Table 3 Methods used to determine the cost-effectiveness of implementation strategies
First author Publication year Country | Perspective | Time horizon for implementation, in months | Implementation outcome | Implementation costs collected | Implementation costing approach | Primary ICER for implementation strategy/ies | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Materials | Staff time | Training | ||||||
Barasa 2011 [31] Kenya | Healthcare provider | 18 | Quality improvement | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Top-down | Cost per percentage gain in mean quality improvement |
Costanza 2000 [28] USA | Societal and health payer | 36 | Adoption | ✓ | ✓ | Top-down | Cost per additional regular user of the intervention | |
Edwards 2022 [30] UK | Societal | 18 | Adoption | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Top-down | Cost per preterm baby delivered |
Bird 1990 [29] USA | Not recorded | 9 | Adoption | ✓ | ✓ | Top-down | Cost per additional screening test delivered | |
Kaner 2003 [26] UK | Not recorded | 3 | Adoption | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Top-down | Cost per appropriate intervention delivered |
Wagner 2021 [23] Uganda | Not recorded | 12 | Penetration | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Top-down | Cost per additional person treated using appropriate method |
Meenan 2015 [27] USA | Healthcare system | 24 | Adoption | ✓ | ✓ | Bottom-up | Cost per participant current for screening | |
Claes 2006 [25] Belgium | Health payer | 6 | Penetration | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Bottom-up | Cost per day within international normalized ratio range (for patients on anticoagulant therapy) |
Nichols 2020 [24] Malawi | Not recorded | 3 | Penetration | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Bottom-up | Cost per newly identified positive case; and cost per patient initiated on treatment |
Barbosa 2022 [22] USA | Healthcare provider | 12 and 60 | Penetration | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Bottom-up | Cost per additional positive screen |