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).

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.

Systematic Review of Hypertension and Diabetes Burden, Risk Factors, and Interventions for Prevention and Control in Malawi: The NCD BRITE Consortium.

Recent studies have found an increasing burden of noncommunicable diseases in sub-Saharan Africa. A compressive search of PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and the World Health Organization Global Health Library databases was undertaken to identify studies reporting on the prevalence, risk factors, and interventions for hypertension and diabetes in Malawi. The findings from 23 included studies revealed a high burden of hypertension and diabetes in Malawi, with estimates ranging from 15.8% to 32.9% and from 2.4% to 5.6%, respectively. Associated risk factors included old age, tobacco smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, obesity, physical inactivity, high salt and sugar intake, low fruit and vegetable intake, high body mass index, and high waist-to-hip ratio. Certain antiretroviral therapy regimens were also associated with increased diabetes and hypertension risk in human immunodeficiency virus patient populations. Nationwide, the quality of clinical care was generally limited and demonstrated a need for innovative and targeted interventions to prevent, control, and treat noncommunicable diseases in Malawi.

Dissemination and Implementation Program in Hypertension in Rwanda: Report on Initial Training and Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide and in low- and middle-income countries, and hypertension (HTN) is a major risk factor for CVD. Although effective evidence-based interventions for control of HTN in high-income countries exist, implementation of these in low- and middle-income countries has been challenging due to limited capacity and infrastructure for late-phase translational research. In Rwanda, the 2015 STEPS NCD (STEPwise Approach to Surveillance of Noncommunicable Diseases) risk survey reported an overall prevalence of HTN of 15% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 13.8 to 16.3) for those ages 15 to 64 years; prevalence increased with increasing age to 39% (95% CI: 35.7 to 43.1) for those ages 55 to 64 years; CVD was the third most common cause of mortality (7%). Suboptimal infrastructure and capacity in Rwanda hinders research and community knowledge for HTN control. OBJECTIVES: To address the issue of suboptimal capacity to implement evidence-based interventions in HTN, this project was designed with the following objectives: 1) to develop a regional needs assessment of infrastructure for dissemination and implementation (D & I) strategies for HTN-CVD control; 2) to develop HTN-CVD research capacity through creation of countrywide resources such as core research facilities and training in the fields of HTN-CVD, D & I, and biostatistics; and 3) to engage and train multiple stakeholders in D & I and HTN-CVD evidence-based interventions. METHODS: A weeklong training program in HTN-CVD, biostatistics, and D & I was conducted in Rwanda in August 2018, and pre- and post-D & I training competency questionnaires were administered. RESULTS: Questionnaire results show a statistically significant increase in D & I knowledge and skills as a result of training (full scale pre- to post-test scores: 2.12 ± 0.78 vs. 3.94 ± 0.42; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Using principles of community engagement and train-the-trainer methods, we will continue to adapt guidelines and treatments for HTN-CVD developed in high-income countries to the context of Rwanda with the goal of establishing a sustainable platform to address the burden of disease from HTN-CVD.

The Malawi NCD BRITE Consortium: Building Research Capacity, Implementation, and Translation Expertise for Noncommunicable Diseases.

Africa is experiencing an increasing prevalence of noncommunicable diseases (NCD). However, few reliable data are available on their true burden, main risk factors, and economic impact that are needed to inform implementation of evidence-based interventions in the local context. In Malawi, a number of initiatives have begun addressing the NCD challenge, which have often utilized existing infectious disease infrastructure. It will be crucial to carefully leverage these synergies to maximize their impact. NCD-BRITE (Building Research Capacity, Implementation, and Translation Expertise) is a transdisciplinary consortium that brings together key research institutions, the Ministry of Health, and other stakeholders to build long-term, sustainable, NCD-focused implementation research capacity. Led by University of Malawi-College of Medicine, University of North Carolina, and Dignitas International, NCD-BRITE's specific aims are to conduct detailed assessments of the burden and risk factors of common NCD; assess the research infrastructure needed to inform, implement, and evaluate NCD interventions; create a national implementation research agenda for priority NCD; and develop NCD-focused implementation research capacity through short courses, mentored research awards, and an internship placement program. The capacity-building activities are purposely designed around the University of Malawi-College of Medicine and Ministry of Health to ensure sustainability. The NCD BRITE Consortium was launched in February 2018. In year 1, we have developed NCD-focused implementation research capacity. Needs assessments will follow in years 2 and 3. Finally, in year 4, the generated research capacity, together with findings from the needs assessments, will be used to create a national, actionable, implementation research agenda for NCD prioritized in this consortium, namely cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, and asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.