health economists and implementation researchers voiced different perspectives on collaborative research, highlighting the importance of increasing cross-disciplinary understanding. Implementation researchers described a need to measure costs in implementation studies, whereas many health economists described that they seek to collaborate on projects that extend beyond conducting cost analyses. Researchers in both disciplines articulated motivations for collaborative research and identified strategies that promote successful collaboration, with varying degrees of convergence across these themes. Shared motivations included improving methodological rigor of research and making a real-world impact. Strategies to improve collaboration included starting partnerships early in the study design period, having a shared interest, and including health economists in the larger scope of the research.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Health economists and implementation researchers both conduct research with significant policy implications and have the potential to inform one another's work in ways that might more rapidly advance the uptake of EBPs. Collaborative research between health economists and implementation science has the potential to advance the field; however, researchers will need to work to bridge disciplinary differences. By beginning to develop strong working relationships; increasing their understanding of one another's disciplinary culture, methodology, and language; and increasing the role economists have within research design and execution, both implementation researchers and health economists can support successful collaborations and robust and informative research.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33005901
doi: 10.1186/s43058-020-00074-w
pii: 74
pmc: PMC7523377
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
82Subventions
Organisme : NIMH NIH HHS
ID : K01 MH113806
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIDA NIH HHS
ID : R01 DA044745
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Références
Med Decis Making. 2009 Mar-Apr;29(2):207-16
pubmed: 19237645
Qual Health Res. 1993 Feb;3(1):112-21
pubmed: 8457790
Psychiatry Res. 2020 Jan;283:112433
pubmed: 31202612
Front Public Health. 2019 Jan 22;7:3
pubmed: 30723713
Child Youth Serv Rev. 2014 Apr 1;39:177-182
pubmed: 24729650
Postgrad Med J. 2003 Mar;79(929):147-50
pubmed: 12697913
Public Health. 2019 Apr;169:101-113
pubmed: 30877961
Psychol Serv. 2019 Oct 10;:
pubmed: 31599621
Implement Sci. 2008 Apr 22;3:20
pubmed: 18430199
Implement Sci. 2013 Sep 05;8:105
pubmed: 24007290
Implement Sci. 2019 Jul 15;14(1):72
pubmed: 31307489
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2015 Sep;42(5):533-44
pubmed: 24193818
Implement Sci. 2018 Jan 22;13(1):18
pubmed: 29357876
Implement Sci. 2014 Dec 18;9:168
pubmed: 25518730
Implement Sci. 2017 Nov 23;12(1):140
pubmed: 29169397
Subst Abus. 2018;39(2):185-189
pubmed: 29558284
Am J Prev Med. 2008 Aug;35(2 Suppl):S77-89
pubmed: 18619407
Clin Transl Sci. 2010 Oct;3(5):263-6
pubmed: 20973925
Soc Sci Med. 1992 Dec;35(11):1343-57
pubmed: 1462174
Scientometrics. 2017 Sep;112(3):1367-1390
pubmed: 29249842
J Eval Clin Pract. 2019 Aug;25(4):561-564
pubmed: 29700903
Transl Behav Med. 2017 Sep;7(3):624-635
pubmed: 27142266
J Clin Transl Sci. 2017 Feb;1(1):67-72
pubmed: 28480057
Implement Sci. 2019 Jan 11;14(1):2
pubmed: 30635001
J Clin Transl Sci. 2019 Sep 09;4(3):180-187
pubmed: 32695486
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
Qual Health Res. 2017 Mar;27(4):591-608
pubmed: 27670770