BMC medical research methodology · 2026
Integrating health economics and implementation science: a call to action.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Meredith Lane, Skouteris Helen, Alderson Sarah, Bajre Mamta, Barker Ruth E, Bird Paul, Clarke Caroline S, Currie Graeme, Foy Robbie, Frempong Samuel, Glover-Wright Clare, Heggie Robert, Latuszynska Agnieszka, McLeod Hugh, Naghdi Seyran, Ndwandwe Siyabonga, Rowe Emily, Sillero-Rejon Carlos, Staniszewska Sophie, Sykes Michael, Tebaldi Davide, Yousefi Mehdi, Zanganeh Mandana, Grove Amy L, Higgins Alisa M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Health economics and implementation science play a critical role in the uptake of evidence-based practice but have largely sat siloed.
METHODS: This paper summarises findings from a 3-day workshop on health economics and implementation science. Workshop attendees included 30 health economists, implementation scientists, patient contributors, and patient and public involvement and engagement researchers from Australia and the United Kingdom. A shared vision for moving from siloed to synergistic disciplinary approaches was derived through consensus.
RESULTS: This article outlines to researchers and methodologists what synergistic disciplinary approaches could look like. We highlight opportunities for health economics and implementation science to integrate along the innovation pathway, from the development and evaluation of innovation to eventual uptake and spread.
CONCLUSIONS: Greater collaboration between implementation scientists and health economists has the potential to optimise implementation strategies, provide robust evidence for value for money and ultimately improve care delivery. Stronger integration of health economics and implementation science may also shed more light on the equity impacts of implementation strategies and guide their further design to promote more equitable care and outcomes.
METHODS: This paper summarises findings from a 3-day workshop on health economics and implementation science. Workshop attendees included 30 health economists, implementation scientists, patient contributors, and patient and public involvement and engagement researchers from Australia and the United Kingdom. A shared vision for moving from siloed to synergistic disciplinary approaches was derived through consensus.
RESULTS: This article outlines to researchers and methodologists what synergistic disciplinary approaches could look like. We highlight opportunities for health economics and implementation science to integrate along the innovation pathway, from the development and evaluation of innovation to eventual uptake and spread.
CONCLUSIONS: Greater collaboration between implementation scientists and health economists has the potential to optimise implementation strategies, provide robust evidence for value for money and ultimately improve care delivery. Stronger integration of health economics and implementation science may also shed more light on the equity impacts of implementation strategies and guide their further design to promote more equitable care and outcomes.