Use of health economic evaluation in the implementation and improvement science fields—a systematic literature review

Background Economic evaluation can inform whether strategies designed to improve the quality of health care delivery and the uptake of evidence-based practices represent a cost-effective use of limited resources. We report a systematic review and critical appraisal of the application of health econo...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Published in:	Implementation science : IS Vol. 14; no. 1; pp. 72 - 13
Main Authors:	Roberts, Sarah Louise Elin, Healey, Andy, Sevdalis, Nick
Format:	Journal Article
Language:	English
Published:	London BioMed Central 15.07.2019 BioMed Central Ltd BMC
Subjects:	Caregivers Concretes Cost benefit analysis Delivery of Health Care - economics Economists Evaluation Evidence-based medicine Evidence-based practice Evidence-Based Practice - economics Health Administration Health care costs Health care reform Health Informatics Health Policy Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Health services administration Health Services Research Humans Implementation Science Interest rates Management Medical care quality Medical economics Medicine Medicine & Public Health Methods Models, Economic Nurses Physicians Public Health Quality Improvement - economics Scientists Spreadsheet software Systematic Review World health United Kingdom
ISSN:	1748-5908, 1748-5908
Online Access:	Get full text
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

Abstract	Background Economic evaluation can inform whether strategies designed to improve the quality of health care delivery and the uptake of evidence-based practices represent a cost-effective use of limited resources. We report a systematic review and critical appraisal of the application of health economic methods in improvement/implementation research. Method A systematic literature search identified 1668 papers across the Agris, Embase, Global Health, HMIC, PsycINFO, Social Policy and Practice, MEDLINE and EconLit databases between 2004 and 2016. Abstracts were screened in Rayyan database, and key data extracted into Microsoft Excel. Evidence was critically appraised using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) framework. Results Thirty studies were included—all health economic studies that included implementation or improvement as a part of the evaluation. Studies were conducted mostly in Europe (62%) or North America (23%) and were largely hospital-based (70%). The field was split between improvement ( N = 16) and implementation ( N = 14) studies. The most common intervention evaluated (43%) was staffing reconfiguration, specifically changing from physician-led to nurse-led care delivery. Most studies ( N = 19) were ex-post economic evaluations carried out empirically—of those, 17 were cost effectiveness analyses. We found four cost utility analyses that used economic modelling rather than empirical methods. Two cost-consequence analyses were also found. Specific implementation costs considered included costs associated with staff training in new care delivery pathways, the impacts of new processes on patient and carer costs and the costs of developing new care processes/pathways. Over half (55%) of the included studies were rated ‘good’ on QHES. Study quality was boosted through inclusion of appropriate comparators and reporting of incremental analysis (where relevant); and diminished through use of post-hoc subgroup analysis, limited reporting of the handling of uncertainty and justification for choice of discount rates. Conclusions The quantity of published economic evaluations applied to the field of improvement and implementation research remains modest; however, quality is overall good. Implementation and improvement scientists should work closely with health economists to consider costs associated with improvement interventions and their associated implementation strategies. We offer a set of concrete recommendations to facilitate this endeavour.
AbstractList	Economic evaluation can inform whether strategies designed to improve the quality of health care delivery and the uptake of evidence-based practices represent a cost-effective use of limited resources. We report a systematic review and critical appraisal of the application of health economic methods in improvement/implementation research.BACKGROUNDEconomic evaluation can inform whether strategies designed to improve the quality of health care delivery and the uptake of evidence-based practices represent a cost-effective use of limited resources. We report a systematic review and critical appraisal of the application of health economic methods in improvement/implementation research.A systematic literature search identified 1668 papers across the Agris, Embase, Global Health, HMIC, PsycINFO, Social Policy and Practice, MEDLINE and EconLit databases between 2004 and 2016. Abstracts were screened in Rayyan database, and key data extracted into Microsoft Excel. Evidence was critically appraised using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) framework.METHODA systematic literature search identified 1668 papers across the Agris, Embase, Global Health, HMIC, PsycINFO, Social Policy and Practice, MEDLINE and EconLit databases between 2004 and 2016. Abstracts were screened in Rayyan database, and key data extracted into Microsoft Excel. Evidence was critically appraised using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) framework.Thirty studies were included-all health economic studies that included implementation or improvement as a part of the evaluation. Studies were conducted mostly in Europe (62%) or North America (23%) and were largely hospital-based (70%). The field was split between improvement (N = 16) and implementation (N = 14) studies. The most common intervention evaluated (43%) was staffing reconfiguration, specifically changing from physician-led to nurse-led care delivery. Most studies (N = 19) were ex-post economic evaluations carried out empirically-of those, 17 were cost effectiveness analyses. We found four cost utility analyses that used economic modelling rather than empirical methods. Two cost-consequence analyses were also found. Specific implementation costs considered included costs associated with staff training in new care delivery pathways, the impacts of new processes on patient and carer costs and the costs of developing new care processes/pathways. Over half (55%) of the included studies were rated 'good' on QHES. Study quality was boosted through inclusion of appropriate comparators and reporting of incremental analysis (where relevant); and diminished through use of post-hoc subgroup analysis, limited reporting of the handling of uncertainty and justification for choice of discount rates.RESULTSThirty studies were included-all health economic studies that included implementation or improvement as a part of the evaluation. Studies were conducted mostly in Europe (62%) or North America (23%) and were largely hospital-based (70%). The field was split between improvement (N = 16) and implementation (N = 14) studies. The most common intervention evaluated (43%) was staffing reconfiguration, specifically changing from physician-led to nurse-led care delivery. Most studies (N = 19) were ex-post economic evaluations carried out empirically-of those, 17 were cost effectiveness analyses. We found four cost utility analyses that used economic modelling rather than empirical methods. Two cost-consequence analyses were also found. Specific implementation costs considered included costs associated with staff training in new care delivery pathways, the impacts of new processes on patient and carer costs and the costs of developing new care processes/pathways. Over half (55%) of the included studies were rated 'good' on QHES. Study quality was boosted through inclusion of appropriate comparators and reporting of incremental analysis (where relevant); and diminished through use of post-hoc subgroup analysis, limited reporting of the handling of uncertainty and justification for choice of discount rates.The quantity of published economic evaluations applied to the field of improvement and implementation research remains modest; however, quality is overall good. Implementation and improvement scientists should work closely with health economists to consider costs associated with improvement interventions and their associated implementation strategies. We offer a set of concrete recommendations to facilitate this endeavour.CONCLUSIONSThe quantity of published economic evaluations applied to the field of improvement and implementation research remains modest; however, quality is overall good. Implementation and improvement scientists should work closely with health economists to consider costs associated with improvement interventions and their associated implementation strategies. We offer a set of concrete recommendations to facilitate this endeavour. Background Economic evaluation can inform whether strategies designed to improve the quality of health care delivery and the uptake of evidence-based practices represent a cost-effective use of limited resources. We report a systematic review and critical appraisal of the application of health economic methods in improvement/implementation research. Method A systematic literature search identified 1668 papers across the Agris, Embase, Global Health, HMIC, PsycINFO, Social Policy and Practice, MEDLINE and EconLit databases between 2004 and 2016. s were screened in Rayyan database, and key data extracted into Microsoft Excel. Evidence was critically appraised using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) framework. Results Thirty studies were included--all health economic studies that included implementation or improvement as a part of the evaluation. Studies were conducted mostly in Europe (62%) or North America (23%) and were largely hospital-based (70%). The field was split between improvement (N = 16) and implementation (N = 14) studies. The most common intervention evaluated (43%) was staffing reconfiguration, specifically changing from physician-led to nurse-led care delivery. Most studies (N = 19) were ex-post economic evaluations carried out empirically--of those, 17 were cost effectiveness analyses. We found four cost utility analyses that used economic modelling rather than empirical methods. Two cost-consequence analyses were also found. Specific implementation costs considered included costs associated with staff training in new care delivery pathways, the impacts of new processes on patient and carer costs and the costs of developing new care processes/pathways. Over half (55%) of the included studies were rated 'good' on QHES. Study quality was boosted through inclusion of appropriate comparators and reporting of incremental analysis (where relevant); and diminished through use of post-hoc subgroup analysis, limited reporting of the handling of uncertainty and justification for choice of discount rates. Conclusions The quantity of published economic evaluations applied to the field of improvement and implementation research remains modest; however, quality is overall good. Implementation and improvement scientists should work closely with health economists to consider costs associated with improvement interventions and their associated implementation strategies. We offer a set of concrete recommendations to facilitate this endeavour. Abstract Background Economic evaluation can inform whether strategies designed to improve the quality of health care delivery and the uptake of evidence-based practices represent a cost-effective use of limited resources. We report a systematic review and critical appraisal of the application of health economic methods in improvement/implementation research. Method A systematic literature search identified 1668 papers across the Agris, Embase, Global Health, HMIC, PsycINFO, Social Policy and Practice, MEDLINE and EconLit databases between 2004 and 2016. Abstracts were screened in Rayyan database, and key data extracted into Microsoft Excel. Evidence was critically appraised using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) framework. Results Thirty studies were included—all health economic studies that included implementation or improvement as a part of the evaluation. Studies were conducted mostly in Europe (62%) or North America (23%) and were largely hospital-based (70%). The field was split between improvement (N = 16) and implementation (N = 14) studies. The most common intervention evaluated (43%) was staffing reconfiguration, specifically changing from physician-led to nurse-led care delivery. Most studies (N = 19) were ex-post economic evaluations carried out empirically—of those, 17 were cost effectiveness analyses. We found four cost utility analyses that used economic modelling rather than empirical methods. Two cost-consequence analyses were also found. Specific implementation costs considered included costs associated with staff training in new care delivery pathways, the impacts of new processes on patient and carer costs and the costs of developing new care processes/pathways. Over half (55%) of the included studies were rated ‘good’ on QHES. Study quality was boosted through inclusion of appropriate comparators and reporting of incremental analysis (where relevant); and diminished through use of post-hoc subgroup analysis, limited reporting of the handling of uncertainty and justification for choice of discount rates. Conclusions The quantity of published economic evaluations applied to the field of improvement and implementation research remains modest; however, quality is overall good. Implementation and improvement scientists should work closely with health economists to consider costs associated with improvement interventions and their associated implementation strategies. We offer a set of concrete recommendations to facilitate this endeavour. Background Economic evaluation can inform whether strategies designed to improve the quality of health care delivery and the uptake of evidence-based practices represent a cost-effective use of limited resources. We report a systematic review and critical appraisal of the application of health economic methods in improvement/implementation research. Method A systematic literature search identified 1668 papers across the Agris, Embase, Global Health, HMIC, PsycINFO, Social Policy and Practice, MEDLINE and EconLit databases between 2004 and 2016. Abstracts were screened in Rayyan database, and key data extracted into Microsoft Excel. Evidence was critically appraised using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) framework. Results Thirty studies were included—all health economic studies that included implementation or improvement as a part of the evaluation. Studies were conducted mostly in Europe (62%) or North America (23%) and were largely hospital-based (70%). The field was split between improvement ( N = 16) and implementation ( N = 14) studies. The most common intervention evaluated (43%) was staffing reconfiguration, specifically changing from physician-led to nurse-led care delivery. Most studies ( N = 19) were ex-post economic evaluations carried out empirically—of those, 17 were cost effectiveness analyses. We found four cost utility analyses that used economic modelling rather than empirical methods. Two cost-consequence analyses were also found. Specific implementation costs considered included costs associated with staff training in new care delivery pathways, the impacts of new processes on patient and carer costs and the costs of developing new care processes/pathways. Over half (55%) of the included studies were rated ‘good’ on QHES. Study quality was boosted through inclusion of appropriate comparators and reporting of incremental analysis (where relevant); and diminished through use of post-hoc subgroup analysis, limited reporting of the handling of uncertainty and justification for choice of discount rates. Conclusions The quantity of published economic evaluations applied to the field of improvement and implementation research remains modest; however, quality is overall good. Implementation and improvement scientists should work closely with health economists to consider costs associated with improvement interventions and their associated implementation strategies. We offer a set of concrete recommendations to facilitate this endeavour. Economic evaluation can inform whether strategies designed to improve the quality of health care delivery and the uptake of evidence-based practices represent a cost-effective use of limited resources. We report a systematic review and critical appraisal of the application of health economic methods in improvement/implementation research. A systematic literature search identified 1668 papers across the Agris, Embase, Global Health, HMIC, PsycINFO, Social Policy and Practice, MEDLINE and EconLit databases between 2004 and 2016. Abstracts were screened in Rayyan database, and key data extracted into Microsoft Excel. Evidence was critically appraised using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) framework. Thirty studies were included-all health economic studies that included implementation or improvement as a part of the evaluation. Studies were conducted mostly in Europe (62%) or North America (23%) and were largely hospital-based (70%). The field was split between improvement (N = 16) and implementation (N = 14) studies. The most common intervention evaluated (43%) was staffing reconfiguration, specifically changing from physician-led to nurse-led care delivery. Most studies (N = 19) were ex-post economic evaluations carried out empirically-of those, 17 were cost effectiveness analyses. We found four cost utility analyses that used economic modelling rather than empirical methods. Two cost-consequence analyses were also found. Specific implementation costs considered included costs associated with staff training in new care delivery pathways, the impacts of new processes on patient and carer costs and the costs of developing new care processes/pathways. Over half (55%) of the included studies were rated 'good' on QHES. Study quality was boosted through inclusion of appropriate comparators and reporting of incremental analysis (where relevant); and diminished through use of post-hoc subgroup analysis, limited reporting of the handling of uncertainty and justification for choice of discount rates. The quantity of published economic evaluations applied to the field of improvement and implementation research remains modest; however, quality is overall good. Implementation and improvement scientists should work closely with health economists to consider costs associated with improvement interventions and their associated implementation strategies. We offer a set of concrete recommendations to facilitate this endeavour. Economic evaluation can inform whether strategies designed to improve the quality of health care delivery and the uptake of evidence-based practices represent a cost-effective use of limited resources. We report a systematic review and critical appraisal of the application of health economic methods in improvement/implementation research. A systematic literature search identified 1668 papers across the Agris, Embase, Global Health, HMIC, PsycINFO, Social Policy and Practice, MEDLINE and EconLit databases between 2004 and 2016. Abstracts were screened in Rayyan database, and key data extracted into Microsoft Excel. Evidence was critically appraised using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) framework. Thirty studies were included--all health economic studies that included implementation or improvement as a part of the evaluation. Studies were conducted mostly in Europe (62%) or North America (23%) and were largely hospital-based (70%). The field was split between improvement (N = 16) and implementation (N = 14) studies. The most common intervention evaluated (43%) was staffing reconfiguration, specifically changing from physician-led to nurse-led care delivery. Most studies (N = 19) were ex-post economic evaluations carried out empirically--of those, 17 were cost effectiveness analyses. We found four cost utility analyses that used economic modelling rather than empirical methods. Two cost-consequence analyses were also found. Specific implementation costs considered included costs associated with staff training in new care delivery pathways, the impacts of new processes on patient and carer costs and the costs of developing new care processes/pathways. Over half (55%) of the included studies were rated 'good' on QHES. Study quality was boosted through inclusion of appropriate comparators and reporting of incremental analysis (where relevant); and diminished through use of post-hoc subgroup analysis, limited reporting of the handling of uncertainty and justification for choice of discount rates. The quantity of published economic evaluations applied to the field of improvement and implementation research remains modest; however, quality is overall good. Implementation and improvement scientists should work closely with health economists to consider costs associated with improvement interventions and their associated implementation strategies. We offer a set of concrete recommendations to facilitate this endeavour.
ArticleNumber	72
Audience	Academic
Author	Healey, Andy Roberts, Sarah Louise Elin Sevdalis, Nick
Author_xml	– sequence: 1 givenname: Sarah Louise Elin orcidid: 0000-0002-6807-9830 surname: Roberts fullname: Roberts, Sarah Louise Elin email: sarah.l.roberts@kcl.ac.uk organization: King’s Health Economics, Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, David Goldberg Centre – sequence: 2 givenname: Andy surname: Healey fullname: Healey, Andy organization: King’s Health Economics, Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, David Goldberg Centre, Centre for Implementation Science, King’s College London – sequence: 3 givenname: Nick surname: Sevdalis fullname: Sevdalis, Nick organization: Centre for Implementation Science, King’s College London
BackLink	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31307489$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed
BookMark	eNp9UstqHDEQHIJD_Eg-IJcgyCWXcaTVa-YSMCYPgyEX5yy0Us-ulhnJkWbW-OaPyBfmS9LrcYw3BKODRHVVqZuu4-ogpghV9ZbRU8Ya9bEwTtmipqytaUtZrV9UR0yLppYtbQ6evA-r41I2lAopFH9VHXIUYq09qm5-FCCpI2uw_bgm4FJMQ3AEtraf7BhSJCGScQ0kDNc9DBDHGbXR76CctvcgKS5AdEC6AL0vv-9-WVJuywgD0h3pwwjZjlMGkmEb4OZ19bKzfYE3D_dJdfXl89X5t_ry-9eL87PL2kktxxonkFJ32gOXDfNLLkApseS29Zor1ciO-w60ZbYVmjoQYB3zmkprWy48P6kuZluf7MZc5zDYfGuSDeYeSHllbMYGezBiKZVlTiomQTgpW7CNkm3nlhw0MIFen2av62k5gHc4dbb9nul-JYa1WaWtUYozRRs0-PBgkNPPCcpohlAc9L2NkKZiFgvZ4FaUZkh9P1NXFlsLsUvo6HZ0cyZxMsUXemd4-h8WHg-4Q8xKFxDfE7x7OsJj73_zgAQ2E1xOpWToHimMml3mzJw5g5kzu8wZjRr9j8aFOSTYTeifVS5mZcFf4gqy2aQpR8zDM6I_p_ztRg
CitedBy_id	crossref_primary_10_1093_jalm_jfaa107 crossref_primary_10_3390_ijerph20065041 crossref_primary_10_1186_s43058_023_00420_8 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjqs_2024_018349 crossref_primary_10_1186_s43058_023_00424_4 crossref_primary_10_1007_s41347_022_00283_1 crossref_primary_10_5888_pcd18_200513 crossref_primary_10_1097_MLR_0000000000001873 crossref_primary_10_1177_26334895221089266 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2022_060785 crossref_primary_10_1093_cid_ciaa1591 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_socscimed_2024_117250 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12961_021_00766_2 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13756_025_01573_y crossref_primary_10_1111_1475_6773_13592 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_bas_2025_104400 crossref_primary_10_1177_00220345241286462 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12913_022_08171_3 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13012_021_01185_1 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13012_021_01085_4 crossref_primary_10_1186_s43058_024_00562_3 crossref_primary_10_1177_1363461520940481 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13012_025_01423_w crossref_primary_10_1186_s43058_022_00330_1 crossref_primary_10_1089_thy_2024_0396 crossref_primary_10_1111_cdoe_12999 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13012_020_01020_z crossref_primary_10_1186_s12961_020_00633_6 crossref_primary_10_1212_CPJ_0000000000200419 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13012_020_01042_7 crossref_primary_10_1093_tbm_ibac014 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2023_073829 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13012_021_01172_6 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41467_025_58120_x crossref_primary_10_1186_s13012_022_01226_3 crossref_primary_10_1093_ageing_afac112 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13012_022_01248_x crossref_primary_10_1186_s43058_024_00648_y crossref_primary_10_1186_s12913_021_07031_w crossref_primary_10_1186_s12961_024_01220_9 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12962_023_00486_0 crossref_primary_10_1080_2050571X_2019_1693750 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13012_023_01261_8 crossref_primary_10_1186_s43058_021_00239_1 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13012_021_01137_9 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjgh_2021_005365 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10198_021_01359_0 crossref_primary_10_1007_s40273_023_01257_8 crossref_primary_10_1097_MLR_0000000000001897 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0287676 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12913_025_13024_w crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2021_050838 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13012_021_01094_3 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_mex_2024_103015 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_cct_2025_108037 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13643_020_01535_y crossref_primary_10_1186_s13012_024_01368_6 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11904_021_00550_5 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13012_020_00993_1 crossref_primary_10_1007_s40273_023_01287_2 crossref_primary_10_1177_1178632920977894 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13012_021_01180_6 crossref_primary_10_1108_JHOM_06_2020_0218 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0266346 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12889_022_13754_0 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_evalprogplan_2025_102610 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10488_022_01247_6 crossref_primary_10_1186_s43058_020_00074_w crossref_primary_10_55533_2325_5226_1426 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11606_020_06104_6 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjoq_2020_001319 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12913_020_4981_5 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13012_019_0949_4 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13012_020_01047_2 crossref_primary_10_1186_s43058_022_00287_1 crossref_primary_10_1186_s43058_022_00345_8 crossref_primary_10_1007_s40258_025_00993_6 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12913_023_10040_6 crossref_primary_10_1186_s43058_022_00292_4 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11904_021_00568_9 crossref_primary_10_1097_PCC_0000000000003806 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjqs_2020_011111 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13012_022_01192_w crossref_primary_10_1016_j_cegh_2023_101244 crossref_primary_10_1177_00045632211013852 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12877_022_03182_5 crossref_primary_10_1186_s43058_021_00177_y crossref_primary_10_1080_14737167_2025_2542294
Cites_doi	10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05920.x 10.1111/j.1745-7599.2010.00498.x 10.18553/jmcp.2003.9.1.53 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00175.x 10.1007/s40273-015-0281-z 10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7 10.1371/journal.pone.0075647 10.1002/jhm.2433 10.1186/1478-7547-8-13 10.1007/s40258-013-0062-9 10.1136/bmj.313.7052.275 10.1097/01.mlr.0000178266.75744.35 10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.012 10.1177/1060028014541792 10.1186/1478-7547-11-6 10.3310/hta16290 10.1093/heapol/czs058 10.1007/s10198-013-0470-7 10.1007/s40258-015-0160-y 10.1017/S0266462305290190 10.1093/alcalc/ags103 10.3310/hta10400 10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1 10.1186/s13012-014-0168-y 10.1007/s11606-010-1476-9 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044215 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2006.10.016 10.1111/jep.12219 10.2196/jmir.2040 10.1002/nau.21204 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182408812 10.1108/CGIJ-07-2015-0024 10.1136/qshc.2006.022046 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2006.02.002
ContentType	Journal Article
Copyright	The Author(s). 2019 COPYRIGHT 2019 BioMed Central Ltd.
Copyright_xml	– notice: The Author(s). 2019 – notice: COPYRIGHT 2019 BioMed Central Ltd.
DBID	C6C AAYXX CITATION CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7X8 5PM DOA
DOI	10.1186/s13012-019-0901-7
DatabaseName	Springer Nature OA Free Journals CrossRef Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed MEDLINE - Academic PubMed Central (Full Participant titles) Directory of Open Access Journals
DatabaseTitle	CrossRef MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitleList	MEDLINE - Academic MEDLINE
Database_xml	– sequence: 1 dbid: DOA name: Directory of Open Access Journals url: https://www.doaj.org/ sourceTypes: Open Website – sequence: 2 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 3 dbid: 7X8 name: MEDLINE - Academic url: https://search.proquest.com/medline sourceTypes: Aggregation Database
DeliveryMethod	fulltext_linktorsrc
Discipline	Medicine Public Health
EISSN	1748-5908
EndPage	13
ExternalDocumentID	oai_doaj_org_article_4b56a1c5615e4c559ea8659fcb3e7e14 PMC6631608 A593463278 31307489 10_1186_s13012_019_0901_7
Genre	Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Systematic Review Journal Article
GeographicLocations	United Kingdom
GeographicLocations_xml	– name: United Kingdom
GrantInformation_xml	– fundername: National Institute for Health Research funderid: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000272 – fundername: Department of Health – fundername: ;
GroupedDBID	--- 0R~ 29I 2WC 44B 53G 5GY 5VS 7X7 88E 8FI 8FJ AAFWJ AAJSJ AASML AAWTL ABDBF ABUWG ACGFO ACGFS ACHQT ACIHN ACUHS ADBBV ADUKV AEAQA AENEX AFKRA AFPKN AHBYD AHMBA AHYZX ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS AMKLP AMTXH AOIJS BAPOH BAWUL BCNDV BENPR BFQNJ BMC BPHCQ BVXVI C6C CCPQU CS3 DIK DU5 E3Z EBD EBLON EBS EJD ESX F5P FYUFA GROUPED_DOAJ GX1 HMCUK HYE IAO IHR INH INR ITC KQ8 M1P M48 MK0 M~E O5R O5S OK1 OVT P2P PGMZT PHGZM PHGZT PIMPY PJZUB PPXIY PQQKQ PROAC PSQYO PUEGO RBZ RNS ROL RPM RSV SMD SOJ TR2 TUS UKHRP WOQ WOW ~8M AAYXX AFFHD CITATION -5E -5G -A0 -BR 3V. ACRMQ ADINQ ALIPV C24 CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7X8 5PM
ID	FETCH-LOGICAL-c575t-174557f7de3581db34e664b3a9d736685f3dfe7a1a9470ce4eac1d705aa934d3
IEDL.DBID	DOA
ISICitedReferencesCount	96
ISICitedReferencesURI	http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=000475738000001&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D
ISSN	1748-5908
IngestDate	Fri Oct 03 12:50:29 EDT 2025 Tue Nov 04 02:02:37 EST 2025 Sun Nov 09 12:09:20 EST 2025 Tue Nov 11 10:08:41 EST 2025 Tue Nov 04 18:07:18 EST 2025 Thu Jan 02 22:59:19 EST 2025 Tue Nov 18 20:52:07 EST 2025 Sat Nov 29 06:04:44 EST 2025 Sat Sep 06 07:24:47 EDT 2025
IsDoiOpenAccess	true
IsOpenAccess	true
IsPeerReviewed	true
IsScholarly	true
Issue	1
Language	English
License	Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
LinkModel	DirectLink
MergedId	FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c575t-174557f7de3581db34e664b3a9d736685f3dfe7a1a9470ce4eac1d705aa934d3
Notes	ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 ObjectType-Undefined-3
ORCID	0000-0002-6807-9830
OpenAccessLink	https://doaj.org/article/4b56a1c5615e4c559ea8659fcb3e7e14
PMID	31307489
PQID	2258748671
PQPubID	23479
PageCount	13
ParticipantIDs	doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_4b56a1c5615e4c559ea8659fcb3e7e14 pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6631608 proquest_miscellaneous_2258748671 gale_infotracmisc_A593463278 gale_infotracacademiconefile_A593463278 pubmed_primary_31307489 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13012_019_0901_7 crossref_citationtrail_10_1186_s13012_019_0901_7 springer_journals_10_1186_s13012_019_0901_7
PublicationCentury	2000
PublicationDate	2019-07-15
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD	2019-07-15
PublicationDate_xml	– month: 07 year: 2019 text: 2019-07-15 day: 15
PublicationDecade	2010
PublicationPlace	London
PublicationPlace_xml	– name: London – name: England
PublicationTitle	Implementation science : IS
PublicationTitleAbbrev	Implementation Sci
PublicationTitleAlternate	Implement Sci
PublicationYear	2019
Publisher	BioMed Central BioMed Central Ltd BMC
Publisher_xml	– name: BioMed Central – name: BioMed Central Ltd – name: BMC
References	JM Burr (901_CR8) 2007; 11 T Hoomans (901_CR3) 2007; 10 JC Bauer (901_CR14) 2010; 22 PB Batalden (901_CR2) 2007; 16 CH Brown (901_CR39) 2017; 38 BT Rachev (901_CR24) 2015; 20 BJ Powell (901_CR37) 2015; 10 Dani??lle E. Brunenberg (901_CR15) 2005; 43 KS Williams (901_CR28) 2005; 55 K Kilpatrick (901_CR20) 2014; 20 JM Burr (901_CR9) 2012; 16 CHM Latour (901_CR7) 2007; 62 P Tappenden (901_CR26) 2013; 16 T Hoomans (901_CR1) 2014; 9 S Maloney (901_CR21) 2012; 14 D Husereau (901_CR32) 2013; 11 A Faulkner (901_CR13) 2003; 53 J Williams (901_CR29) 2006; 10 ND Mdege (901_CR36) 2012; 28 AS Vestergaard (901_CR27) 2015; 33 HH Afzali (901_CR33) 2013; 11 P Tappenden (901_CR25) 2012; 16 GM Curran (901_CR38) 2012; 50 D Mortimer (901_CR22) 2013; 8 RA Hernández (901_CR34) 2014; 15 C Robertson (901_CR10) 2011; 15 RC Purshouse (901_CR23) 2012; 48 JM Grimshaw (901_CR4) 2005; 21 J Karnon (901_CR35) 2016; 14 CP Albers-Heitner (901_CR12) 2012; 31 HA Dawes (901_CR16) 2007; 130 MF Drummond (901_CR31) 1996; 313 G Furze (901_CR17) 2012; 68 A Elmagarmid (901_CR6) 2014 E Proctor (901_CR40) 2011; 38 CA Umscheid (901_CR11) 2010; 25 YA Kifle (901_CR19) 2010; 8 WR Judd (901_CR18) 2014; 48 JJ Ofman (901_CR5) 2003; 9 PM Yarbrough (901_CR30) 2015; 10
References_xml	– volume: 68 start-page: 2267 issue: 10 year: 2012 ident: 901_CR17 publication-title: J Adv Nurs doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05920.x – volume: 22 start-page: 228 issue: 4 year: 2010 ident: 901_CR14 publication-title: J Am Acad Nurse Pract doi: 10.1111/j.1745-7599.2010.00498.x – volume: 9 start-page: 53 issue: 1 year: 2003 ident: 901_CR5 publication-title: J Manag Care Pharm doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2003.9.1.53 – volume: 10 start-page: 305 issue: 4 year: 2007 ident: 901_CR3 publication-title: Value Health doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00175.x – volume: 33 start-page: 967 issue: 9 year: 2015 ident: 901_CR27 publication-title: Pharmacoeconomics. doi: 10.1007/s40273-015-0281-z – volume: 38 start-page: 65 issue: 2 year: 2011 ident: 901_CR40 publication-title: Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res doi: 10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7 – volume: 8 start-page: e75647 issue: 10 year: 2013 ident: 901_CR22 publication-title: PLoS One doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0075647 – volume: 10 start-page: 780 issue: 12 year: 2015 ident: 901_CR30 publication-title: J Hosp Med doi: 10.1002/jhm.2433 – volume: 8 start-page: 13 issue: 1 year: 2010 ident: 901_CR19 publication-title: Cost Eff Resource Allocation doi: 10.1186/1478-7547-8-13 – volume: 11 start-page: 661 issue: 6 year: 2013 ident: 901_CR33 publication-title: Appl Health Econ Health Policy doi: 10.1007/s40258-013-0062-9 – volume: 313 start-page: 275 issue: 7052 year: 1996 ident: 901_CR31 publication-title: BMJ. doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7052.275 – volume: 43 start-page: 1018 issue: 10 year: 2005 ident: 901_CR15 publication-title: Medical Care doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000178266.75744.35 – volume: 16 start-page: 542 issue: 4 year: 2013 ident: 901_CR26 publication-title: Value Health doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.012 – volume: 55 start-page: 696 issue: 518 year: 2005 ident: 901_CR28 publication-title: Br J Gen Pract – start-page: 21 volume-title: Evidence-informed public health: opportunities and challenges. Abstracts of the 22nd Cochrane colloquium year: 2014 ident: 901_CR6 – volume: 48 start-page: 1269 issue: 10 year: 2014 ident: 901_CR18 publication-title: Ann Pharmacother doi: 10.1177/1060028014541792 – volume: 11 start-page: 6 issue: 1 year: 2013 ident: 901_CR32 publication-title: Cost Eff Resource Allocation doi: 10.1186/1478-7547-11-6 – volume: 16 start-page: 1 issue: 29 year: 2012 ident: 901_CR9 publication-title: Health Technol Assess doi: 10.3310/hta16290 – volume: 16 start-page: 1 issue: 20 year: 2012 ident: 901_CR25 publication-title: Health Technol Assess (Winch. Eng.) – volume: 15 start-page: v issue: 34 year: 2011 ident: 901_CR10 publication-title: Health Technol Assess (Winch. Eng.) – volume: 28 start-page: 223 issue: 3 year: 2012 ident: 901_CR36 publication-title: Health Policy Plan doi: 10.1093/heapol/czs058 – volume: 15 start-page: 243 issue: 3 year: 2014 ident: 901_CR34 publication-title: Eur J Health Econ doi: 10.1007/s10198-013-0470-7 – volume: 14 start-page: 21 issue: 1 year: 2016 ident: 901_CR35 publication-title: Appl Health Econ Health Policy doi: 10.1007/s40258-015-0160-y – volume: 21 start-page: 149 issue: 1 year: 2005 ident: 901_CR4 publication-title: Int J Technol Assess Health Care doi: 10.1017/S0266462305290190 – volume: 48 start-page: 180 issue: 2 year: 2012 ident: 901_CR23 publication-title: Alcohol Alcohol doi: 10.1093/alcalc/ags103 – volume: 10 start-page: 1 issue: 40 year: 2006 ident: 901_CR29 publication-title: Health Technol Assess doi: 10.3310/hta10400 – volume: 10 start-page: 21 issue: 1 year: 2015 ident: 901_CR37 publication-title: Implement Sci doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1 – volume: 9 start-page: 168 issue: 1 year: 2014 ident: 901_CR1 publication-title: Implement Sci doi: 10.1186/s13012-014-0168-y – volume: 25 start-page: 1352 issue: 12 year: 2010 ident: 901_CR11 publication-title: J Gen Intern Med doi: 10.1007/s11606-010-1476-9 – volume: 53 start-page: 878 issue: 496 year: 2003 ident: 901_CR13 publication-title: Br J Gen Pract – volume: 38 start-page: 1 year: 2017 ident: 901_CR39 publication-title: Annu Rev Public Health doi: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044215 – volume: 62 start-page: 363 issue: 3 year: 2007 ident: 901_CR7 publication-title: J Psychosom Res doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2006.10.016 – volume: 20 start-page: 1106 issue: 6 year: 2014 ident: 901_CR20 publication-title: J Eval Clin Pract doi: 10.1111/jep.12219 – volume: 14 start-page: e47 issue: 2 year: 2012 ident: 901_CR21 publication-title: J Med Internet Res doi: 10.2196/jmir.2040 – volume: 11 start-page: 1 issue: 41 year: 2007 ident: 901_CR8 publication-title: Health Technol Assess (Winch. Eng.) – volume: 31 start-page: 526 issue: 4 year: 2012 ident: 901_CR12 publication-title: Neurourol Urodyn doi: 10.1002/nau.21204 – volume: 50 start-page: 217 issue: 3 year: 2012 ident: 901_CR38 publication-title: Med Care doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182408812 – volume: 20 start-page: 113 issue: 3 year: 2015 ident: 901_CR24 publication-title: Clin Gov An Int J doi: 10.1108/CGIJ-07-2015-0024 – volume: 16 start-page: 2 issue: 1 year: 2007 ident: 901_CR2 publication-title: Qual Saf Health Care doi: 10.1136/qshc.2006.022046 – volume: 130 start-page: 262 issue: 2 year: 2007 ident: 901_CR16 publication-title: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2006.02.002
SSID	ssj0045463
Score	2.5313838
SecondaryResourceType	review_article
Snippet	Background Economic evaluation can inform whether strategies designed to improve the quality of health care delivery and the uptake of evidence-based practices... Economic evaluation can inform whether strategies designed to improve the quality of health care delivery and the uptake of evidence-based practices represent... Background Economic evaluation can inform whether strategies designed to improve the quality of health care delivery and the uptake of evidence-based practices... Abstract Background Economic evaluation can inform whether strategies designed to improve the quality of health care delivery and the uptake of evidence-based...
SourceID	doaj pubmedcentral proquest gale pubmed crossref springer
SourceType	Open Website Open Access Repository Aggregation Database Index Database Enrichment Source Publisher
StartPage	72
SubjectTerms	Caregivers Concretes Cost benefit analysis Delivery of Health Care - economics Economists Evaluation Evidence-based medicine Evidence-based practice Evidence-Based Practice - economics Health Administration Health care costs Health care reform Health Informatics Health Policy Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Health services administration Health Services Research Humans Implementation Science Interest rates Management Medical care quality Medical economics Medicine Medicine & Public Health Methods Models, Economic Nurses Physicians Public Health Quality Improvement - economics Scientists Spreadsheet software Systematic Review World health
SummonAdditionalLinks	– databaseName: Springer Journals dbid: RSV link: http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV1Zi9UwFA46igjiMm7VUSIIglJsJlv7OIqDLw6io8xbyHI6Xhhbub2jr_4If6G_xJM0vWPHBfQ1C-1Jv7OkOecLIQ_RLfBG8lByJ6pSKO5Lh2FuCTxexQhe-22XLpvQe3v1wUHzOtdxD1O2-3QkmSx1UutaPR3Q2qY0gpjig3tgfZacQ29XR2188_b9ZH5F5HfPx5e_nTZzQImn_1dr_JM7Op0qeeq8NLmh3Sv_JcBVcjlHnXRnhMk1cga6TXLhVT5X3ySXxr93dCxKuk6-vBuA9i0dqyQp5OplesINThcdxdiRLj5OCeip1XYhNi37REO-otnB0pQoN3z_-s3SE-5oerTmdKZjCc0Nsr_7Yv_5yzJf0VB6jPNWJe5npNStDhB51ILjApQSjtsmaK5ULVseWtCW2UboyoNAO8-CrqS1DReB3yQbXd_BbUKZ1b6RtrFOg2hjfS6wFoMNABccY7og1fTZjM_05fEWjSOTtjG1MuP6GlxfE9fX4JTH6ymfRu6Ovw1-FrGwHhhpt1NDvzw0WYuNcFJZ5hHGEoTHzRjYWsmm9Y6DBiYK8igiyUTjgC_nba5xQBEjzZbZkSi14ihdQbZmI1Gp_az7wYRFE7tiJlwH_fFg0P7WOtIksoLcGrG5fmeOQkU2oYLoGWpnQs17usWHxCmOgSdTFT73yYRdk43Z8Oc1u_NPo--Si9sJ_LpkcotsrJbHcI-c959Xi2F5PynxD0b6RL4 priority: 102 providerName: Springer Nature
Title	Use of health economic evaluation in the implementation and improvement science fields—a systematic literature review
URI	https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13012-019-0901-7 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31307489 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2258748671 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC6631608 https://doaj.org/article/4b56a1c5615e4c559ea8659fcb3e7e14
Volume	14
WOSCitedRecordID	wos000475738000001&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D
hasFullText	1
inHoldings	1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
journalDatabaseRights	– providerCode: PRVADU databaseName: BioMed Central Open Access Free customDbUrl: eissn: 1748-5908 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0045463 issn: 1748-5908 databaseCode: RBZ dateStart: 20060101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://www.biomedcentral.com/search/ providerName: BioMedCentral – providerCode: PRVAON databaseName: Directory of Open Access Journals customDbUrl: eissn: 1748-5908 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0045463 issn: 1748-5908 databaseCode: DOA dateStart: 20060101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://www.doaj.org/ providerName: Directory of Open Access Journals – providerCode: PRVHPJ databaseName: ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources customDbUrl: eissn: 1748-5908 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0045463 issn: 1748-5908 databaseCode: M~E dateStart: 20060101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://road.issn.org providerName: ISSN International Centre – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: Health & Medical Collection customDbUrl: eissn: 1748-5908 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0045463 issn: 1748-5908 databaseCode: 7X7 dateStart: 20090101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://search.proquest.com/healthcomplete providerName: ProQuest – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: ProQuest Central customDbUrl: eissn: 1748-5908 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0045463 issn: 1748-5908 databaseCode: BENPR dateStart: 20090101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://www.proquest.com/central providerName: ProQuest – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: ProQuest Publicly Available Content Database customDbUrl: eissn: 1748-5908 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0045463 issn: 1748-5908 databaseCode: PIMPY dateStart: 20090101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: http://search.proquest.com/publiccontent providerName: ProQuest – providerCode: PRVAVX databaseName: SpringerLINK Contemporary 1997-Present customDbUrl: eissn: 1748-5908 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0045463 issn: 1748-5908 databaseCode: RSV dateStart: 20061201 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://link.springer.com/search?facet-content-type=%22Journal%22 providerName: Springer Nature
link	http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV1Lb9QwELagcEBCiDeBsjISEhIoarx-JccWtYIDq1UpaDlZtjNRVyrZarMtV34Ev5BfwtjObpsi4MIlUvxQPPZ4ZhzPfEPIS1QLvJK8zrkTRS4U97lDMzcHHlIxgtd-7GKyCT2ZlLNZNb2U6iv4hCV44DRxO8JJZZnHnhKER_sXbKlk1XjHQUNMYT1Gq2d9mEoyWASQ9_4Ok5Vqp0NJHV0QgnsQnp_1QAtFsP7fRfIlnXTVX_LKpWnURQd3yZ3eiKS7afD3yDVo75Pb6Q8cTYFFD8i3Tx3QRUNTpCOFPgKZXuB703lL0f6j869rJ_JYats6FC0XEUp8RXslSaOzW_fz-w9LL_Cf6ckGl5mmMJiH5Ohg_-jtu7xPs5B7tNVWOZ5JpNSNriFgodWOC1BKOG6rWnOlStnwugFtma2ELjwIlNWs1oW0tuKi5o_IVrto4QmhzGpfSVtZp0E0IcYWWIMGA4CrHWM6I8V61o3vIchDJowTE48ipTJpoQwulAkLZbDL602X04S_8bfGe2EpNw0DdHYsQIYyPUOZfzFURl4FRjBhg-PgvO3jFJDEAJVldiVSrThSl5HtQUvcmH5Q_WLNSiZUBW-2FhZnnUEZWuoAdcgy8jix1mbMHIkKiEAZ0QOmGxA1rGnnxxEXHI1Hpgr87ps1e5peIHV_nrOn_2POnpFb47i5dM7kNtlaLc_gObnpz1fzbjki1_VMx2c5Ijf29ifTw1Hcrvg2ff9h-gXfDj9-_gWNQkRt
linkProvider	Directory of Open Access Journals
linkToHtml	http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV1Zb9QwELagIEBCHOVaKGAkJKSiiLi-kseCqIpoVwgW1DfLdiawUknQZguv_Ah-Ib-EseNsSTkkeLXHSsaZy_HMN4Q8RLfAS8mrjDuRZ0JxnzkMczPgoRUjeO23XGw2oafT4uCgfJXquLsh2324koyWOqp1oZ50aG1jGkFI8cEzsD5Nzgh0WCGP7_Wbd4P5FQHfPV1f_nbZyAFFnP5frfFP7uhkquSJ-9LohnYu_xcDV8ilFHXS7V5MrpJT0KyTc_vpXn2dXOz_3tG-KOka-fK2A9rWtK-SpJCql-kxNjidNxRjRzr_OCSgx1HbVGFo0UYY8iVNDpbGRLnu-9dvlh5jR9PDFaYz7UtorpPZzvPZs90stWjIPMZ5ywzPM1LqWlcQcNQqxwUoJRy3ZaW5UoWseVWDtsyWQuceBNp5VulcWltyUfEbZK1pG7hFKLPal9KW1mkQdajPBVZjsAHgKseYnpB8-GzGJ_jy0EXj0MRjTKFMv78G99eE_TW4ZHO15FOP3fE34qdBFlaEAXY7DrSL9yZpsRFOKss8irEE4fEwBrZQsqy946CBiQl5FCTJBOOAL-dtqnFAFgPMltmWyLXiyN2EbIwoUan9aPrBIIsmTIVMuAbao86g_S10gElkE3Kzl83VO3NkKqAJTYgeSe2IqfFMM_8QMcUx8GQqx-c-HmTXJGPW_XnPbv8T9X1yfne2v2f2Xkxf3iEXtqIi6IzJDbK2XBzBXXLWf17Ou8W9qNA_AIC6R6I
linkToPdf	http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1Za9VAFB60ShHEpW7RqiMIgiU009mSx7pcFPVSsErfhtmiF2pSblJ99Uf4C_0lnplMbk1dQHydheRMzpo55zsIPQSzQCtOXU4NK3ImqM0NuLm5p6EVo7fS7pjYbELO5-XBQbWX-px2Y7b7eCU51DQElKam3z5y9SDipdjuQPPGlIKQ7gPxsDyLzrHQMyiE62_fj6qYBaz3dJX5220TYxQx-3_VzD-ZptNpk6fuTqNJml3-b2KuoEvJG8W7A_tcRWd8s4HW36T79g10cfirh4dipWvoy7vO47bGQ_Uk9qmqGZ9ghuNFg8GnxItPY2J6HNWNC0PLNsKT9zgZXhwT6LrvX79pfIIpjQ9XWM94KK25jvZnz_efvshT64bcgv_X5xDncC5r6XzAV3OGMi8EM1RXTlIhSl5TV3upia6YLKxnoP-JkwXXuqLM0RtorWkbfwthoqWtuK60kZ7VoW7XkxqcEO-NM4TIDBXjJ1Q2wZqH7hqHKoY3pVDD-So4XxXOV8GWx6stRwOmx98WPwl8sVoY4LjjQLv8oJJ0K2a40MQCe3PPLARpXpeCV7U11EtPWIYeBa5SQWnAy1mdah-AxAC_pXY5UC0oUJehzclKEHY7mX4w8qUKUyFDrvHtcadAL5cywCeSDN0c-HT1zhSICihDGZITDp4QNZ1pFh8j1jg4pEQU8NytkY9VUnLdn8_s9j-tvo_W957N1OuX81d30IWdKAcyJ3wTrfXLY38Xnbef-0W3vBdl-wcqG1CG
openUrl	ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Use+of+health+economic+evaluation+in+the+implementation+and+improvement+science+fields-a+systematic+literature+review&rft.jtitle=Implementation+science+%3A+IS&rft.au=Roberts%2C+Sarah+Louise+Elin&rft.au=Healey%2C+Andy&rft.au=Sevdalis%2C+Nick&rft.date=2019-07-15&rft.eissn=1748-5908&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=72&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186%2Fs13012-019-0901-7&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F31307489&rft.externalDocID=31307489
thumbnail_l	http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1748-5908&client=summon
thumbnail_m	http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1748-5908&client=summon
thumbnail_s	http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1748-5908&client=summon