Moving beyond Aim Three: a need for a transdisciplinary approach to build capacity for economic evaluations in implementation science.
Moving beyond Aim Three: a need for a transdisciplinary approach to build capacity for economic evaluations in implementation science.
复制标题
超越目标三：需要采取跨学科办法，建设执行科学方面的经济评价能力。
DOI：
10.1186/s43058-021-00239-1
复制
发表时间：
2021-12-04
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Saldana L
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Barnett ML;Stadnick NA;Proctor EK;Dopp AR;Saldana L
政策制定者和研究人员认为，了解实施的成本和经济效益对于提高循证实践的接受和维持至关重要，但这一主题仍然相对缺乏研究。与卫生经济学家进行团队科学已被提出作为一种解决方案，以增加实施科学的经济评估，但是，这些建议忽略了在这两个领域的目标和观点的差异。我们最近的定性研究发现，实施研究人员主要接近卫生经济学家检查成本，而大多数卫生经济学家表示进行经济评估的兴趣有限，并希望更多地融入实施科学的举措。这些访谈指出，当卫生经济学家被归入“第三目标”（即，优先级最低的研究目标），以执行其研究伙伴的科学项目。在这篇辩论论文中，我们认为，实施研究人员和卫生经济学家需要专注于团队科学研究原则，以扩大能力，以解决跨两个领域的紧迫的研究问题。具体来说，我们使用跨学科研究的四阶段模型来概述在这一领域建立能力所需的目标和过程（Hall等人，Transl Behav Med 2：415-30，2012）。第一阶段的重点是发展跨学科研究团队，包括确定适当的合作伙伴（例如，除了卫生经济学家之外，还考虑政策或公共卫生研究人员）和建立信任。概念阶段的重点是在制定跨领域联合研究问题和方法时要考虑的战略。在实施阶段，我们概述了进行研究项目的有效流程，如团队学习。最后，在翻译阶段，我们强调卫生经济学家和实施研究人员之间的跨学科方法如何影响现实世界的实践和政策。调查循证实践实施的经济影响的重要性得到了广泛认可，但由于跨学科团队科学的挑战，努力有限。团队科学的培训可以帮助推进跨学科的努力，这有可能提高实施科学中经济评估的严谨性和影响力，同时扩大卫生经济学家的作用。
Understanding the costs and economic benefits of implementation has been identified by policymakers and researchers as critical to increase the uptake and sustainment of evidence-based practices, but this topic remains relatively understudied. Conducting team science with health economists has been proposed as a solution to increase economic evaluation in implementation science; however, these recommendations ignore the differences in goals and perspectives in these two fields. Our recent qualitative research identified that implementation researchers predominantly approach health economists to examine costs, whereas the majority of health economists expressed limited interest in conducting economic evaluations and a desire to be more integrated within implementation science initiatives. These interviews pointed to challenges in establishing fruitful partnerships when health economists are relegated to the “Third Aim” (i.e., lowest-priority research objective) in implementation science projects by their research partners. In this debate paper, we argue that implementation researchers and health economists need to focus on team science research principles to expand capacity to address pressing research questions that cut across the two fields. Specifically, we use the four-phase model of transdisciplinary research to outline the goals and processes needed to build capacity in this area (Hall et al., Transl Behav Med 2:415–30, 2012). The first phase focuses on the development of transdisciplinary research teams, including identifying appropriate partners (e.g., considering policy or public health researchers in addition to health economists) and building trust. The conceptual phase focuses on strategies to consider when developing joint research questions and methodology across fields. In the implementation phase, we outline the effective processes for conducting research projects, such as team learning. Finally, in the translation phase, we highlight how a transdisciplinary approach between health economists and implementation researchers can impact real-world practice and policy. The importance of investigating the economic impact of evidence-based practice implementation is widely recognized, but efforts have been limited due to the challenges in conducting team science across disciplines. Training in team science can help advance transdisciplinary efforts, which has the potential to increase the rigor and impact of economic evaluations in implementation science while expanding the roles taken by health economists.