Table 3.

Summary of included studies and quality appraisal—panel a improvement studies; panel b implementation studies

Author	Year	Country	Improvement or implementation focus	Care setting	Improvement intervention focus	Sample size	Main study outcomes	Type of economic analysis	Quality appraisal score for economic modelling (out of 100)
a: Improvement studies
Afzali et al	2013	Australia	Improvement	Endocrinology	Staff mix reformulation (nurse-led)	3642	EQ-5D (EuroQol 5 dimension scale)	CEA	100
Albers-Heitner et al	2010	Netherlands	Improvement	Primary Care	Staff mix reformulation (nurse-led)	384	EQ-5D	CEA	74
Bauer	2010	USA	Improvement	N/A	Staff mix reformulation (nurse-led)	160	Resource use	CEA	N/A
Dawes et al	2007	UK	Improvement	Gynaecology	Staff mix reformulation (nurse-led)	111	SF-36 (36-Item Short Form Health Survey), Length of Stay	CCA	66.5
Faulkener et al	2003	UK	Improvement	Primary Care	Improved referral	N/A	Review	Review	N/A
Furze et al	2011	UK	Improvement	Cardiology	Staff mix reformulation (peer support)	142	EQ-5D	CUA	84.5
Hernandez et al	2014	UK	Improvement	Intensive Care	Staff mix reformulation (nurse-led)	286	EQ-5D	CUA	90.5
Karnon et al	2016	Australia	Improvement	Cardiology	Service Reconfiguration (funding sources)	603	N/A	CCA	44.5
Kilpatrick et al	2014	Canada	Improvement	Hospital General Medicine	Staff mix reformulation (nurse-led)	2147	Review	CEA	N/A
Latour et al	2007	Netherlands	Improvement	Hospital wards	Staff mix reformulation (nurse-led)	208	SF-36, HADS (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale)	CEA	81.5
Mdege et al	2012	Sub-Saharan Africa	Improvement	HIV	Staff mix reformulation (multiple scenarios)	19,767	N/A	Review	N/A
Tappenden et al	2012	UK	Improvement	Geriatrics	Staff mix reformulation (nurse-led)	N/A	Review	CEA	N/A
Walsh et al	2005	UK	Improvement	General Medicine	Staff mix reformulation (nurse-led)	238	Bed days	CA	65
Williams et al	2006	UK	Improvement	Gastroenterology	Staff mix reformulation (nurse-led)	1500	EQ-5D	CEA	94
Williams et al	2005	UK	Improvement	Urology	Staff mix reformulation (nurse-led)	3746	EQ-5D	CEA	51
Yarbrough et al	2015	USA	Improvement	General Medicine	New pathway	677	Resource use	CEA	N/A
b: Implementation studies
Author	Year	Country	Improvement or implementation focus	Care setting	Implementation intervention focus	Main study outcomes	Type of economic evaluation	Sample size	Quality appraisal score for economic modelling (out of 100)
Brunenberg et al	2005	Netherlands	Implementation	Orthopaedics	Pathway implementation	EQ-5D, Length of stay	CEA	160	71
Burr et al	2007	UK	Implementation	Ophthalmology	Screening programme implementation	EQ-5D	CUA	207–32,918	89.5
Burr et al	2012	UK	Implementation	Ophthalmology	Surveillance programme implementation	EQ-5D, Willingness to pay	CUA	800	92.5
Judd et al	2014	USA	Implementation	Hospital wards	Early intervention implementation	Length of Stay	CA	181	37
Kifle et al	2010	Ethiopia	Implementation	All hospital specialities	Referral system implementation	Resource use	CEA	532	N/A
Maloney et al	2012	Australia	Implementation	Physiotherapy	Health professional education	Costs only	CEA	85	94.5
Mortimer et al	2013	Australia	Implementation	General Practice	Implementation methods (active vs guideline dissemination)	EQ-5D, X rays avoided	CEA	112	81.5
Purshouse et al	2013	UK	Implementation	Public Health	Screening programme implementation	EQ-5D	CEA	N/A	82
Rachev	2015	USA	Implementation	Public Health	General methods of health service transformation	Resource use	CEA	N/A	N/A
Robertson et al	2011	UK	Implementation	Oncology	Surveillance programme implementation	EQ-5D	CUA	N/A	94
Tappenden et al	2013	UK	Implementation	Oncology	Resource allocation decision making	EQ-5D	CUA	N/A	84
Umscheid et al	2010	Canada	Implementation	N/A	Comparative effectiveness centre	None	Review	N/A	N/A
Vestergaard et al	2015	Denmark	Implementation	Cardiology	Guideline adherence vs observed treatment	EQ-5D	CEA	N/A	57.5
Yee and Shafie	2013	Malaysia	Implementation	Respiratory	Asthma management implementation	EQ-5D	Review	N/A	N/A