Challenges and recommendations for collecting and quantifying implementation costs in practice: a qualitative interview study

• Published in: Implementation science communications Vol. 5; no. 1; pp. 114 - 15
• Main Authors: Donovan, Thomasina, Carter, Hannah E, McPhail, Steven M, Abell, Bridget
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BMC 11.10.2024
• Subjects: Digital health; Health economics; Implementation costs; Implementation science; Digital health; Health economics; Implementation costs; Implementation science
• ISSN: 2662-2211; 2662-2211
• DOI: 10.1186/s43058-024-00648-y

The cost of implementation is typically not accounted for in published economic evaluations, which determine the relative value for money of health innovations and are important for allocating scarce resources. Despite key papers outlining relevant implementation costs, they continue to be under reported in the literature and often not considered in practice. This study sought to understand and outline current practices for capturing the costs associated with implementation efforts, with examples from the digital health setting. A qualitative study of semi-structured interviews with purposefully sampled experts in implementation science, health economics and/or digital health was conducted. The interview guide was informed by a literature review and was pilot tested. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed. A hybrid inductive/deductive framework analysis was conducted using thematic analysis to elicit key concepts related to the research question. Interviews were conducted with sixteen participants with specialist expertise in implementation science (n = 8), health economics (n = 6), and/or digital health (n = 8). Five participants were experienced in more than one field. Four key themes were elicited from the data: difficulty identifying and collecting implementation cost data; variation in approaches for collecting implementation cost data; the value of implementation costs; and collaboration enables implementation costing. Broadly, while interviewees recognised implementation costs as important, only some costs were considered in practice likely due to the perceived ill-defined boundaries and inconsistencies in terminology. A variety of methods were used to collect and estimate implementation costs; the most frequent approach was staff time tracking. Multidisciplinary collaboration facilitated this process, but the burden of collecting the necessary data was also highlighted. In current practice, standardised methods are not commonly used for data collection or estimation of implementation costs. Improved data collection through standardised practices may support greater transparency and confidence in implementation cost estimates. Although participants had industry exposure, most were also academic researchers and findings may not be representative of non-academic industry settings.