Background 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. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusions 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.

Background: Delays in diagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis (TB) remain common in high-burden countries. To improve case detection, substantial investments have been made to scale-up Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert), a cartridgebased nucleic acid amplification test that can detect TB within 2 hours, as a replacement for sputum smear microscopy. However, the optimal strategy for implementation of Xpert testing remains unclear. Methods: The Xpert Performance Evaluation for Linkage to Tuberculosis Care (XPEL-TB) trial uses an ultra-pragmatic, hybrid type II effectiveness-implementation design to assess the effectiveness and implementation of a streamlined strategy for delivery of Xpert testing in real-world settings. Twenty health centers with TB microscopy units were selected to participate in the trial, with ten health centers randomized to the intervention strategy (onsite molecular testing using GeneXpert Edge, process redesign to facilitate same-day TB diagnosis and treatment, and performance feedback) or routine care (onsite sputum smear microscopy plus referral of sputum samples to Xpert testing sites). The primary outcome is the number of patients with microbiologically confirmed TB who were initiated on treatment within 14 days of presentation to the health center, which reflects successful completion of the TB diagnostic evaluation process. Secondary outcomes include health outcomes (6-month vital status), as well as measures of the reach, adoption, and implementation of the intervention strategy.

No abstract

No abstract