Scoping review of costs of implementation strategies in community, public health and healthcare settings

OBJECTIVES: To identify existing evidence concerning the cost of dissemination and implementation (D&I) strategies in community, public health and health service research, mapped with the ‘Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change’ (ERIC) taxonomy. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify any English language reports that had been published between January 2008 and December 2019 concerning the cost of D&I strategies. DATA EXTRACTION: We matched the strategies identified in each article using ERIC taxonomies; further classified them into five areas (eg, dissemination, implementation, integration, capacity building and scale-up); and extracted the corresponding costs (total costs and cots per action target and per evidence-based programme (EBP) participant). We also recorded the reported level of costing methodology used for cost assessment of D&I strategies. RESULTS: Of the 6445 articles identified, 52 studies were eligible for data extraction. Lack of D&I strategy cost data was the predominant reason (55% of the excluded studies) for study exclusion. Predominant topic, setting, country and research design in the included studies were mental health (19%), primary care settings (44%), the US (35%) and observational (42%). Thirty-five (67%) studies used multicomponent D&I strategies (ranging from two to five discrete strategies). The most frequently applied strategies were Conduct ongoing training (50%) and Conduct educational meetings (23%). Adoption (42%) and reach (27%) were the two most frequently assessed outcomes. The overall costs of Conduct ongoing training ranged from $199 to $105 772 ($1–$13 973 per action target and $0.02–$412 per EBP participant); whereas the cost of Conduct educational meetings ranged from $987 to $1.1–$2.9 million/year ($33–$54 869 per action target and $0.2–$146 per EBP participant). The wide range of costs was due to the varying scales of the studies, intended audiences/diseases and the complexities of the strategy components. Most studies presented limited information on costing methodology, making interpretation difficult. CONCLUSIONS: The quantity of published D&I strategy cost analyses is increasing, yet guidance on conducting and reporting of D&I strategy cost analysis is necessary to facilitate and promote the application of comparative economic evaluation in the field of D&I research.