Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Typ-2-Diabetes und Adipositas Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende

Die Highlights vom Kongress des American College of Cardiology 2024

Im April diskutierten die Herz-Kreislauf-Spezialisten aus der ganzen Welt auf dem  Kongress des American College of Cardiology (ACC) u.a. neue Therapieansätze bei akutem Myokardinfarkt, koronarer Herzerkrankung, kardiogenem Schock oder Aortenklappenstenose. In unserem Kongress-Dossier haben wir für Sie Berichte über die „Late-Breaking Trials“ und andere wichtige Studien zusammengestellt. 
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
International Journal of Behavioral Medicine
Erschienen in: International Journal of Behavioral Medicine 3/2015

01.06.2015

Sustainability of Behavioral Interventions: Beyond Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

verfasst von: Paul M. Brown, Linda D. Cameron, Steven Ramondt

Erschienen in: International Journal of Behavioral Medicine | Ausgabe 3/2015

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Behavioral researchers need to ensure that successful interventions are sustained after the efficacy and effectiveness research concludes.

Purpose

This article provides an overview of economic analyses that can be incorporated into behavioral medicine interventions to promote sustainability and recommendations regarding their use. We suggest that researchers interested in ensuring that their interventions are sustained include a budget impact analysis and identify the return on investment to the organizations or groups who must adopt and maintain the interventions at the conclusion of the study.

Recommendations

We advocate the use of a thorough budget impact analysis that includes assessments of the change in costs and revenues for each organization over the short run and the monetary value of the intervention to the participants.

Conclusions

By anticipating the types of economic information that will best promote sustainability, behavioral medicine researchers can better ensure the successful dissemination and translation of their interventions into sustained practice.
Fußnoten
1
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. http://​www.​nice.​org.​uk
 
2
Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. http://​www.​pbac.​pbs.​gov.​au/​
 
Literatur
1.
2.
Glasgow R, Vogt T, Boles S. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health Sept. 1999;89(9):1322–7.CrossRef
3.
Gaglio B, Shoup J, Glasgow R. The RE-AIM framework: a systematic review of use over time. Am J Public Health. 2013;103:e38–46.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Bammer G. Integration and implementation sciences: building a new specialization. Ecol Soc. 2005;10:6.
5.
Glasgow R. What types of evidence are most needed to advance behavioral medicine? Ann Behav Med. 2008;35(1):19–25.CrossRefPubMed
6.
McKenzie J, French S, O’Connor D, et al. Implementing a clinical practice guideline for acute low back pain evidence-based management in general practice (IMPLEMENT): cluster randomized controlled trial study protocol. Implement Sci. 2008;3:11. doi:10.​1186/​1748-5908-3-11.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
7.
8.
Glasgow R, Klesges L, Dzewaltowski D, et al. Evaluating the impact of health promotion programs: using the RE-AIM framework to form summary measures for decision making involving complex issues. Health Educ Res. 2006;21(5):688–94.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Drummond M, Sculpher M, Torrance G, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
10.
Gold M, Siegel J, Russell L, et al. Cost–effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996.
11.
Siegel J, Weinstein M, Russell L, et al. Panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine: recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. JAMA. 1996;276:1339–41.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Weinstein M, Siegel J, Gold M, et al. Recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 1996;276:1253–8.CrossRefPubMed
13.
14.
Mauskopf J, Sullivan S, Annemans L, et al. Principles of good practice for budget impact analysis: report of the ISPOR task force on good research practices—budget impact analysis. Value Health. 2007;10(5):336–47.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Garattini L, van de Voor K. Budget impact analysis in economic evaluation: a proposal for a clearer definition. European J Health Econ. 2011;12:499–502.CrossRef
16.
17.
18.
Maruish ME. User’s manual for the SF-36v2 health survey. 3rd ed. Lincoln: Quality Metric, Inc; 2011.
19.
Chambers J, Neumann P, Buxton M. Does Medicare have an implicit cost-effectiveness threshold? Med Decis Mak. 2010;30(4):E14–27.CrossRef
20.
Devlin N, Towse A, editors. Cost effectiveness thresholds: economic and ethical issues. London: King’s Fund/Office for Health Economics; 2002.
21.
Raftery J. NICE: faster access to modern treatments? Analysis of guidance on health technologies. Br Med J. 2001;323:1300–3.CrossRef
22.
23.
Lenert L, Treadwell J, Schwartz C. Associations between health status and utilities: implications for policy. Med Care. 1999;37(5):479–89.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Hanemann W. Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. J Econ Perspect. 1994;8(4):19–43.CrossRef
25.
Portney P. The contingent valuation debate: why economists should care. J Econ Perspect. 1994;8(4):3–17.CrossRef
26.
Diamond P, Hausman J. Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number? J Econ Perspect. 1994;8(4):45–64.CrossRef
27.
de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21(2):145–72.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Chevalier, J.M. and Buckles, D.J. Participatory Action Research: theory and methods for engaged inquiry, Routledge UK. 2013.
29.
Horowitz CR, Robinson M, Seifer S. Community-based participatory research from the margin to the mainstream: are researchers prepared? Circulation. 2009;119(19):2633–42.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
30.
Lancsar E, Hall J, King M, et al. Using discrete choice experiments to investigate subject preferences for preventive asthma medication. Respirology. 2007;12:127–36.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Ritzwoller D, Sukhanova A, Gaglio B, et al. The RE-AIM framework: a systematic review of use over time. Ann Behav Med. 2009;37:218–27.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Eddama O, Coast J. Use of economic evaluation in local health care decision-making in England: a qualitative investigation. Health Policy. 2009;89(3):261–70.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Eddama O, Coast J. A systematic review of the use of economic evaluation in local decision-making. Health Policy. 2008;86(2–3):129–41.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Hoffmann C, Graf von der Schulenburg J, EUROMET. The influence of economic evaluation studies on decision making: a European survey. Health Policy. 2000;52(30):179–92.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Sloan FA, Whetten-Goldstein K, Wilson A. Hospital pharmacy decision, cost containment, and the use of cost-effectiveness analysis. Soc Sci Med. 1997;454:523–33.CrossRef
36.
Tate D, Finkelstein D, Khavjou O, et al. Cost effectiveness of internet interventions: review and recommendations. Ann Behav Med. 2009;38:40–5.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Sustainability of Behavioral Interventions: Beyond Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
verfasst von
Paul M. Brown
Linda D. Cameron
Steven Ramondt
Publikationsdatum
01.06.2015
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
International Journal of Behavioral Medicine / Ausgabe 3/2015
Print ISSN: 1070-5503
Elektronische ISSN: 1532-7558
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-014-9437-z

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2015

International Journal of Behavioral Medicine 3/2015 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Translating an Evidence-Based Behavioral Intervention for Women Living with HIV into Clinical Practice: The SMART/EST Women’s Program

OriginalPaper

Disseminating Policy and Environmental Change Interventions: Insights from Obesity Prevention and Tobacco Control

OriginalPaper

A Demonstration of Peer Support for Ugandan Adults With Type 2 Diabetes

OriginalPaper

Using Network Analysis to Understand Knowledge Mobilization in a Community-based Organization

OriginalPaper

A Web-Based Dietary Intervention for People with Type 2 Diabetes: Development, Implementation, and Evaluation

EditorialNotes

Advancing the Science of Dissemination and Implementation in Behavioral Medicine: Evidence and Progress