Collaborating with health economists to advance implementation science: a qualitative study.
Collaborating with health economists to advance implementation science: a qualitative study.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s43058-020-00074-w
复制
发表时间：
2020
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Saldana L
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Barnett ML;Dopp AR;Klein C;Ettner SL;Powell BJ;Saldana L
实施研究很少涉及经济因素，尽管了解实施循证实践（ebp）的成本很重要。虽然与卫生经济学家的伙伴关系有可能增加对实施科学中的经济因素的关注，但已经注意到形成这些合作的障碍。这项研究调查了卫生经济学家和实施研究人员的经验，他们跨学科合作，为增加这种合作的战略提供信息。采用有目的的抽样方法确定了8名具有参与跨学科研究经验的卫生经济学家和8名实施研究人员。我们使用半结构化访谈来收集参与者在合作研究中的经验信息。进行了专题分析，以确定与合作的促进因素和障碍有关的核心主题。卫生经济学家和实施研究人员对合作研究表达了不同的观点，强调了增加跨学科理解的重要性。实施研究人员描述了在实施研究中衡量成本的必要性，而许多卫生经济学家则描述说，他们寻求在进行成本分析之外的项目上进行合作。这两个学科的研究人员明确了合作研究的动机，并确定了促进成功合作的策略，这些主题在不同程度上趋同。共同的动机包括提高研究方法的严谨性，并对现实世界产生影响。改善合作的策略包括在研究设计阶段早期建立伙伴关系，拥有共同的兴趣，并将卫生经济学家纳入更大的研究范围。卫生经济学家和实施研究人员都进行具有重大政策意义的研究，并有可能以可能更快地推进ebp采用的方式为彼此的工作提供信息。卫生经济学家和实施科学之间的合作研究有可能推动该领域的发展；然而，研究人员需要努力弥合学科差异。通过开始建立牢固的工作关系；增进他们对彼此学科文化、方法论和语言的理解；通过增加经济学家在研究设计和执行中的作用，实施研究人员和卫生经济学家都可以支持成功的合作以及强有力的信息丰富的研究。
Implementation research infrequently addresses economic factors, despite the importance of understanding the costs of implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs). Though partnerships with health economists have the potential to increase attention to economic factors within implementation science, barriers to forming these collaborations have been noted. This study investigated the experiences of health economists and implementation researchers who have partnered across disciplines to inform strategies to increase such collaborations. A purposeful sampling approach was used to identify eight health economists and eight implementation researchers with experience participating in cross-disciplinary research. We used semi-structured interviews to gather information about participants’ experiences with collaborative research. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify core themes related to facilitators and barriers to collaborations. Health economists and implementation researchers voiced different perspectives on collaborative research, highlighting the importance of increasing cross-disciplinary understanding. Implementation researchers described a need to measure costs in implementation studies, whereas many health economists described that they seek to collaborate on projects that extend beyond conducting cost analyses. Researchers in both disciplines articulated motivations for collaborative research and identified strategies that promote successful collaboration, with varying degrees of convergence across these themes. Shared motivations included improving methodological rigor of research and making a real-world impact. Strategies to improve collaboration included starting partnerships early in the study design period, having a shared interest, and including health economists in the larger scope of the research. Health economists and implementation researchers both conduct research with significant policy implications and have the potential to inform one another’s work in ways that might more rapidly advance the uptake of EBPs. Collaborative research between health economists and implementation science has the potential to advance the field; however, researchers will need to work to bridge disciplinary differences. By beginning to develop strong working relationships; increasing their understanding of one another’s disciplinary culture, methodology, and language; and increasing the role economists have within research design and execution, both implementation researchers and health economists can support successful collaborations and robust and informative research.