RESUMEN
As global adoption of antiretroviral therapy extends the lifespan of People Living with HIV (PLHIV) through viral suppression, the risk of comorbid conditions such as hypertension has risen, creating a need for effective, scalable interventions to manage comorbidities in PLHIV. The Heart, Lung, and Blood Co-morbiditieS Implementation Models in People Living with HIV (HLB-SIMPLe) Alliance has been funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) and the Fogarty International Center (FIC) since September 2020. The Alliance was created to conduct late-stage implementation research to contextualize, implement, and evaluate evidence-based strategies to integrate the diagnosis, treatment, and control of cardiovascular diseases, particularly hypertension, in PLHIV in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).The Alliance consists of six individually-funded clinical trial cooperative agreement research projects based in Botswana, Mozambique, Nigeria, South Africa, Uganda, and Zambia; the Research Coordinating Center; and personnel from NIH, NHLBI, and FIC (the Federal Team). The Federal Team works together with the members of the seven cooperative agreements which comprise the alliance. The Federal Team includes program officials, project scientists, grant management officials and clinical trial specialists. This Alliance of research scientists, trainees, and administrators works collaboratively to provide and support venues for ongoing information sharing within and across the clinical trials, training and capacity building in research methods, publications, data harmonization, and community engagement. The goal is to leverage shared learning to achieve collective success, where the resulting science and training are greater with an Alliance structure rather than what would be expected from isolated and unconnected individual research projects.In this manuscript, we describe how the Research Coordinating Center performs the role of providing organizational efficiencies, scientific technical assistance, research capacity building, operational coordination, and leadership to support research and training activities in this multi-project cooperative research Alliance. We outline challenges and opportunities during the initial phases of coordinating research and training in the HLB-SIMPLe Alliance, including those most relevant to dissemination and implementation researchers.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Historically, the focus of cost-effectiveness analyses has been on the costs to operate and deliver interventions after their initial design and launch. The costs related to design and implementation of interventions have often been omitted. Ignoring these costs leads to an underestimation of the true price of interventions and biases economic analyses toward favoring new interventions. This is especially true in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where implementation may require substantial up-front investment. This scoping review was conducted to explore the topics, depth, and availability of scientific literature on integrating implementation science into economic evaluations of health interventions in LMICs. METHODS: We searched Web of Science and PubMed for papers published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2021, that included components of both implementation science and economic evaluation. Studies from LMICs were prioritized for review, but papers from high-income countries were included if their methodology/findings were relevant to LMIC settings. RESULTS: Six thousand nine hundred eighty-six studies were screened, of which 55 were included in full-text review and 23 selected for inclusion and data extraction. Most papers were theoretical, though some focused on a single disease or disease subset, including: mental health (n = 5), HIV (n = 3), tuberculosis (n = 3), and diabetes (n = 2). Manuscripts included a mix of methodology papers, empirical studies, and other (e.g., narrative) reviews. Authorship of the included literature was skewed toward high-income settings, with 22 of the 23 papers featuring first and senior authors from high-income countries. Of nine empirical studies included, no consistent implementation cost outcomes were measured, and only four could be mapped to an existing costing or implementation framework. There was also substantial heterogeneity across studies in how implementation costs were defined, and the methods used to collect them. CONCLUSION: A sparse but growing literature explores the intersection of implementation science and economic evaluation. Key needs include more research in LMICs, greater consensus on the definition of implementation costs, standardized methods to collect such costs, and identifying outcomes of greatest relevance. Addressing these gaps will result in stronger links between implementation science and economic evaluation and will create more robust and accurate estimates of intervention costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol for this manuscript was published on the Open Science Framework. It is available at: https://osf.io/ms5fa/ (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/32EPJ).