Browsing by Author "Mosepele M"

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Economic evaluation of implementation science outcomes in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review.
    (2022-Nov-16) Malhotra A; Thompson RR; Kagoya F; Masiye F; Mbewe P; Mosepele M; Phiri J; Sambo J; Barker A; Cameron DB; Davila-Roman VG; Effah W; Hutchinson B; Laxy M; Newsome B; Watkins D; Sohn H; Dowdy DW; Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.; Fogarty International Center (FIC), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, MD, USA.; University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.; Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. ddowdy1@jhmi.edu.; Cavendish University Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia.; Ezintsha, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.; Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.; University of Botswana, Gaborone, Botswana.; Center for Global Noncommunicable Diseases, RTI International, Seattle, WA, USA.; Infectious Diseases Research Collaboration, Kampala, Uganda.; Washington University in Saint Louis, Saint Louis, MO, USA.; Department of Preventive Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.; Department of Health Policy and Management, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA.; Centre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia.; University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia.; CIDRZ; Centre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia (CIDRZ)
    BACKGROUND: Historically, the focus of cost-effectiveness analyses has been on the costs to operate and deliver interventions after their initial design and launch. The costs related to design and implementation of interventions have often been omitted. Ignoring these costs leads to an underestimation of the true price of interventions and biases economic analyses toward favoring new interventions. This is especially true in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where implementation may require substantial up-front investment. This scoping review was conducted to explore the topics, depth, and availability of scientific literature on integrating implementation science into economic evaluations of health interventions in LMICs. METHODS: We searched Web of Science and PubMed for papers published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2021, that included components of both implementation science and economic evaluation. Studies from LMICs were prioritized for review, but papers from high-income countries were included if their methodology/findings were relevant to LMIC settings. RESULTS: Six thousand nine hundred eighty-six studies were screened, of which 55 were included in full-text review and 23 selected for inclusion and data extraction. Most papers were theoretical, though some focused on a single disease or disease subset, including: mental health (n = 5), HIV (n = 3), tuberculosis (n = 3), and diabetes (n = 2). Manuscripts included a mix of methodology papers, empirical studies, and other (e.g., narrative) reviews. Authorship of the included literature was skewed toward high-income settings, with 22 of the 23 papers featuring first and senior authors from high-income countries. Of nine empirical studies included, no consistent implementation cost outcomes were measured, and only four could be mapped to an existing costing or implementation framework. There was also substantial heterogeneity across studies in how implementation costs were defined, and the methods used to collect them. CONCLUSION: A sparse but growing literature explores the intersection of implementation science and economic evaluation. Key needs include more research in LMICs, greater consensus on the definition of implementation costs, standardized methods to collect such costs, and identifying outcomes of greatest relevance. Addressing these gaps will result in stronger links between implementation science and economic evaluation and will create more robust and accurate estimates of intervention costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol for this manuscript was published on the Open Science Framework. It is available at: https://osf.io/ms5fa/ (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/32EPJ).
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    How can Africa sustain its HIV response amid US aid cuts?
    (2025-Jul) Mutale W; Semeere A; Bukusi EA; Ojji D; Venter F; Odeny T; Chilengi R; Mosepele M; Geng E; Sikazwe I; Bosomprah S; Mulenga L; Simitala F; Center for Microbiology Research, KEMRI, Nairobi, Kenya.; Center for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia (CIDRZ), Lusaka, Zambia.; Zambian National Public Health Institute, Lusaka, Zambia; Center for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia (CIDRZ), Lusaka, Zambia.; Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Clinical Sciences, College of Health Sciences, University of Abuja, Abuja, Nigeria.; Infectious Diseases Institute, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.; Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, University of Zambia, Lusaka 10101, Zambia; Southern Africa Institute for Collaborative Research and Innovation Organisation (SAICRIO), Lusaka, Zambia. Electronic address: wmutale@yahoo.com.; University of Botswana, Gaborone, Botswana.; Department of Medicine, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, MO, USA.; University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.; Department of Medicine and Makerere University Joint AIDS Program, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.; Ministry of Health, Lusaka, Zambia.; Center for Microbiology Research, KEMRI, Nairobi, Kenya; Division of Oncology, Washington University, St Louis, MO, USA.