Budget impact analysis for implementation decision making, planning, and financing.

Shelley et al. (in Accelerating integration of tobacco use treatment in the context of lung cancer screening: relevance and application of implementation science to achieving policy and practice. Transl Behav Med 2022;12:1076-1083) laid out how implementation science frameworks and methods can advance the delivery of tobacco use treatment services during lung cancer screening services, which until recently was mandated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Their discussion provides an important overview of the full process of implementation and highlights the vast number of decisions that must be made when planning for implementation of an evidence-based practice such as tobacco use treatment: what specific tobacco use treatment services to deliver, when to deliver those services within the lung cancer screening process, and what implementation strategies to use. The costs of implementation play a major role in decision making and are a key implementation determinant discussed in major implementation frameworks. When making decisions about what and how to implement, budget impact analyses (BIAs) can play an important role in informing decision making by helping practitioners understand the overall affordability of a given implementation effort. BIAs can also inform the development of financing strategies to support the ongoing sustainment of tobacco use treatment service provision. More attention is needed by the research community to produce high-quality, user-friendly, and flexible BIAs to inform implementation decision making in health system and community settings. The application of BIA can help ensure that the considerable time and effort spent to develop and evaluate evidence-based programs has the best chance to inform implementation practice.

Integrating the provision of tobacco use treatment services during lung cancer screening can increase the benefits of lung cancer screening. Shelley et al. lay out how implementation science can be leveraged to facilitate this integration and to highlight the vast array of decisions that must be made to plan for implementation. Practitioners must choose which tobacco use treatment services to deliver, when to deliver those services within the process of lung cancer screening, and how to implement services. The resources associated with these choices are a key determinant of decision making and successful implementation. We discuss how budget impact analyses (BIAs) can help organizations understand the likely costs of what it would take to get tobacco treatment services into place and sustain them over time, accounting for context-specific differences like wage rates or available resources. Researchers should strive to develop high-quality, user-friendly, and flexible BIAs to inform decision making around the integration of tobacco use treatment services during lung cancer screening in health system and community settings. Applications of BIAs extend beyond tobacco; regardless of substantive area, building BIAs is a collaborative effort that requires a team science approach.

Assessing the market viability of a packaged intensive health behavior and lifestyle treatment.

In the USA, more than 14 million children are impacted by obesity. Despite intensive health behavior and lifestyle treatments being found effective, gaps exist in moving these interventions into widespread use. Focusing on market viability could improve the dissemination and sustainment of interventions. The purpose of this paper is to outline the process and results of our market viability assessment for the Healthy Weight Clinic (HWC), a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-recognized Family Health Weight Program. We conducted a market viability assessment using the Speeding Research-test INTerventions (SPRINT) program to gain insights into the commercialization and marketplace for the HWC. Through the process of customer discovery, we interviewed 50 stakeholders to test our hypotheses pertaining to our business model. Key takeaways were the need for packaged interventions that offer support and training for providers, and interventions that are multidisciplinary and located within the medical home. We also learned that (i) the intervention goals must align with the healthcare organization's performance metrics; (ii) services need to be reimbursable; and (iii) the importance of understanding different customer segments (i.e. program users vs. organization decision-makers) and their unique needs. The market viability assessment is a critical step to transforming the HWC into a viable commercial product. The process we have outlined is replicable by others and by encouraging other teams to design for dissemination we can increase the number of evidence-based, packaged IHBLTs available to children with obesity.

In the USA, more than 14 million children are impacted by obesity but few evidence-based interventions are available in the pediatric primary care setting. Focusing on the market viability of evidence-based, intensive health behavior and lifestyle treatments (IHBLT) could improve their dissemination and sustainment. The purpose of this paper is to outline the process and results of our market viability assessment of an intensive health behavior and lifestyle treatment, the Healthy Weight Clinic (HWC), a recognized Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Family Healthy Weight Program. We enrolled in the Speeding Research-test INTerventions (SPRINT) program to understand how to market the HWC by understanding customers' perspectives. Key takeaways include the need for packaged, multidisciplinary interventions in the medical home, ensuring the intervention is reimbursable and aligned with organization's performance metrics, and the importance of knowing customer segments and their needs. This paper addresses the gap pertaining to the market viability of pediatric IHBLT and provides a real-world example of how to conduct an assessment. Additionally, it outlines the process and provides the steps necessary for other researchers to understand the market forces that may impact the viability of their intervention.

Costs to Implement a Pediatric Weight Management Program Across 3 Distinct Contexts.

BACKGROUND: The Connect for Health program is an evidence-based program that aligns with national recommendations for pediatric weight management and includes clinical decision support, educational handouts, and community resources. As implementation costs are a major driver of program adoption and maintenance decisions, we assessed the costs to implement the Connect for Health program across 3 health systems that primarily serve low-income communities with a high prevalence of childhood obesity. METHODS: We used time-driven activity-based costing methods. Each health system (site) developed a process map and a detailed report of all implementation actions taken, aligned with major implementation requirements (eg, electronic health record integration) or strategies (eg, providing clinician training). For each action, sites identified the personnel involved and estimated the time they spent, allowing us to estimate the total costs of implementation and breakdown costs by major implementation activities. RESULTS: Process maps indicated that the program integrated easily into well-child visits. Overall implementation costs ranged from $77,103 (Prisma Health) to $84,954 (Denver Health) to $142,721 (Massachusetts General Hospital). Across implementation activities, setting up the technological aspects of the program was a major driver of costs. Other cost drivers included training, engaging stakeholders, and audit and feedback activities, though there was variability across systems based on organizational context and implementation choices. CONCLUSIONS: Our work highlights the major cost drivers of implementing the Connect for Health program. Accounting for context-specific considerations when assessing the costs of implementation is crucial, especially to facilitate accurate projections of implementation costs in future settings.

Implementation costs of sugary drink policies in the United States.

To support implementation of important public health policies, policymakers need information about implementation costs over time and across stakeholder groups. We assessed implementation costs of two federal sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) policies of current policy interest and with evidence to support their effects: excise taxes and health warning labels. Our analysis encompassed the entire policy life cycle using the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment framework. We identified implementation actions using key informant interviews and developed quantitative estimates of implementation costs using published literature and government documents. Results show that implementation costs vary over time and among stakeholders. Explicitly integrating implementation science theory and using mixed methods improved the comprehensiveness of our results. Although this work is specific to federal SSB policies, the process can inform how we understand the costs of many public health policies, providing crucial information for public health policy making.

Advancing the science of policy implementation: a call to action for the implementation science field.

Public policies have been essential in addressing many of the most pressing public health problems in the USA and around the world. A large and convincing body of multidisciplinary research has established the impacts or effectiveness of public policies, such as smoke-free air laws and nutrition standards, on improving health outcomes and behaviors. Most of this research assumes that because an evidence-based policy is adopted or takes effect, it is implemented as intended. This assumption, however, is often incorrect. Like with clinical guidelines and other interventions, implementation science has an important role to play in promoting the uptake and implementation of evidence-based public policies that promote public health. To realize this potential, there remains a critical need to first establish a common understanding of what public policy is, the role of specific policies in the context of implementation (i.e., is it the evidence-based intervention or the implementation strategy?), and to establish an appropriate methodological foundation for the field of policy implementation science. We recommend that the field must evolve to (i) include policy experts and actors on policy implementation science study teams; (ii) identify theories, models, and frameworks that are suitable for policy implementation science; (iii) identify policy implementation strategies; (iv) adapt and/or identify study designs best suited for policy implementation science research; and (v) identify appropriate policy implementation outcome measures.

Public policies are important to promote the health and well-being of the public. Many important health advances have been made because of policies designed to prevent or limit unhealthy behaviors (such as smoke-free laws) and promote access to medical care (such as health insurance mandates). However, just because a policy is "on the books" does not mean that it is implemented or implemented as intended. To improve how researchers study policy implementation, we discuss some challenges in the field, provide a call to action for researchers to continue developing the field of policy implementation science, and we recommend that scientists establish partnerships with experts in public policy and work together to develop scientific methods that will do a better job of putting policy into practice.

Simulation models of sugary drink policies: A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Simulation modeling methods are an increasingly common tool for projecting the potential health effects of policies to decrease sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) intake. However, it remains unknown which SSB policies are understudied and how simulation modeling methods could be improved. To inform next steps, we conducted a scoping review to characterize the (1) policies considered and (2) major characteristics of SSB simulation models. METHODS: We systematically searched 7 electronic databases in 2020, updated in 2021. Two investigators independently screened articles to identify peer-reviewed research using simulation modeling to project the impact of SSB policies on health outcomes. One investigator extracted information about policies considered and key characteristics of models from the full text of included articles. Data were analyzed in 2021-22. RESULTS: Sixty-one articles were included. Of these, 50 simulated at least one tax policy, most often an ad valorem tax (e.g., 20% tax, n = 25) or volumetric tax (e.g., 1 cent-per-fluid-ounce tax, n = 23). Non-tax policies examined included bans on SSB purchases (n = 5), mandatory reformulation (n = 3), warning labels (n = 2), and portion size policies (n = 2). Policies were typically modeled in populations accounting for age and gender or sex attributes. Most studies focused on weight-related outcomes (n = 54), used cohort, lifetable, or microsimulation modeling methods (n = 34), conducted sensitivity or uncertainty analyses (n = 56), and included supplementary materials (n = 54). Few studies included stakeholders at any point in their process (n = 9) or provided replication code/data (n = 8). DISCUSSION: Most simulation modeling of SSB policies has focused on tax policies and has been limited in its exploration of heterogenous impacts across population groups. Future research would benefit from refined policy and implementation scenario specifications, thorough assessments of the equity impacts of policies using established methods, and standardized reporting to improve transparency and consistency.

Using decision analysis to support implementation planning in research and practice.

BACKGROUND: The process of implementing evidence-based interventions, programs, and policies is difficult and complex. Planning for implementation is critical and likely plays a key role in the long-term impact and sustainability of interventions in practice. However, implementation planning is also difficult. Implementors must choose what to implement and how best to implement it, and each choice has costs and consequences to consider. As a step towards supporting structured and organized implementation planning, we advocate for increased use of decision analysis. MAIN TEXT: When applied to implementation planning, decision analysis guides users to explicitly define the problem of interest, outline different plans (e.g., interventions/actions, implementation strategies, timelines), and assess the potential outcomes under each alternative in their context. We ground our discussion of decision analysis in the PROACTIVE framework, which guides teams through key steps in decision analyses. This framework includes three phases: (1) definition of the decision problems and overall objectives with purposeful stakeholder engagement, (2) identification and comparison of different alternatives, and (3) synthesis of information on each alternative, incorporating uncertainty. We present three examples to illustrate the breadth of relevant decision analysis approaches to implementation planning. CONCLUSION: To further the use of decision analysis for implementation planning, we suggest areas for future research and practice: embrace model thinking; build the business case for decision analysis; identify when, how, and for whom decision analysis is more or less useful; improve reporting and transparency of cost data; and increase collaborative opportunities and training.