Sohn Hojoon, Tucker Austin, Ferguson Olivia, Gomes Isabella, Dowdy David
Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street E6531, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Implement Sci. 2020 Sep 29;15(1):86. doi: 10.1186/s13012-020-01047-2.
Failing to account for the resources required to successfully implement public health interventions can lead to an underestimation of costs and budget impact, optimistic cost-effectiveness estimates, and ultimately a disconnect between published evidence and public health decision-making.
We developed a conceptual framework for assessing implementation costs. We illustrate the use of this framework with case studies involving interventions for tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS in resource-limited settings.
Costs of implementing public health interventions may be conceptualized as occurring across three phases: design, initiation, and maintenance. In the design phase, activities include developing intervention components and establishing necessary infrastructure (e.g., technology, standard operating procedures). Initiation phase activities include training, initiation of supply chains and quality assurance procedures, and installation of equipment. Implementation costs in the maintenance phase include ongoing technical support, monitoring and evaluation, and troubleshooting unexpected obstacles. Within each phase, implementation costs can be incurred at the site of delivery ("site-specific" costs) or more centrally ("above-service" or "central" costs). For interventions evaluated in the context of research studies, implementation costs should be classified as programmatic, research-related, or shared research/program costs. Purely research-related costs are often excluded from analysis of programmatic implementation.
In evaluating public health interventions in resource-limited settings, accounting for implementation costs enables more realistic estimates of budget impact and cost-effectiveness and provides important insights into program feasibility, scale-up, and sustainability. Assessment of implementation costs should be planned prospectively and performed in a standardized manner to ensure generalizability.
未能考虑成功实施公共卫生干预措施所需的资源,可能导致成本和预算影响估计不足、成本效益估计过于乐观,并最终造成已发表的证据与公共卫生决策之间脱节。
我们开发了一个用于评估实施成本的概念框架。我们通过在资源有限环境中涉及结核病和艾滋病毒/艾滋病干预措施的案例研究来说明该框架的使用。
实施公共卫生干预措施的成本可概念化为发生在三个阶段:设计、启动和维持。在设计阶段,活动包括开发干预组件和建立必要的基础设施(如技术、标准操作程序)。启动阶段的活动包括培训、启动供应链和质量保证程序以及设备安装。维持阶段的实施成本包括持续的技术支持、监测和评估以及解决意外障碍。在每个阶段内,实施成本可在交付地点产生(“特定地点”成本)或在更集中的层面产生(“服务之上”或“中央”成本)。对于在研究背景下评估的干预措施,实施成本应归类为项目成本、研究相关成本或共享研究/项目成本。纯粹的研究相关成本通常在项目实施分析中被排除。
在评估资源有限环境中的公共卫生干预措施时,考虑实施成本能够更现实地估计预算影响和成本效益,并为项目可行性、扩大规模和可持续性提供重要见解。实施成本评估应提前规划并以标准化方式进行,以确保可推广性。