Economic evaluation of implementation science outcomes in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review.

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).

A risk assessment tool for resumption of research activities during the COVID-19 pandemic for field trials in low resource settings.

RATIONALE: The spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 has suspended many non-COVID-19 related research activities. Where restarting research activities is permitted, investigators need to evaluate the risks and benefits of resuming data collection and adapt procedures to minimize risk. OBJECTIVES: In the context of the multicountry Household Air Pollution Intervention (HAPIN) trial conducted in rural, low-resource settings, we developed a framework to assess the risk of each trial activity and to guide protective measures. Our goal is to maximize the integrity of reseach aims while minimizing infection risk based on the latest scientific understanding of the virus. METHODS: We drew on a combination of expert consultations, risk assessment frameworks, institutional guidance and literature to develop our framework. We then systematically graded clinical, behavioral, laboratory and field environmental health research activities in four countries for both adult and child subjects using this framework. National and local government recommendations provided the minimum safety guidelines for our work. RESULTS: Our framework assesses risk based on staff proximity to the participant, exposure time between staff and participants, and potential viral aerosolization while performing the activity. For each activity, one of four risk levels, from minimal to unacceptable, is assigned and guidance on protective measures is provided. Those activities that can potentially aerosolize the virus are deemed the highest risk. CONCLUSIONS: By applying a systematic, procedure-specific approach to risk assessment for each trial activity, we were able to protect our participants and research team and to uphold our ability to deliver on the research commitments we have made to our staff, participants, local communities, and funders. This framework can be tailored to other research studies conducted in similar settings during the current pandemic, as well as potential future outbreaks with similar transmission dynamics. The trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov NCT02944682 on October 26. 2016 .

Proactive prevention: Act now to disrupt the impending non-communicable disease crisis in low-burden populations.

Non-communicable disease (NCD) prevention efforts have traditionally targeted high-risk and high-burden populations. We propose an alteration in prevention efforts to also include emphasis and focus on low-risk populations, predominantly younger individuals and low-prevalence populations. We refer to this approach as "proactive prevention." This emphasis is based on the priority to put in place policies, programs, and infrastructure that can disrupt the epidemiological transition to develop NCDs among these groups, thereby averting future NCD crises. Proactive prevention strategies can be classified, and their implementation prioritized, based on a 2-dimensional assessment: impact and feasibility. Thus, potential interventions can be categorized into a 2-by-2 matrix: high impact/high feasibility, high impact/low feasibility, low impact/high feasibility, and low impact/low feasibility. We propose that high impact/high feasibility interventions are ready to be implemented (act), while high impact/low feasibility interventions require efforts to foster buy-in first. Low impact/high feasibility interventions need to be changed to improve their impact while low impact/low feasibility might be best re-designed in the context of limited resources. Using this framework, policy makers, public health experts, and other stakeholders can more effectively prioritize and leverage limited resources in an effort to slow or prevent the evolving global NCD crisis.

A Risk Assessment Tool for Resumption of Research Activities During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

RATIONALE: The spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 has suspended many non-COVID-19 related research activities. Where restarting research activities is permitted, investigators need to evaluate the risks and benefits of resuming data collection and adapt procedures to minimize risk. OBJECTIVES: In the context of the multicountry Household Air Pollution Intervention (HAPIN) trial, we developed a framework to assess the risk of each trial activity and to guide protective measures. Our goal is to maximize integrity of reseach aims while minimizing infection risk based on the latest understanding of the virus. METHODS: We drew on a combination of expert consultations, risk assessment frameworks, institutional guidance and literature to develop our framework. We then systematically graded clinical, behavioral, laboratory and field environmental health research activities in four countries for both adult and child subjects using this framework. RESULTS: Our framework assesses risk based on staff proximity to the participant, exposure time between staff and participants, and potential aerosolization while performing the activity. One of of four risk levels, from minimal to unacceptable, is assigned and guidance on protective measures is provided. Those activities which can potentially aerosolize the virus are deemed the highest risk. CONCLUSIONS: By applying a systematic, procedure-specific approach to risk assessment for each trial activity, we can compare trial activities using the same criteria. This approach allows us to protect our participants and research team and to uphold our ability to deliver on the research commitments we have made to our participants, local communities, and funders. The trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02944682).

A Perspective on Promoting Diversity in the Biomedical Research Workforce: The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's PRIDE Program.

Aspiring junior investigators from groups underrepresented in the biomedical sciences face various challenges as they pursue research independence. However, the biomedical research enterprise needs their participation to effectively address critical research issues such as health disparities and health inequities. In this article, we share a research education and mentoring initiative that seeks to address this challenge: Programs to Increase Diversity among Individuals Engaged in Health Related Research (PRIDE), funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI). This longitudinal research-education and mentoring program occurs through summer institute programs located at US-based academic institutions. Recruited participants are exposed to didactic and lab-based research-skill enhancement experiences, with year-round mentoring over the course of two years. Mentor-mentee matching is based on shared research interests to promote congruence and to enhance skill acquisition. Program descriptions and sample narratives of participants' perceptions of PRIDE's impact on their career progress are showcased. Additionally, we highlight the overall program design and structure of four of seven funded summer institutes that focus on cardiovascular disease, related conditions, and health disparities. Mentees' testimonials about the value of the PRIDE mentoring approach in facilitating career development are also noted. Meeting the clinical and research needs of an increasingly diverse US population is an issue of national concern. The PRIDE initiative, which focuses on increasing research preparedness and professional development of groups underrepresented in the biomedical research workforce, with an emphasis on mentoring as the critical approach, provides a robust model that is impacting the careers of future investigators.

Alterations in left ventricular structure and function in young healthy obese women: assessment by echocardiography and tissue Doppler imaging.

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to determine the effects of obesity on left ventricular (LV) structure and function in young obese women. BACKGROUND: Severe prolonged obesity in older adults results in increased plasma volume, eccentric LV hypertrophy, and systolic and diastolic dysfunction. Obese women are at increased risk for the development of heart failure. However, the effects of the obesity on cardiac structure and function in young, otherwise-healthy women are controversial. METHODS: Fifty-one women were evaluated: 20 were obese (body mass index [BMI] > or =30 kg/m(2)) and 31 were non-obese (BMI <30 kg/m(2)). Left ventricular structure and systolic and diastolic function were assessed by two-dimensional echocardiography and tissue Doppler imaging, including the load-independent systolic myocardial velocity (Sm global) and early diastolic myocardial velocity (Em global), respectively. The effects of BMI on LV structure and function were assessed using multivariate regression analyses. RESULTS: Obese women had higher end-diastolic septal and posterior wall thickness, LV mass, and relative wall thickness than non-obese women; BMI values showed significant correlations with these variables (r = 0.58, p < 0.0001; r = 0.50, p < 0.0002; r = 0.52, p < 0.0001, and r = 0.40, p < 0.005, respectively). The Sm global and Em global were lower in obese women, suggesting systolic and diastolic function are decreased; both were negatively correlated with BMI (r = -0.43, p <. 002 and r = -0.61, p < 0.0001, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed BMI was the only independent predictor of relative wall thickness, Sm global, and Em global. CONCLUSIONS: Obesity in young otherwise-healthy women is associated with concentric LV remodeling and decreased systolic and diastolic function. These early abnormalities in LV structure and function may have important implications for explaining the myocardial dysfunction that is associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality caused by obesity.